vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
                              Environmental Research
                              Laboratory
                              Corvallis, OR 97333
EPA 600/3-B9/038b
October 1989
Research and Development
Wetland Creation and Restoration:
The Status of the Science    Vol. II

-------
                                                               EPA/600/3-89/038
                                                               October, 1989
                   WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION:
                           THE STATUS OF THE SCIENCE
                                  Volume II:  Perspectives
•V
•05                                         Edited by:
vV
                                          Jon A. Kusler
                                Association of State Wetland Managers
                                            Box 2463
                                      Berne, New York  12023
- V
 J                                            and
  )                                       Mary E. Kentula
                                NSI Technology Services, Corporation
                                       200 S.W. 35th Street
                                     Corvallis, Oregon  97333
                                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                       Region 5, Library (P1-12J)
                                       77 West Jackson Boulevard  1 ?th ci
                                       Chicago, IL  60604-3590        loor

-------
                     DISCLAIMER/CREDITS ON CONTRACTS
This project has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conducted
at EPA's Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through Contract 68-C8-0006 to NSI Technology
Services, Corp. and Contract CR-814298-01-0 to the Association of State Wetland Managers. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer review and approved for publication.

    This document reflects the diverse points of view and writing styles of the authors.  The opinions
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA. The official
endorsement of the Agency should not be inferred.

    Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Cover by Kathryn Torvik

-------
                                      CONTENTS

                        VOLUME I:  REGIONAL REVIEWS

Foreword	   v
    Office of Wetlands Protection

Introduction	vii
    Mary E. Kentula and Jon A. Kusler

Executive Summary	   xi
    Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula
Wetland Mitigation Along the Pacific Coast of the United States	   1
    Michael Josselyn, Joy Zedler, and Theodore Griswold

Creation and Restoration of Tidal Wetlands of the Southeastern United States	  37
    Stephen W. Broome

Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plain Wetlands in Florida	  73
    Roy R. Lewis, III

Creation and Restoration of Coastal Wetlands in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands	103
    Roy R. Lewis, III

Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement of Marshes of the Northcentral Gulf Coast	127
    Robert H. Chabreck

Creation and Restoration of the Coastal Wetlands of the Northeastern United States	145
    Joseph K. Shisler

Regional Analysis of the Creation and Restoration of Seagrass Systems	175
    Mark S. Fonseca

Creation and Restoration of Forested Wetland Vegetation in the Southeastern United States.	199
    Andre F. Clewell and Russ Lea

Freshwater Marsh Creation and Restoration in the Southeast	239
    Kevin L. Erwin

Restoration and Creation of Palustrine Wetlands Associated with Riverine Systems of the Glaciated
Northeast	273
    Dennis J. Lowry

Regional Analysis of the Creation and Restoration of Kettle and Pothole Wetlands	287
    Garrett G. Hollands

Regional Analysis of Fringe Wetlands in the Midwest: Creation and Restoration	305
    Daniel A. Levine and Daniel E. Willard

Creation and Restoration of Riparian Wetlands in the Agricultural Midwest	333
    Daniel E. Willard, Vicki M. Finn, Daniel A. Levine, and John E. Klarquist

The Creation and Restoration of Riparian Habitat in Southwestern Arid and Semi-Arid Regions. .  .  . 359
    Steven W. Carothers, G. Scott Mills, and R, Roy Johnson

Restoration of Degraded Riverine/Riparian Habitat in the Great Basin and Snake River Regions. .  .  . 377
    Sherman E. Jensen and William S. Platts

Riparian Wetland Creation and Restoration in the Far West: A Compilation of Information	417
    John T. Stanley

Overview and Future Directions	465
    Joy B. Zedler and Milton W. Weller
                                               111

-------
                           VOLUME II: PERSPECTIVES
Wetland Restoration/Creation/Enhancement Terminology: Suggestions for Standardization	   1
    Roy R. Lewis, III

Information Needs in the Planning Process for Wetland Creation and Restoration	   9
    Edgar W. Garbisch

Wetland Evaluation for Restoration and Creation	15
    Kevin L. Erwin

Wetland Dynamics: Considerations for Restored and Created Wetlands	  47
    Daniel E. Willard and Amanda K. Hiller

Restoration of the Pulse Control Function of Wetlands and Its Relationship to Water Quality
Objectives	  55
    Orie L. Loucks

Vegetation Dynamics in Relation to Wetland Creation	  67
    William A, Niering

Long-term Evaluation of Wetland Creation Projects	  75
    Charlene D'Avanzo

Regional Aspects of Wetlands Restoration and Enhancement in the Urban Waterfront Environment.  .  85
    John R. Clark

Waterfowl Management Techniques for Wetland Enhancement, Restoration and Creation
Useful in Mitigation Procedures	105
    Milton W.Weller

Wetland and Waterbody Restoration and Creation Associated with Mining	117
    Robert P. Brooks

Mitigation and The Section 404 Program: A Perspective	137
    William L. Kruczynski

Options to be Considered in Preparation and Evaluation of Mitigation Plans,	143
    William L. Kruczynski

Contributors	159
                                               IV

-------
      WETLANDS RESTORATION/CREATION/ENHANCEMENT
     TERMINOLOGY: SUGGESTIONS FOR STANDARDIZATION
                                     Roy R, Lewis m
                            Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
                                   INTRODUCTION
  This  document includes  a glossary that was
  prepared after review by all the authors.  Four
  versions of the manuscript have been circulated
  for reviewers' comments, and each version was
  an improvement  on the previous one.   The
  specific definitions in the  glossary represent an
  attempt to bring some order to the terminology
  applied to the topic of wetland creation and
  restoration.  It  has been our collective experience
 that much confusion exists about specific terms,
 and they are used in different ways by different
 authors  in  different parts of  the  country.
 Unfortunately, much of the existing confusion is
 becoming  formalized  as states, counties,  and
 municipalities  develop  their own regulations
 related to wetland creation and restoration. This
 discussion of terminology is  meant to highlight
 the major problem areas.
                               HISTORICAL CONTEXT
     In looking for a starting point we were able
  to find only three existing glossaries applicable
  to the topic.  These were contained in the U.S.
  Army  Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
  Manual   prepared  by  the  Environmental
  Laboratory Waterways Experiment Station,
  Vicksburg (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the
  U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service's classification
  of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United
  States (Cowardin et al. 1979), and the proceedings
  of  a  conference  titled  Wetland  Functions,
  Rehabilitation and  Creation  in  the  Pacific
  Northwest: The State  of  Our Understanding,
  prepared by the Washington State Department of
  Ecology  (Strickland 1986).  Three additional
  glossaries (Helm 1985,  Rawlins 1986, and Soil
 Survey  Staff  1975) were  recommended  by
 reviewers and have  been used to improve this
 section. To these combined glossaries were added
 definitions from individual authors of published
 papers or proceedings, for example Zedler (1984)
 and Schaller and Sutton (1978), and regulatory or
 review agency rule promulgation, such as U.S.
 Fish and Wildlife Service (1981). Where the
 existing  definitions were  checked  against
 dictionary  definitions,  Websters Unabridged
 Dictionary, Second  Edition  (McKechnie 1983)
 was  used  as the  reference  dictionary.  Some
 geological  terms were taken from Bates  and
 Jackson (1984)  and Gary  et al. (1972)  as
 recommended by reviewers.
                                     DISCUSSION
     The five key definitions are:   mitigation,
  restoration, creation, enhancement, and success.
  Briefly, McKechnie (1983) defines these terms as
  follows:

MITIGATION     alleviation;  abatement   or
                 diminution, as  of anything
                 painful,   harsh,   severe,
                 afflictive,  or  calamitous  (p.
                 1152);
RESTORATION   a putting or bringing back into
                 a   former,   normal,   or
                 unimpaired state or condition
                 (p-1544);
CREATION
the  act  of  bringing
existence (p. 427);
into
ENHANCEMENT  the  state or quality of being
                 enhanced;  rise,  increase,
                 augmentation (p. 603);

-------
SUCCESS       favorable  or  satisfactory
                come or result (p. 1819).
out-
    For the purposes of this  document, we are
defining  these  terms so that there is  as little
ambiguity and overlap as possible.  The glossary
definition and an explanation  of each of the key
terms is provided below.

MITIGATION  -  For  the  purposes  of  this
document, the actual restoration, creation, or
enhancement of wetlands to compensate for
permitted wetland losses.  The use of the word
mitigation here is limited to the above cases and
is not used in the general manner as outlined in
the  President's  Council  on  Environmental
Quality  National  Environmental  Policy  Act
regulations (40 CFR 1508.20).

MITIGATION BANKING - Wetland restoration,
creation, or enhancement undertaken expressly
for  the purpose  of providing compensation for
wetland  losses  from  future   development
activities. It  includes  only actual  wetland
restoration, creation, or enhancement occurring
prior to elimination of another wetland as part of
a credit program. Credits may  then be withdrawn
from the  bank to compensate for an individual
wetland  destruction.  Each bank will  probably
have its own unique credit system based upon the
functional values of the wetlands unique to the
area.   As defined here,  mitigation banking does
not involve any exchange of money for permits.
However, some mitigation programs, such as
those in  California, do  accept money in lieu of
actual   wetland  restoration,   creation  or
enhancement.

RESTORATION  - Returned from a disturbed or
totally altered condition to a previously existing
natural,  or altered condition  by  some  action of
man.   Restoration refers to the return  to a pre-
existing  condition.  It is not  necessary to have
complete  knowledge of what  those pre-existing
conditions were; it is enough to know a wetland
of whatever type was there and have as a goal the
return to that same wetland  type.  Restoration
also occurs  if an  altered wetland  is further
damaged and is  then returned to its  previous,
though altered condition. That is, for restoration
to occur it  is not  necessary  that  a system be
returned to a pristine condition.  It is, therefore,
important to  define the goals of a restoration
project in order to properly measure the success.

    In  contrast  with  restoration,  creation
(defined below) involves the conversion  of a  non-
wetland   habitat type  into wetlands  where
wetlands never existed (at least within the recent
past, 100-200 years).  The term re-creation is not
recommended here  due to confusion  over its
meanings. Schaller and  Sutton  (1978)  define
restoration as a return  to the exact pre-existing
conditions, as does Zedler  (1984).  Both believe
restoration is therefore seldom, if ever, possible.
Schaller  and  Sutton  (1978)  use  the  term
rehabilitation equivalent to our restoration.  For
our  purposes,  "rehabilitation" refers  to  the
conversion  of  uplands  to  wetlands   where
wetlands  previously existed. It  differs from
restoration in that the goal is not a return to
previously existing conditions but  conversion to
a  new or  altered wetland  that has  been
determined  to be  "better" for the system as a
whole.  Reclamation is also used to mean the
same thing  by some, but  "wetland reclamation"
often means filling  and  conversion to uplands,
therefore its use is not recommended.

CREATION - The conversion of a persistent non-
wetland area into  a wetland through some
activity of man.   This definition  presumes the
site has not been a wetland within recent times
(100-200  years)  and  thus restoration   is not
occurring.  Created wetlands are subdivided into
two  types:   artificial and man-induced.   An
artificial created wetland exists only as  long as
some continuous or persistent activity  of man
(i.e.,  irrigation,  weeding) continues.  Without
attention from man, artificial  wetlands revert to
their original habitat type. Man-induced created
wetlands generally result  from a one-time action
of man and persist on their own.  The one-time
action might be  intentional (i.e., earthmoving to
lower elevations) or  unintentional  (i.e., dam
building).  Wetlands  created as  a  result  of
dredged  material   deposition  may  have
subsequent periods during  which additional
deposits occur.  Man-initiated is  an acceptable
synonym.

ENHANCEMENT - The increase in one  or more
values of all or a portion  of an existing wetland
by man's activities, often with the accompanying
decline in other  wetland values.  Enhancement
and   restoration  are  often  confused.  For our
purposes, the intentional  alteration of an  existing
wetland to  provide  conditions which previously
did not exist and which  by  consensus  increase
one or more values is enhancement. The diking
of emergent wetlands to create persistent open-
water duck habitat is an example; the creation of
a littoral shelf from open water habitat is another
example.  Some  of the value  of  the  emergent
marsh may be lost as a result (i.e., brown shrimp
nursery habitat).

SUCCESS - Achieving established goals.  Unlike
the  dictionary  definition, success in  wetlands
restoration, creation, and enhancement  ideally
requires that criteria,  preferably measurable as
quantitative values,  be  established prior  to
commencement of these activities.  However, it is
important to note that a project may not succeed
in achieving its  goals yet  provide some other
values  deemed  acceptable  when  evaluated.  In
other words, the project failed but the wetland was
a  "success".  This may result in changing the

-------
  success  criteria  for  future  projects.  It  is
  important, however,  to  acknowledge the  non-
  attainment of previously established goals (the
  unsuccessful  project)  in  order  to  improve  goal
  setting.   In  situations  where poor  or nonexistent
 goal  setting occurred, functional equivalency
 may  be determined  by  comparison  with  a
 reference wetland, and success  defined by  this
 comparison.  In reality, this is easier said than
 done.
                                         LITERATURE CITED
Bates, R.L. and J.A. Jackson (Eds.).  1984.  Dictionary of
      Geologic Terms.  American  Geological  Institute.
      Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.G. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
      1979.  Classification of Wetlands  and Deepwater
      Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
      Service.  FWS/OBS-79/31.

Environmental Laboratory.  1987.  Corps of Engineers.
     Wetlands Delineation  Manual,  Technical Report
     Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
     Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Gary, M., R. McAfee, Jr., and C.L. Wolf (Eds.).  1972.
     Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute,
     Washington, D.C.

Helm,  W.T.  (Ed.).  1985. Aquatic  Habitat Inventory:
     Glossary and Standard Methods.  Western Division,
     American Fisheries Society, Utah State University,
     Logan, Utah.

McKechnie,  J.L. (Ed.). 1983. Websters New Universal
     Unabridged Dictionary.  Simon and  Schuster,
     Cleveland, Ohio.
Rawlins, C.L.  1986.   Glossary.   In S. Jensen, An
     Approach to Classification of Riparian Ecosystems.
     White  Horse  Associates,  Smithfield,  Utah.
     [mimeo]

Schaller, F.W. and P.  Sutton. 1978.  Reclamation of
     Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Society of
     Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy, A Basic System
     of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting
     Soil Surveys.  Agriculture Handbook No. 436. U.S.
     Dept. of Agriculture,  Soil  Conservation  Service.
     U.S.  Government Printing Office, Washington,
     D.C.

Strickland,  R. (Ed.).    1986.   Wetland  Functions,
     Rehabilitation,  and  Creation  in  the  Pacific
     Northwest.   Washington  State Department of
     Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. U.S. Fish  and
     Wildlife  Service  Mitigation  Policy.  Federal
     Register 46(15):7644-7663.

Zedler, J.B. 1984.  Salt  Marsh Restoration-A Guidebook
     for Southern  California.  California  Sea Grant
     Report No. T-CSGC P-009.

-------
                                            GLOSSARY
AREAL COVER - A measure  of dominance that
defines the degree to which above-ground portions of
plants (not limited  to those rooted in a sample plot)
cover the  ground surface.  It is possible for the total
areal cover in a community to exceed 100% because (a)
many plant  communities consist of  two  or  more
vegetative strata (overstory, understory, ground cover,
undergrowth); (b)  areal cover  is  estimated by
vegetative layer; and (c) foliage within  a single layer
may overlap.

ARTIFICIAL   WETLAND  - A created wetland
requiring  constant   application  of  water  or
maintenance  to provide wetland values.

BASAL  AREA - The cross-sectional area of a tree
trunk measured in square inches, square centimeters,
etc.  Basal area is normally measured at 4.5 feet (1.4
m) above ground level or just  above the buttress if the
buttress exceeds that height and is used as a measure of
dominance.  The most easily  used tool for measuring
basal area is a tape marked in units of area (i.e.,
square inches). When plotless  methods are used, an
angle gauge or prism will provide a means of rapidly
determining basal area. This term is also applicable to
the cross-sectional area of a clumped herbaceous plant,
measured  at 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) above the  soil surface.

BASELINE  STUDY  - An inventory of a natural
community or environment that may serve as a model
for planning  or establishing goals for success criteria.
Synonym:  reference study.

BENCH MARK - A fixed, more  or  less permanent
reference point or object, the  elevation and horizontal
location  of which  is  known.  The U.S. Geological
Survey [USGS] installs brass caps in bridge abutments
or  otherwise permanently  sets  bench marks at
convenient locations nationwide.  The  elevations on
these marks  are referenced to  the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum [NGVD],  also commonly known as
Mean Sea Level [MSL] although  they may  not be
exactly the  same.  For  most  purposes of  wetland
mitigation, they  can be assumed to be equivalent
although a local surveyor should be consulted for final
determination.   Locations  of these bench marks on
USGS quadrangle maps are shown as small triangles.
The  existence  of any bench  mark should be field
verified  before planning work  that  relies  on  a
particular  reference point. The USGS,  local  state
surveyor's office, or city or town engineer can provide
information on the existence,  exact  location and exact
elevation  of  bench marks, and the equivalency of
NGVD and MSL.

CANOPY LAYER - The uppermost layer of vegetation
in a  plant community. In forested areas, mature trees
comprise the canopy layer, while the tallest herbaceous
species constitute the canopy layer in a marsh.

CONTROL PLOT  -  An  area  of  land  used for
measuring   or  observing  existing  undisturbed
conditions.

CONTOUR - An imaginary line of constant  elevation
on the ground surface.  The corresponding line on  a
map is called a "contour line".
CREATED WETLAND  -   The  conversion  of  a
persistent upland or shallow water area into a wetland
through some activity of man.

DEGRADED  WETLAND - A wetland altered by man
through  impairment of some physical  or chemical
property which results in a reduction of habitat value or
other reduction of functions (i.e., flood storage).

DENSITY - The number of individuals per unit area.

DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT [DBH] - The width
of a plant stem as measured at 4.5 feet (1.4 m) above the
ground surface or just above the buttress if over 4.5 feet
(1.4 m).

DISTURBED  WETLAND - A wetland directly or
indirectly  altered  from  a  natural condition,  yet
retaining  some  natural characteristics;  includes
natural perturbations.

DOMINANCE - As  used herein,  a descriptor of
vegetation that  is related to  the standing  crop of a
species in an area, usually measured  by  height, areal
cover,  density,  or  basal  area  (for trees),  or  a
combination of parameters.

DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES - A plant species that
exerts  a  controlling influence on  or  defines  the
character of a  community.

DRAINED - A condition in which the level or volume
of ground or surface  water has  been reduced or
eliminated from  an area by artificial means.

DRD7T LINE  -  An  accumulation  of debris along  a
contour (parallel to the water flow) that represents the
height  of an inundation event.

EMERGENT PLANT -  A rooted plant that  has parts
extending  above a  water surface,  at  least  during
portions of the year but does not tolerate prolonged
inundation.

ENHANCED  WETLAND - An existing wetland where
some activity  of man increases one or more values,
often with  the accompanying  decline in other wetland
values.

EXOTIC - Not indigenous to a region; intentionally or
accidentally introduced and often persisting.

EXPERIMENTAL PLOT - An area of land used for
measuring or  observing conditions resulting from  a
treatment (i.e., an installation of particular plants).

FILL MATERIAL - Any material placed in an area to
increase surface  elevation.

FREQUENCY (vegetation)  -  The  distribution  of
individuals of a species in an  area.  It is quantitatively
expressed as:
    Number of samples containing species A

            Total number of samples
X100

-------
FUNCTIONAL VALUES  -  Values  determined by
abiotic  and biotic interactions as opposed to  static
measurements (e.g., biomass).

HABITAT - The environment occupied by individuals
of a particular species, population, or community.

HABITAT VALUE - The suitability of an  area to
support a given evaluation species.

HEADWATER FLOODING - A situation in which an
area becomes inundated primarily by surface runoff
from upland areas.

HERB  -  A nonwoody  individual  of  a  macrophytic
species.

HERBACEOUS LAYER - Any vegetative stratum of a
plant community that is  composed predominantly of
herbs.

HYDRIC SOIL - A soil that is saturated,  flooded, or
ponded long enough during the  growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and
regeneration  of hydrophytic  vegetation.  Hydric soils
that occur in areas having  positive  indicators of
hydrophytic  vegetation and  wetland hydrology are
wetland soils.

HYDROLOGIC  REGIME  -  The  distribution and
circulation of water in  an area on average during a
given  period  including   normal  fluctuations and
periodicity.

HYDROLOGY  -  The  science  dealing  with  the
properties, distribution, and  circulation of water both
on the surface and under the earth.

HYDROPHYTE - Any macrophyte that grows in water
or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient
in oxygen as  a result of excessive water content; plants
typically found in wet habitats. Obligate hydrophytes
require  water  and  cannot  survive in dry  areas.
Facultative hydrophytes may invade upland areas.

HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION - The sum total of
macrophytic  plant life growing  in  water  or  on  a
substrate  that  is at least  periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content.  When
hydrophytic vegetation  comprises  a community where
indicators of hydric  soils  and  wetland hydrology also
occur, the area has wetland vegetation.

IMPORTANCE  VALUE  - A  quantitative  term
describing the relative influence of a plant species in a
plant   community,   obtained  by   summing   any
combination  of  relative frequency, relative  density,
and relative  dominance.

INDIGENOUS SPECH5S - Native to a region.

IN-KIND REPLACEMENT - Providing or managing
substitute resources to replace the functional values of
the resources lost, where such  substitute resources are
also physically  and biologically the same  or closely
approximate those lost.

INUNDATION - A condition in which water from any
source  temporarily or permanently  covers  a  land
surface.
MACROPHYTE - Any plant species that can be readily
observed without the aid of optical magnification.  This
includes all vascular plant species and  mosses  (e.g.,
Sphagnum spp.), as well as large  algae  (e.g., Chara
spp., kelp).

MAINTENANCE - Any activities required to assure
successful restoration after a project has begun (i.e.,
erosion control, water level manipulations).

MAN-INDUCED WETLAND  - Any  area of created
wetlands that develops  wetland characteristics due to
some discrete non-continuous activity of man.

MEAN SEA LEVEL -  A  datum,  or  "plane of zero
elevation",  established by  averaging hourly tidal
elevations over a 19-year tidal cycle or "epoch".  This
plane is corrected for curvature of the earth and is the
standard reference for elevations  on  the earth's
surface.  The  National  Geodetic  Vertical Datum
[NGVD] is a fixed reference relative to Mean Sea Level
in 1929. The relationship between MSL and  NGVD is
site-specific.

MESOPHYTIC - Any plant species growing where soil
moisture and aeration conditions lie between extremes.
These  species  are  typically found  in habitats  with
average moisture conditions, neither very  dry nor very
wet.

MITIGATION   -   The  President's  Council   on
Environmental Quality defined the term  "mitigation"
in the National Environmental Policy  Act regulations
to include "(a) avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain  action or parts of an action;  (b)
minimizing  impacts   by  limiting  the  degree  or
magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c)
rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected  environment; (d)  reducing or
eliminating  the impact  over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
and (e) compensating  for the impact  by  replacing or
providing substitute resources  or  environments" (40
CFR Part 1508.20(a-e)).  For the purposes of this
document,  mitigation refers  only   to  restoration,
creation,  or enhancement  of wetlands to compensate
for permitted wetland losses.

MITIGATION  BANKING - Wetland restoration,
creation or enhancement undertaken expressly for the
purpose of providing compensation  credits for wetland
losses  from future development activities.

MONITORING - Periodic evaluation of  a  mitigation
site to determine success in attaining goals.  Typical
monitoring  periods  for wetland mitigation  sites are
three to five years.

NATURAL  - Dominated by native biota and occurring
within a physical system which has developed through
natural processes (without human intervention), in
which natural processes continue to take place.

NUISANCE SPECIES - Species of plants that detract
from or interfere with a mitigation project, such as
most exotic species and those indigenous species whose
populations proliferate  to  abnormal  proportions.
Nuisance species  may require  removal    through
maintenance programs.

-------
OUT-OF-KIND REPLACEMENT   -  Providing  or
managing substitute resources to replace the functional
values of the  resources lost,  where such  substitute
resources are physically or biologically different  from
those lost.

PHYSIOGNOMY - A term used to describe a plant
community  based  on community  stratification  and
growth habit (e.g., trees, herbs, lianas) of the dominant
species.

PLANT  COMMUNITY - All of the plant populations
occurring in a shared habitat or environment.

PLANT COVER - see AREAL COVER.

PONDED -  A  condition in which water stands in a
closed depression.  Water  may be  naturally removed
only by percolation, evaporation, and/or transpiration.

POORLY DRAINED - Soils that are commonly wet at
or near the surface  during  a sufficient part of the year
that  field crops cannot  be  grown  under  natural
conditions. Poorly drained conditions are caused by a
saturated  zone,  a   layer   with  low   hydraulic
conductivity,  seepage,  or a  combination of  these
conditions.

PRODUCTIVITY - Net annual primary productivity;
the amount of plant biomass that is generated per unit
area per  year.

QUANTITATIVE  -  A precise  measurement  or
determination expressed numerically.

RECLAIMED  WETLANDS   - Same  as  restored
wetland,  but often used in  other parts of the world to
refer to wetland destruction due to filling or draining.

REHABILITATION - Conversion of an upland area
that was previously a  wetland into  another wetland
type deemed  to be better for the overall ecology of the
system.

RELATIVE  DENSITY -  A  quantitative descriptor,
expressed as a  percent, of the relative number of
individuals in an area; it is calculated by:
         Number of individuals of species A

       Total number of individuals of all species
-X100
RELATIVE DOMINANCE - A quantitative descriptor,
expressed  as  a percent, of the relative  amount of
individuals of a species in an area; it is calculated by:

                   Amount of species A
           	X100
                Total amount of all species

The amount of a species may be based on percent areal
cover, basal area, or height.

RELATIVE FREQUENCY - A quantitative descriptor,
expressed as a percent, of the relative distribution of
individuals in an area; it is calculated  by:
                Frequency of species A
                                        -X100
RELIEF - The change in elevation of a land surface
between two points; collectively, the configuration of the
earth's surface, including  such features  as  hills  and
valleys.  See also TOPOGRAPHY.

RESTORED WETLAND - A wetland returned from a
disturbed or  altered condition to a previously existing
natural or altered condition  by some  action of man
(i.e., fill  removal).

SAMPLE PLOT - An area of land used for measuring
or observing  existing conditions.

SOIL - The collection of natural bodies on the earth's
surface containing living  matter and supporting or
capable  of supporting  plants  out-of-doors.  Places
modified  or even made by man of earthy materials are
included.  The  upper limit of soil is  air or shallow
water and at its margins it grades to deep water or to
barren areas of rock or ice.  Soil includes the horizons
that differ from  the parent material as a  result of
interaction through time of climate, living organisms,
parent materials and relief.

SLOPE - A piece of ground that is not flat or level.

SUBSTRATE  - The base  or  substance on  which an
attached  species is growing.

TIDAL  - A  situation  in which the  water level
periodically fluctuates due to  the action of lunar  and
solar forces upon the rotating earth.

TOPOGRAPHY  -  The configuration  of a surface,
including  its  relief and the position of its natural  and
man-made features.

TRANSECT  - As used here, a line on the ground along
which observations are made at some interval.

TRANSITION ZONE - The area in which  a change
from wetlands  to nonwetlands occurs.   The transition
zone may be narrow or broad.

TREE  -  A woody plant >3.0 inches  in diameter at
breast height, regardless of height (exclusive of woody
vines).

UPLAND - As used herein, any area that  does  not
qualify as a wetland because the associated hydrologic
regime is not sufficiently wet to elicit development of
vegetation,  soils, and/or  hydrologic  characteristics
associated with wetlands.  Such areas occurring within
floodplains  are  more  appropriately  termed  non
wetlands.

WATER TABLE  - The upper surface of groundwater or
that level below which the soil is  saturated with water.
The saturated zone must be at least 6 inches  thick  and
persist in the soil for more than a few weeks.

WETLANDS  -  Those areas  that are  inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater  at a frequency
and duration sufficient  to  support, and that under
normal  circumstances  do  support, a  prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated  soil
conditions.  Wetlands  generally  include  swamps,
marshes, bogs,  and similar areas.
             Total frequency of all species

-------
        INFORMATION NEEDS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
           FOR WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION
                                    Edgar W. Garbisch
                               Environmental Concern Inc.
    ABSTRACT.  This chapter addresses both the factors which should be considered at various
    stages of the permitting process and those which should be contained in plans to create or
    restore wetlands.   The information  wetland regulatory  agencies need to critically  evaluate
    proposed mitigation projects in terms of acceptability, feasibility, and soundness is presented.
    If the process suggested is  followed, the  permit conditions should contain (1) details of
    construction and landscape plans, (2) specifications to facilitate verification by the regulatory
    agencies that the  wetland creation/restoration project has been constructed according to the
    plans, and  (3) the criteria by which to determine if the project has been maintained and
    monitored during the life of the permit.
                                    INTRODUCTION
    State  wetland regulations and policies vary
widely and many are still under  development.
Marked  variances  also  occur  in   the
administration of federal regulations in the east
and probably nationwide. Consequently, it is not
possible to recommend a  planning process for
wetland creation and restoration that  will be
uniformly acceptable. This chapter reflects the
opinions of the author whose experiences have
been limited largely to the eastern United States.
Hopefully, the recommendations  provided here
will prove useful and applicable to some regions
of the United States.

    Much  of the wetland creation and restoration
work  conducted  throughout the United States
results from regulatory  requirements  that
compensation  (mitigation)  take place for
permitted wetland impacts and  losses.  Prior to
issuing permits,  regulatory agencies review the
applicants'  mitigation  plans  to  ensure that
disturbed  wetlands are restored or appropriate
compensation is provided through compensation.
If  proposed  mitigation  plans are  found
acceptable, they generally  become part of the
permits together with stipulations or conditions
relating to criteria for success and acceptability,
timetables for  wetland creation/restoration,
monitoring, and reporting-especially when  these
stipulations  or  conditions  have not  been
specifically addressed in the mitigation plans.

    Most  of  the  wetland  creation/restoration
plans  published in the Corps of Engineers Public
Notices lack  the  details necessary to evaluate
their  potential for successful execution.  Such
plans  are often  the only ones  available for
review by interested members of the general
public and by the state and federal regulatory
agencies. Moreover, they are often of insufficient
detail for the agencies to verify that the "as built"
project  will  compare  acceptably to the  one
conceptually proposed. Without such details, the
regulatory  agencies   must  place  full
responsibility on the applicant, and indirectly on
the applicant's  mitigation consultant, to design
and  acceptably   construct   the  wetland
creation/restoration as called for in the permits.

    If a regulatory agency is charged with the
preservation  of wetlands by legislation and
policy,  and  if  the  agency  permits a given
wetland  to be  destroyed provided there is
adequate  compensation,  then the  regulatory
agency's  responsibility is to (1)  engage in  all
aspects of review and evaluation of the wetland
construction details, as well as other matters of
planning,  and  (2)  help  ensure  that  such
compensation is constructed  successfully.   Re-
quiring  "successful compensation" as a permit
condition does not, in itself, ensure success.  The
compensation  site  and/or  the plans  and
specifications may be inappropriate and  success
may not be possible.   The regulatory agencies
should  have  complete  confidence   in  the
compensation  site  and  in  the  plans  and
specifications before  making success a  permit
condition.

    The objectives of this chapter are to define the
information needed by the regulatory agencies at
pre-permit application, at permit application, and
during the life of the permit in order for proposed
wetland creation/restoration mitigation projects
to be fully and critically  evaluated in terms of
(1) acceptability, feasibility, and soundness of the
proposed plan, (2) the construction performance
as related  to the project  being  constructed in

-------
accordance with  the plans and  specifications,
and   (3) the post construction performance  as
related  to  maintenance  of  hydrological
requirements and vegetation establishment.  All
of the above  combine to provide  the regulatory
agencies' planning process for wetland creation
and restoration.
    If a regulatory agency feels that it does not
have in-house the qualified staff to conduct the
necessary  critical  review and evaluation  of
detailed mitigation plans  involving wetland
creation/restoration, a  qualified  consultant
might be retained to perform this service.
                            PRE-PERMIT APPLICATION
    The  development  of  detailed construction
plans   and   specifications   for   wetland
creation/restoration mitigations is usually time
consuming  and  expensive. Their  submittal
should not be required until such time that (1) the
regulatory agencies have agreed that the proposed
project  will be permitted pending review and
acceptance of a final mitigation plan or (2) it is
determined to be in the best public interest that
they  be submitted (e.g., for  complicated  or
controversial projects).

    Generally, the regulatory agencies will  not
discuss  wetland   creation/restoration   as  a
compensatory measure for  proposed wetland
losses and impacts at early stages of pre-permit
application meetings. They must be assured first
that all other measures to mitigate  such losses
and impacts have been explored. However, after
this is done, the applicant should be  prepared to
discuss  wetland   creation/restoration   when
certain  wetland   losses and  impacts   are
unavoidable.  In this event, the applicant  should
have available for  distribution and discussion a
preliminary mitigation plan that contains  the
basic information provided below.
PRELIMINARY MITIGATION PLAN

    The  Preliminary  Mitigation  Plan  should
contain the following:

1.  Text, 8.5" X 11" plans, and photographs
    describing the existing conditions at the
    project site and particularly the wetlands on
    site  and the portion(s)  of these wetlands
    where   disturbance   and/or  loss   is
    unavoidable.  Accurate areas of all wetlands
    to be disturbed and/or lost should be provided
    according to wetland type, if more than one
    type  is involved.

2.  An evaluation of all wetlands that are
    proposed to be disturbed and/or lost including
    their apparent stabilities, their dominant
    vegetative compositions, and their prevailing
    functions. An objective  evaluation  such as
    provided  by WET  (Wetland Evaluation
    Technique) to level-1 is suggested.
3.   Text, 8.5" X 11" plans, and photographs
    briefly describing the existing conditions at
    the wetland creation site.

4   Text and 8.5" X 11" plans that describe
    conceptually the proposed •wetland creation
    together  with   arguments,  data,  and
    calculations  that demonstrate  that the
    necessary hydrological requirements will  be
    realized. Accurate areas of all wetlands to be
    created should  be provided  according  to
    wetland type, if more than one type  is
    proposed to be created.

5.   An evaluation  of the proposed created
    wetland(s), as in Section 2, with an emphasis
    on functional replacement and enhancement
    relative to  those functions  provided  by the
    existing wetland(s) to be lost.

6.   Text providing methods of any wetland
    restoration that is proposed together with
    discussion of any  possible  enhancement of
    functional values that may be provided  as
    part of the restoration.  Issues related to the
    impact of soils compaction and other wetland
    disturbances on the success of the restoration
    should be  addressed. If such impact(s) may
    limit   the   success   of  the  restoration,
    approaches  to circumvent  the problem(s)
    should be discussed.

    The Preliminary Mitigation Plan should not
be a voluminous submittal.  It should be brief and
to the point. It is intended to be the precursor to
the  Draft Mitigation Plan  which should  be
submitted later  with the permit application,
following  reviews  and  comments  by the
regulatory agencies.

    If  the  necessary hydrological requirements
for the created  wetland  cannot  be  verified,
monitoring of stream flows, ground water  levels,
etc. will be necessary for up to one year before the
Draft Mitigation Plan can be prepared. Detailed
soil  borings throughout the proposed wetland
creation  site   should be  completed  prior  to
preparing the Draft Mitigation Plan to verify that
the soil characteristics will support the desired
hydrology and functions of the created wetland.
                                              10

-------
                               PERMIT APPLICATION
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

     Following any necessary  monitoring  and
testing,  and  receipt  and  consideration of
comments by the reviewing agencies, the Draft
Mitigation  Plan can be  prepared.  The Draft
Mitigation  Plan  is  a  revised Preliminary
Mitigation  Plan  and  will  include changes
primarily in Sections 4-6.

    The 8.5" X 11" plans provided in the Draft
Mitigation  Plan should  be sufficient  to be
included in the Corps of Engineers Public Notice.
Larger plans that are reduced to 8.5" X 11" are
not recommended, as details and letterings may
be reduced beyond recognition.  After receipt of
the comments on the Public Notice and review of
comments derived from any public meetings, the
regulatory agencies  will come to  a decision
regarding issuance of permits. If the decision is
to issue  such permits  pending receipt  and
acceptance of the construction  and landscape
plans and specifications for any created  and
restored wetlands, these  materials  must be
provided. These plans and specifications together
with the Draft Mitigation Plan  constitutes the
Final Mitigation Plan.  The Final Mitigation
Plan may have been requested by the regulatory
agencies  at an earlier time or it may have been
provided voluntarily by the applicant.
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Draft Mitigation Plan + Construction and
Landscape Plans and Specifications

    The construction and landscape plans and
specifications should be  sufficiently  detailed for
bidding purposes, engineering and biological
review,  and  verification of the  "as  built"
condition.   All   monitoring,   inspections,
reporting, and maintenance during the life of the
permit or during the required period of time
should   be  detailed   on   the   plans   and
specifications. The  extent and duration of all
landscape guarantees should  be specified. It is
recommended that the  plans  and specifications
submitted as part of the Final Mitigation Plan
include  but not necessarily be limited to the
following items:

1.   All plans should be scaled at 1" = 100' or
    larger i.e., 1" = 50') and show 1.0' contours
    or less, if important.

2.   All slopes should be designed to be stable in
    the absence of vegetation.

3.   Sufficient cross-sections  of land  and
    structures should be provided so as to clarify
    all typical  and atypical conditions.

4.   In addition to wetlands, all land (e.g.,
    transition  and  buffer zones  and  upland)
    included in the proposed mitigation should be
    shown.

5.   A summary of the sizes and types of
    wetlands lost and created should be given.

6.   A summary of the sizes and types of non-
    wetland habitats  created as enhancement
    features should be given.

7.   The site hydrology should be clearly shown.
    For example:

    Pool Elevation:  if water level is static and
    non-fluctuating.

    Seasonal Pool Elevations:  spring, summer,
    fall/winter  if water level fluctuates.

    Tidal  Elevations:   when flooding water is
    tidal.  Mean high water (MHW),  and mean
    low water (MLW) should  be  indicated.
    Corrections to  National Geodetic  Vertical
    Datum (NGVD)  or other local datum should
    be provided in the NOTES.

    Ground Water  Levels:  when  flooding is
    temporary  during  times  of storms  and
    spring thaws.  The expected seasonal ground
    water  levels  should be  provided in  the
    NOTES.

8.   Verification of hydrology should be detailed
    in the NOTES:   e.g., stream flow year-round
    and weir controls  pool level; groundwater
    given in soil boring logs; stream/river water
    level  data and analyses;  calculations if
    stormwater is  the  only  source of water;
    vegetation zonation  of  existing nearby
    wetlands sharing the same hydrology as the
    proposed vegetated wetlands; etc.

9.   The  construction timetable  should be
    provided together  with notations  of any
    elements whose  timing may be  critical to
    biological  success; e.g.,  coordination of
    completion of earthwork with the installation
    of certain  species of plants to minimize the
    impact of  salt  buildup in soils; timing of
    plant installation to minimize the impact of
    waterfowl and drought; specify time windows
    for   seeding   to   ensure   vegetation
    establishment.

10.  The locations and elevations of all bench
                                             11

-------
    marks on site should be shown on the plans.

11.  A Summary of the volume of earthwork and
    total tonnage of stonework should be given.

12.  The proposed disposition of any excavated
    materials should be given.

13.  The elevations and elevation ranges for the
    planting and seeding of all plant species
    should be shown. Plant spacings and seeding
    rates should be given.

14.  Landscape lists, notes, and specifications
    should include the following:

    a.   Plant lists for seeding and planting that
        provide total quantities, plant sizes, and
        plant conditions (e.g., bare root, can, peat
        pot, etc.). Acceptable substitutes should be
        indicated  if the availability of  some
        species might be  limited.

    b.   Because  of the variable  quality of
        nursery-produced wetland plant mater-
        ials, acceptable  plant conditions should
        be  clearly specified.  Some examples
        follow:  Container grown nursery  stock
        shall have been grown in  a container
        long enough for  the root system to have
        developed  sufficiently to hold its soil
        together. Peat-potted nursery stock shall
        have been grown in 1.50" to  1.75" square
        peat pots long enough and under proper
        conditions  for the  root systems  to be
        sufficiently well-developed through the
        sides and bottoms of the pots to prevent
        easy removal of the plants from  the pots.
        Each pot  shall  contain a minimum of
        (specify)   steins.  Container  grown
        nursery stock to be transplanted to wet
        areas year-round shall have been grown
        under hydric soil conditions for at least
        one growing season.  The nursery pro-
        viding  these materials must certify that
        these growing conditions were met.

    c.   Fertilization requirements  that include
        rates and fertilizer formulations.

    d.   Any special conditioning of the  plant
        materials  that  may  be required. For
        example, conditioning plant  materials to
        specified water  salinities or condition-
        ing facultative/facultative wet species to
        hydric  soil  cultivation.

    e.   Any geographical constraints regarding
        the origin of the plant materials.

    f.   The names  and  addresses  of  all
        acceptable  commercial sources  of  plant
        materials.
    g.  A requirement that the supplier of seeds
       specified provide  the purity and the
       current  germination percentages of the
       seeds.

    h.  What plant materials, if any, may be
       field  collected and from where they will
       be taken.

    i.  Construction details and timetable for
       any required  controls against  wildlife
       depredation.

    j.  Details and  definitions of any landscape
       guarantees, including the  guarantee
       periods.

15.  Maintenance program during the guarantee
    period, the life of the permit, or other
    required period should be detailed. Such
    maintenance may  include invasive  weed
    control  of  algae,  common  reed,  purple
    loosestrife, etc.; removal of deposited litter
    and debris;  watering;  replanting; repair  of
    water control structures; clearing of culverts;
    etc.

16.  Any critical elements and possible problems
    (with solutions) that may influence the
    success of the  project should be  described,
    even if these items have been addressed  in
    other  sections; i.e., 9, 14i, 15. For example, a
    watering program for  vegetation establish-
    ment  in  a floodplain wetland construction
    may  be critical for success  and  should  be
    restated, even though  such a program was
    included  in  Section 15.  In many instances,
    wildlife  management  will be  critical for
    success and  should be restated, even though
    Section 14i describes the item.

17.  Reporting timetable during  the  life of the
    permit or until final approval  should  be
    included.  The regulatory agencies will want
    to  be informed periodically regarding the
    wetland construction progress.  For example,
    is construction  on  schedule and, if not, why
    and what is being done to  get it back  on
    schedule.  Are the criteria for success being
    realized (i.e., has the project been constructed
    according to the plans  and specifications)
    and if not what corrective action is  being
    taken. Reporting of the results of monitoring
    should be included in the reporting timetable.
    Generally,  it would seem  appropriate  to
    report quarterly  during the   construction
    phase of the wetland and annually thereafter
    during the life of the  permit or until final
                                               12

-------
18.
inspection and approval. Photographs that
are keyed on the site plan and that show the
existing conditions should be included with
all reports to  facilitate verifications by the
regulatory agencies.

The monitoring program for the life of the
permit   should  be  provided  in   the
specifications or on the plans.
    It is the author's opinion that if the wetland
is constructed or  restored  according to the
detailed construction  and landscape plans and
specifications  that  are   part   of  the   Final
Mitigation  Plan,  the project must be considered
successful. If the "as built" project is according
to plans and  specifications,  then the wetland
functional replacement and enhancement, as
determined in Section 5 of the Draft Mitigation
Plan, have  been realized.  Consequently, the
monitoring program should be one of inspection
and  verification  of the  "as  built"  project
according to  hydrological  performance,  veg-
etation establishment, and other key elements in
the plans and specifications. Scientific studies
should not  be part of a monitoring program
sanctioned by the  regulatory agencies. While
such studies often will be  important and should
be encouraged, they should not  be part of the
required mitigation process.
                  CONCLUSION: NEED FOR CERTIFICATION
                         OF MITIGATION CONSULTANTS
     To  a very large degree, the  success  of
wetland creation/restoration projects will depend
on the correctness of the plans and specifications
and the execution of the construction according to
these plans and specifications. Consequently, it
is  important that people with a background  in
both wetland creation/restoration design and the
practicalities of construction  become associated
with such projects.  To ensure  that future wetland
                                            creation/restoration projects  are  planned  and
                                            directed by qualified people, it is suggested that
                                            the  Preliminary, Draft, and  Final Mitigation
                                            Plans be  signed and stamped by  an individual
                                            who has  been certified as a  qualified wetland
                                            creation/restoration  scientist.  It  is  further
                                            suggested that such a certification program be
                                            undertaken by an organization  such as The
                                            Society  of Wetland Scientists.
                                             13

-------
WETLAND EVALUATION FOR RESTORATION AND CREATION
                                      Kevin L. Erwin
                         Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
    ABSTRACT. One of the principal questions that must be addressed  when evaluating the
    success of a created, restored, or enhanced wetland is, to what extent does the wetland provide
    biological and hydrological  functions similar to those  of the original or  desired "reference"
    wetland.   Wetland evaluation methods are widely discussed throughout the literature.
    However, many  would not be  appropriate  to  evaluate  a created or restored  wetland,
    particularly given the time and financial limitations often  placed upon the investigator and
    reviewer.  The selected method must adequately characterize and evaluate the functions of the
    created and reference  wetlands given the limitations of time, budget, type of wetland, size of
    wetland, context, degree of alteration  from original wetland, location, and  expertise of
    investigator. A qualitative  wetland  evaluation plan should include:  a baseline vegetation
    survey, annual reporting of post construction monitoring conducted for a minimum of five
    years,  fixed point panoramic photographs, rainfall and  water level data, a plan view showing
    all  sampling and recording station locations, wildlife  utilization  observations,  fish  and
    macroinvertebrate  data,  a maintenance  plan, and a qualified  individual to  conduct
    monitoring. Quantitative evaluation is recommended when  the  proposed  construction
    technique is unproven,  where the ability to successfully  create or restore the habitat is
    unproven, or when success criteria are related to obtaining  specific thresholds of plant cover,
    diversity, and  wildlife  utilization. Quantitative evaluation  should include:  surface  and
    groundwater hydrological monitoring, and vegetation analysis.  The methods will often
    require some site specific fine tuning to prevent  the over simplification of the  wetlands
    complexity.

        A rapidly accessible, easily understood,  and cost effective  database on wetland creation
    and restoration projects is needed  to  support  environmental regulatory agency review,
    decision  making, and action on specific projects.  Any comprehensive wetland evaluation
    effort must be proceeded by the establishment of criteria which the investigator and regulator
    believe to be fundamental to the existence, functions, and contributions of the wetland system
    and its  surrounding  landscape. Failure to  address  the  wetlands system's  surrounding
    landscape leads to  an inaccurate characterization  of  the wetland.   Additional research is
    needed to establish the inter-relationships between wetlands, transitional areas,  and adjacent
    uplands.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    Wetland  evaluation  is  needed prior to a
project to set goals and develop a plan, as a
component of the monitoring program, and as a
means for  ultimately determining compliance.
Although the  timing differs for each of these
evaluations, the factors to be considered and the
general needs and approaches  are  much the
same.

    The following chapter has  been prepared to
assist consultants, client/permit applicants, and
regulatory personnel in evaluating restored and
created wetlands.  It does  not exhaustively review
potential evaluation approaches,  but presents a
general framework and discusses  selected topics.
The chapter draws heavily upon the author's own
experience and  his  many  discussions  with
colleagues.  An  extensive   bibliography  of
publications dealing with wetland evaluation is
provided to assist the reader.  As can be seen
from the bibliography, a number of efforts have
developed and assessed  methods for  evaluating
wetlands.  The author draws your attention to:
Golet 1973, Winchester and Harris 1979, Reppert
et al. 1979, U.S. Army Engineer Division 1980,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980, Lonard et
al. 1981, Adamus and Stockwell 1983, Adamus
1983, Euler et al. 1983, Lonard et al. 1984, and
Marble and Gross 1984.
                                             15

-------
             EVALUATION NEEDS IN RESTORATION/CREATION
    Evaluation may be needed for any or all of
the following purposes:

1.   Assessing  the  Original Wetland. The
    investigation  must  obtain,  if  possible,
    baseline data which evaluates the reference
    wetland's form and functions. The reference
    wetland may be the wetland to be impacted or
    another wetland chosen as a model for  the
    mitigation project. This baseline data should
    be used to aid in the establishment of selected
    success criteria  and the  design of  the
    wetland project.

2.   Setting  goals  for  the  enhancement,
    restoration or creation of a wetland required
    as  mitigation.  Prior to designing  the
    wetland required as mitigation, if possible,
    the wetland to be restored or enhanced, or an
    acceptable  reference  wetland  should be
    evaluated.  This information should be used
    to set goals for the mitigation project.  It also
    should be used as a baseline from which to
    design the  mitigation project  and measure
    its  success.  In  the  case  of  wetland
    enhancement, the pre-enhancement baseline
    evaluation date will be compared with post-
    enhancement data.
3.  Assessing   Project  During  Maturation.
   Monitoring  a  project   periodically  during
   maturation will determine the  need  for
   corrections in  design or  maintenance to  get
   the project back on course.

4  Determining Post-Project Compliance. At this
   stage the  evaluation  is  used  to establish
   compliance with goals or success criteria and
   to obtain the regulatory agencies' approval.

5.  Describing the Long Term Status.  Informa-
   tion about the wetland's responses to changes
   in  site  conditions  (i.e., increased water
   levels, decreased hydroperiod, or colonization
   by problematic exotic vegetation) is obtained.
   This will indicate the ability of the system to
   persist.

   The following is a  general  discussion  of
factors  and   considerations  in   wetland
evaluation.   It is intended as an overview of the
choices available and  not as an  instructional
guide to performing detailed data collection and
analysis. These methods, when used  individ-
ually or in some  combination, will provide  a
varied  database: qualitative or quantitative,
inexpensive or costly,  and  relatively  quick  or
lengthy.
                          PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
    What is  the practical approach to wetland
evaluation in a particular  restoration/creation
context or at a specific  stage of a project?  The
answer  depends  upon  a  variety  of  factors.
Economic  and  spacial  constraints must be
considered  for  each project evaluation. The
investigator should evaluate  the  available
methods and select or develop the  method best
suited to the situation given its limitations.  In
many instances the limitations placed upon the
investigator  have a  greater  influence on  the
methods finally selected than the objectives of the
study.
TIME

    Time may  be a factor when  conducting
baseline monitoring of a wetland area because of
the constraints of the permit application review
procedure. In most cases, the regulatory agency
should  require  baseline  monitoring  to  be
presented with the permit application to aid in the
evaluation  of   existing  conditions  and in the
establishment of success criteria.

    In many instances the investigator may not
have the time necessary to  conduct a thorough
study over the  desired  number of wet/dry or
growing seasons.  In such cases, the investigator
should choose  a time which will  provide the
greatest  amount  of information about the site.
This information  should be easily gathered over
time.  The most  satisfactory time for a limited
event evaluation  is during the late  phase  of the
growing season and, if possible, when the  site is
inundated to allow for the collection of fish and
macroinvertebrate samples.
BUDGET

    In some instances (i.e., where the  project is
small or where a public agency is involved) only
limited funds will  be  available for evaluation.
In  cases where budget constraints  exist, some
compromises will inevitably be necessary.  The
investigator must choose an evaluation  method
                                             16

-------
and monitoring plan which is the most efficient
and  provides  the  greatest amount of desired
information at the least cost ("the most bang for
the buck").
TYPE OF WETLAND

    Certain methods are more appropriate for
one  type  of wetland than  another (i.e., line
intercept for nonforested wetlands and line strip
or belt transects for  forested  wetlands).  In
addition, the fact that certain wetland habitats
have proven  to be less difficult  than others to
restore or create  should have a  bearing on the
evaluation method used, and the scope of the
baseline  monitoring of the reference  wetland
and the post-construction monitoring.
hardwoods), therefore, the monitoring of a marsh
restoration project may need to be intensive for a
shorter period of time.  Many marsh restoration
projects  can be  successfully  completed and
agency approval received within three growing
seasons  following  construction,  whereas  a
forested wetland project may take one  to three
decades.
DEGREE OF ALTERATION FROM
ORIGINAL WETLAND

   The greater  the  deviation of the  proposed
restoration  or enhancement  project from  the
original wetland, the more comprehensive  the
baseline  and  post  wetland   construction
evaluation methods should be.
SIZE OF WETLAND

    The  size of the  wetland, the number and
types of  habitats to  be evaluated,  and  the
parameters to be examined will place constraints
on the method selected.
CONTEXT

    The  selection  of  an  evaluation  method
should depend upon whether single or multiple
parameters are chosen as success criteria for the
enhanced,  created, or restored  wetland.  If
wildlife utilization  is  the  major goal, then a
detailed vegetative analysis could be replaced by
a  more  simple  floral characterization  with
greater emphasis on  monitoring for  wildlife
utilization.  The  science  of creating  certain
marsh habitats  is more advanced than for most
forested  wetland   habitats  (e.g.,  bottomland
LOCATION

   Wetlands are "open" systems  with strong
links  to  their adjacent ecosystems.   A major
factor determining the  ecological value of the
wetland is its relationship with other ecosystems.
These  relationships  make  the wetland an
integral  part of the landscape of a region or
watershed.
EXPERTISE

   The biases, objectives, and the expertise of an
investigator  will  influence  the choice of a
method,  therefore care  must be  taken  to
objectively select a method of evaluation that can
successfully be used. This caution also holds true
for the reviewer who must have an  adequate
understanding of the method and presentation of
data.
                WETLAND FUNCTIONS NEEDING ASSESSMENT
    At each stage, the wetland evaluation should
be geared toward evaluating particular functions
of the  created or reference wetland.  Excellent
references  on  wetland functions are  in  the
proceedings  of  a  national  symposium   on
wetlands held in 1978  (Greeson,  Clark and
Clark,  1979), in Reppert et al. (1979),  Larson
(1982), Adamus (1983), Sather and Smith (1984),
Gosselink (1984), Mitsch  and Gosselink  (1986),
and Kusler  and Riexinger (1985).

    The  Federal  Highway  Administration's
Wetland   Functional  Assessment  Method
recognizes  eleven  functions  (Adamus  1983)
which form a  good checklist.  These functions
are:
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

   Groundwater  recharge  by  wetlands  is
generally poorly understood.   The majority of
hydrologists believe that while some wetlands do
recharge ground water systems, most wetlands do
not  (Sather  and  Smith 1984).  The  soils
underlying most wetlands are  impermeable
which is why there is standing water during the
annual cycle (Larson 1982). In the few studies
available,  recharge  was  related   to   the
edge:volume ratio of  the wetland. Recharge
appears to be relatively more important in small
wetlands  such  as prairie potholes than in large
wetlands (Mitsch and  Gosselink 1986). These
small wetlands  can  contribute  significantly to
                                            17

-------
recharge of regional groundwater (Weller 1981).
Heimberg  (1984)  found  significant  radial
infiltration from cypress domes in Florida, with
the rate of infiltration relative to the area of the
wetland and the depth of the surficial water table.
If groundwater  recharge is  a  goal  of  the
restoration or creation project, the design should
emphasize  the  wetland  edge  to  maximize
potential for groundwater recharge.
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE

    Wetlands  are  generally  considered  by
hydrologists to be  a  discharge area in terms of
total  water  budget, however,  recharge and
discharge may be occurring at the same time in
some  wetlands.  The  recharge/discharge
relationship  of a  wetland  is  a function of
groundwater   piezometric   surface  ("head")
relationships  and  antecedent  conditions
(Hollands 1985). Water may be recharging  an
aquifer and/or  discharging to a down gradient
wetland,  attenuating flows,  and  possibly
providing baseline water  flows to the down
gradient wetland.
FLOOD STORAGE

    Wetlands   may   intercept  and  store
stormwater runoff, and hence change  sharp
runoff peaks  to slower discharges of  longer
duration.  Since it is usually the peak flows that
produce flood damage, wetlands can reduce the
danger  of flooding (Novitzki  1979, Verry  and
Boelter 1979).  A study undertaken by Ogawa and
Male (1983) found that for floods with a  100-year
recurrence, interval or greater, the increase in
peak  stream flow was very significant for  all
sizes  of streams when the  wetlands within the
watershed were removed.

    Ogawa and Male (1983) summarized that the
usefulness of wetlands in reducing downstream
flooding increases  with:   (a) an increase in
wetland area, (b) the seriousness of the flooding
downstream of the wetland, (c) the size of the
flood, (d) the closeness to the upstream  wetland,
and (e)  the lack of other storage areas such as
reservoirs. These factors should be considered if
the proposed restoration or creation project is
within   a flood  prone   area  where  some
improvement to these conditions is desirable.
SHORELINE ANCHORING

    Wetlands  such as tropical mangrove forests
and temperate Spartina- Juncus  saltmarshes,
bind shoreline sediments with their root systems,
thus anchoring the substrate.  The aboveground
biomass provides friction to overland sheetflow,
wave energy, and  storm  surges, providing a
degree of stabilization to the shoreline under
natural conditions.
SEDIMENT TRAPPING

   Wetlands can serve as sinks  for particular
inorganic nutrients. Many marshes are nutrient
traps that  purify  the  water flooding them.
Wetlands have several attributes that cause them
to have major influences on chemical materials
that flow through them (Sather and Smith 1984).
Mitsch  and  Gosselink (1986) describe these
attributes in the following manner:

A. A reduction and velocity of streams entering
   wetlands, causes sediments and chemicals to
   drop into the wetland.

R A variety of anaerobic and aerobic processes
   such  as  denitrification  and   chemical
   precipitation remove certain kinds of chem-
   icals from the water.

G The high rate  of productivity  of many
   wetlands  can lead  to high rates of mineral
   uptake by vegetation and subsequent burial
   in sediments when the plants die.

D. A diversity of  decomposers and decomposi-
   tion processes occur in wetland sediments.

E. A high  amount  of contact of water with
   sediments, because of the shallow depths, lead
   to significant sediment-water exchange.

F. The accumulation of organic  peat in many
   wetlands causes the  permanent  burial of
   chemicals.
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT

   Wetlands possess an inherent ability to trap
nutrients. They often store nutrients when there
is an abundance, then frequently release them
when they are most needed (Niering 1985). In
mature wetlands,  food  chains  are  elaborate,
species diversity is high, the  space  is  well-
organized  into many  different  niches, organ-
isms are larger than in immature systems, and
life  cycles tend  to  be long  and  complex.
Approximately 60% of the fish and shellfish
species that are harvested  commercially are
associated with  wetlands.  For  example,  many
fish species utilize wetlands as spawning and/or
nursery  areas. Some  important species are
permanent residents and others are transients
that periodically feed in the wetlands.  Virtually
all freshwater species  are somewhat dependent
upon   wetlands,  often spawning in  marshes
bordering  lakes or in riparian  forests during
spring flooding.  Saltwater species tend to spawn
offshore, moving into the coastal  marshes during
                                              18

-------
their juvenile stages, then migrating offshore as
they mature. The importance of wetlands to the
sport and  commercial fishery harvest is  well
documented in the literature (Peters et al. 1979).
WILDLIFE HABITAT

    It has been  estimated that within North
America 150 kinds of birds and some 200 kinds
of  animals  are  wetland-dependent.  Other
animals including deer,  bear, and racoon  also
use  wetlands  (Niering  1985). In  addition,
wetland habitats  are necessary for the survival
of a  disproportionately high  percentage  of
endangered and threatened species.
ACTIVE RECREATION, PASSIVE
RECREATION, HERITAGE, AND
EDUCATION

    Wetlands are living museums,  where the
dynamics of ecological systems can  be  taught.
The high productivity of wetlands is related to the
efficient functioning  of both  the grazing and
detritus food chains.  In many wetlands there are
two major energy flow patterns: (1) the  grazing
food   chain,  which  involves   the   direct
consumption of green plants, and (2) the detrital
food chain,  composed of those organisms  that
depend primarily on  detritus  or organic debris
as their food source.   Often the two patterns are
interrelated.  In  lake and pond ecosystems,
submerged  aquatic plants  and floating algae
serve as the basis of the food chain. Zooplankton
feed on the algae and aquatic insects  eat the
zooplankton. These  are  eaten by  small fish,
which  in turn are  consumed by larger  fish,
which  in turn may  end up on a fisherman's
dinner table.  In streams,  the main sources of
organic  input, or  food for stream organisms,
include  partly  decomposed  leaves  or other
organic material  flowing  down stream.   This
debris, or detritus, may be caught in nets set by
the larvae of caddis flies. Stone flies also glean
the rocks for  algae.  These insects  are  in turn
consumed  by  fish,  many  of   which  are
commercially important.

   Activities  such as  sport  fishing  along  a
wetland edge of a lake and canoeing through a
hardwood swamp are pursued by thousands of
people on a regular basis.  Wetlands  are  an
important national heritage providing the sites
and  experiences  many  of us  attribute to our
country's heritage.
FISHERY HABITAT

   Wetlands   have  been  documented  as
important sources of food and habitat for sport
and   commercial  fisheries.  These  outdoor
laboratories  can  demonstrate  such  basic
ecological principles  as energy flow, recycling,
and limiting carrying capacity (Niering 1985).

   The  Federal  Highway  Administration
(PHWA) assessment  procedures are  among
several  which can  by  used  for wetland
evaluation  for  restoration/creation  purposes.
There  are  limitations,  however,  with  this
approach. Manual implementation of the FHWA
assessment  procedure  (Adamus  1983)  is
cumbersome and  time  consuming. The U.S.
Army  Corps  of   Engineers  Waterways
Experiment  Station (WES) developed a wetland
evaluation  technique (WET) that can reliably
assess and partially  quantify wetland functions
and values for Corps  of Engineers use. The main
structural  reorganization  of  the   FHWA
technique was to computerize  the analytical
portion. A discussion of WET  is provided in
Clarian (1985) and more  detailed information on
WET  is contained  in Winchester  (1981a and
1981b).
              LEVEL OF DETAIL-DEGREE OF QUANTIFICATION
    Having  determined  the  stages  in  a
restoration/creation project at which evaluation
should take place and the functions that need
assessment, the next major decision relates to the
level xif detail needed. In general, quantitative
evaluation is much more expensive and time-
consuming  than  qualitative  approaches. How-
ever,  quantitative approaches are essential in
some  instances.

    To  determine  whether  qualitative  or
quantitative evaluation methods are appropriate,
the investigator should consider the established
history of success  in creating the type of wetland
proposed for mitigation. In general, much more
quantitative and detailed analyses are needed
for wetlands  with no history  of success in
creation or restoration.

   Choosing the appropriate  level and detail
ofevaluation and the factors to be evaluated in a
particular instance is  a process that must be
thoroughly considered by each party involved in
the evaluation process including the investigator,
the reviewer, and the client/applicant.  Each
should  consider  the  appropriateness  of the
selected method to provide an adequate character-
ization of the wetland and the ability to produce
                                             19

-------
the required data and analysis within a realistic
time frame. The client or project manager must
also assess his/her ability to provide the required
budget for the  expected  duration of monitoring
and reporting.
   Assuming appropriate funding, enough time,
and an attempt to create a wetland with no or
little history of success, what should the propon-
ent of  a  wetland restoration/creation project
evaluate? The author suggests the "quantitative"
evaluation described in the following section.
                           QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION
    When the investigator requires quantitative
data, both  detailed  field  studies  and  office
evaluation are required. A detailed evaluation
often involves hydrologic analysis,  studies  on
plant and animal population dynamics,  water
quality sampling,  soils analysis,  topographic
mapping,  wildlife  counts,  and  a  regional
watershed analysis.  These studies are  time
consuming, labor intensive, costly, and subject to
producing biased results  when  not  properly
conducted.

    Quantitative  evaluation  is particularly
needed when  (1)  the proposed construction
technique is  unproven, (2) where the ability to
successfully create or restore the habitat has not
been established, or (3) when success criteria are
related  to attaining specific thresholds of plant
cover, diversity, wildlife utilization, etc.  Prop-
erly applied quantitative evaluation may often be
replaced by  less  intensive  evaluation  methods
after a sufficient period of study (i.e., the latter
stages of a restoration/creation project).

   Investigators need rapidly accessible, easily
understandable, and cost effective data in support
of environmental regulatory  agency review,
decision making, and action on specific projects
pursuant to local, state, and federal policies and
regulations.   A  variety of systematic  and
quantified approaches  for  evaluating  either
individual or the full range of wetland functions
have been developed by agencies and researchers
(see Appendix I). These assessment models vary
from very simple to quite sophisticated in the
types of factors considered. Their outputs range
from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation of
a  particular  wetland's  ability  to  provide  a
particular  service  or function.  Some  models
produce  a  single  numerical  rating  for  the
wetlands, while others provide a rating for each
function.
                                      HYDROLOGY
    Hydrology is the  single most important
factor   to   consider  in   designing  and
implementing restoration/creation projects for
specific  types  of wetland  systems and their
related functions.
GROUNDWATER

    Gathering actual  wetland groundwater data
is time consuming and expensive; extrapolating
data  from  one  wetland  to another  can  be
problematic.  No quick,  accurate,  and inexpen-
sive  groundwater  function  predictors  are
available. Even hydrogeologists experienced in
wetland hydrology cannot consistently predict
the hydrogeologic functions of specific wetlands
(Hollands  1985).  Data  requirements  for
understanding the groundwater function of a
specific wetland include:

1)  Geologic    history,    including    an
    understanding  of  the  current  theories
    relative to the geologic processes that created
   the  topographic  and  hydrologic  setting in
   which the wetland is located,  (e.g., bedrock
   and surficial geology).

2) Stratigraphy of the geologic units underlying
   the  wetland and  their physical properties,
   such as permeability.

3) History, stratigraphy, and physical properties
   of the wetland's organic or mineral soils.

4) Description of  the wetland  vegetative
   community.

5) Groundwater and surface water hydrology,
   including a water budget  for  the wetland
   based on items 1 through 4 above.

   The recharge/discharge  relationship  of a
wetland is a function  of groundwater (head)
relationships and antecedent  conditions.  To
determine head relationships, nested water table
observation  wells  (piezometers)  are  required.
These  permit  simultaneous measurements of
head at  various  levels within   the  aquifer.
                                              20

-------
Measurements for at least one year should be
required  to establish a complete  record of
recharge/discharge functions.   This is normally
a costly process.

    Perched wetlands, water table wetlands, and
other  hydrogeologic  classifications  such  as
artisan and water table/artisan wetlands (Motts
and O'Brien 1980) also require nested wells for
identification.  Hydrogeologic  classifications of
wetlands  are  important  in  understanding a
wetland's  water  balance  and  the  effect of
hydrology on other wetland functions (Hollands
1985).  The wetland hydrogeologic classification
that  appears  to  be  most  used  by  non-
hydrogeologist wetland regulators is that of
Novitziky (1978).  Novitziky classified wetlands
in  Wisconsin  as  "surface water  depression",
"groundwater  depression", "surface water slope"
or  "groundwater slope".  This classification
combines  topography,  surface  water,  and
groundwater  parameters. However,  without
wetland specific hydrogeologic data, it is doubtful
if this method can be accurately applied by non-
hydrogeologists (Hollands 1985).
SURFACE WATER

    A hydrological model should be developed to
determine  the watershed dynamics which affect
the  subject  wetland  system.   Usually a very
simple model  can at least establish the extent of
the watershed, timing and volume of input to the
wetland, depth  and duration  of flooding,  and
discharge from  the  wetland.  Post-construction
monitoring of  the created   wetland  should
establish where  fine tuning is required in order
to provide  the desired levels of inundation and
hydroperiod.  As noted above,  the wetland's
relationship  to  the surrounding 'groundwater
system  should be identified when  constructing
the hydrological model.  Water quality analysis
is  also  recommended  at   upstream  and
downstream  locations  as well as  within the
wetland itself to determine inputs to the wetland
and its  present ability  to handle pojlutants.
Riparian  wetland   systems  will'  require
evaluation  of stream flow and the sedimentation
process.

    Ideally, monitoring of ground  and  surface
water quantity and quality should be done in the
reference wetland area for  at least one  annual
cycle, and if possible, including two wet seasons
and one dry season. Similar monitoring  for the
created  wetland  should be done until the project
goals are met and possibly longer where  this
information  is  of  value  to  the  long term
management of the system. Factors critical to the
maintenance of the wetlands's hydrology and
that of surrounding lands should be used to assist
in  future  land  use decisions and to prevent
adverse impacts from taking place.
                                      VEGETATION
    Analysis  of  the  vegetation in a  wetland
system is usually second only to understanding
the hydrology of the area when characterizing the
wetland and  evaluating  its  functions.  The
method of monitoring/evaluation will depend on
the type and  size of the wetland. The  methods
discussed below are "goal oriented", that is,  they
will  provide   sufficient  data  to  adequately
characterize the  reference  and  created wetland
systems for quantitative measurement of success
criteria.

    In order to adequately characterize reference
wetland  vegetation  within the scope  of most
mitigation related evaluations, three methods are
recommended  and described below:  (1)  belt
transects for  forested  wetlands,  (2)  replicate
quadrats for   herbaceous wetlands,   and  (3)
multiple quadrats for shrub wetlands.
BELT TRANSECT

This  method,  also  called the  modified line
intercept   method  (Bauer  1943),  consists  of
observation of plant  species occurring along a
belt transect extending through the study area.  A
single belt transect 6.10 meters in width divided
into 15.25 meter intervals is established through
each  forested  wetland. The belt transect is
positioned so  that each vegetation zone of the
wetland is sampled. Belt transects should extend
into adjacent upland in  order to characterize the
wetland-upland ecotone as  well  as  the  upland
habitat.  Each interval of  the  belt transect
(quadrat) covers 93.025 square meters. Within
each quadrat canopy,  rnidstory, and groundcover
taxa are  recorded. The diameter at breast height
(DBH)  of all  canopy trees (DBH  >  25.4
millimeters) are measured to the nearest 30.48
millimeters.   Trees   with  multiple  stems
originating from a common trunk are recorded
as  individual trees.  The  percent  cover of
midstory taxa (DBH < 25.4 millimeters and 457.2
millimeters or  greater in  height)  should be
estimated for the entire  quadrat. Percent cover of
ground  cover  taxa (less than 0.91  meters in
height)  is estimated for  the  entire quadrat.
Water depth  and percent cover of bare ground
should also recorded.
                                             21

-------
REPLICATE QUADRATS

    The vegetation within individual reference
or  created herbaceous  wetlands  should be
delineated into major macrophyte zones.  Seven 1
m2 quadrats are established  in  each zone. The
vegetation  within the quadrat is divided into as
many as three strata based  on  relative height.
The percent cover of each taxa within each strata
is estimated and the average height recorded.
Water depth and percent cover of non-vegetated
areas should also be recorded.
MULTIPLE QUADRATS

    The  ground  cover  in  a shrub  dominated
wetland is recorded for seven replicate 1 m2 quad-
rats as described above. Two  3.0 meter x 3.0
meter quadrats should be established to describe
the  shrub strata.  Within both quadrats  the
number and average height of individuals from
all non-herbaceous taxa is recorded and the DBH
of the  five largest individual's of each  taxa is
recorded.

    These sampling methods were developed and
used for several    reasons.  First and   most
important, these methods have been modified and
refined to  develop a standardized method for
establishing  an  absolute  measure  of  species
occurrence  by using defined frequency intervals
and cover  estimates. Use  of small  continuous
frequency   intervals   allows   increases    or
decreases  of  colonizing  vegetation  to  be
accurately mapped  and  subsequent  changes
easily  followed with time. In addition,  since
frequency data is based on species presence or
absence it is  absolute. Therefore,  no error  is
introduced as  is  the possibility when  using
ocular  estimates.  Frequency  is needed  in
determining cover percentages. Although cover
estimates are not absolute (and may be somewhat
variable when  performed by  different people),
they serve as comparative indices for evaluating
cover  between  different treatments and/or
wetlands.

   Occurrence of non-vegetated areas  (bare
ground) throughout the transects were given the
same consideration as plant species cover.  Bare
ground or non-vegetated surfaces  are present in
all systems and as such  are  not necessarily  a
definitive  characteristic  of newly created
wetland areas. Bare ground  is defined as all
ground area  not covered by  some form  of
vegetative structure  as  viewed from  above.
Analyses of bare ground allows for determining
vegetation  stratification. With  bare ground
considered, vegetation coverage of an  area will
seldom be  greater than 100% cover.   Analyses
may indicate  that  a  great  degree  of  plant
stratification occurs; however, areas are most
often not 100% covered by vegetation.  The bare
ground  method  is  recommended  because
coverages based totally upon species occurrence
(which often total much greater than 100%) may
no longer be an acceptable method of reclamation
success determination.
    The methods recommended to characterize
the plant community within created or restored
wetlands overlap in scope with the reference
wetland evaluation methods. The differences are
those modifications required to monitor survival
and growth of planted woody species in a created
or restored wetland. The line-strip (elongated
quadrat) technique  (Lindsey 1955, Woodin  and
Lindsey 1954) has  been used to facilitate  an
intensive,  accurate,  and  repeatable  sampling
program. Permanent quadrats are established at
a  constant width  to allow  for a maximum
sampling of trees  concomitant  with planting
density such that generally four  to five parallel
planting rows (average 1.525-3.05 meter centers)
can be monitored within each quadrat.  Elong-
ated quadrats  can be extended parallel  to  the
slope of the  wetland to  allow for survival  and
growth comparisons to be made on a gradient
from  flooded through moist to dry conditions.
Best and Erwin (1984) and Erwin (1987) used this
method to evaluate the effects of hydroperiod on
survival and growth of  tree seedlings in  a
phosphate surface-mined reclaimed wetland.
MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS
AND CRITERIA FOR PLANT
CONDITION ASSESSMENT

    All  trees  occurring   within   the  sample
quadrat should be measured during the growing
season for height. Water  depth in the quadrat
should   also  be   measured.   Qualitative
observations  should  be made  concerning the
individuals'  overall  appearance. Generally
seven  different  categories are suggested for
condition  assessment. Categories and descriptive
criteria are:

Live

    Tree appears in apparently  good condition--
leaves green,  no  symptoms of wilting,  die  back,
or chlorotic appearance of leaves.
                                              22

-------
Stressed
BIOMASS
    Tree  appears to be in a  generally  poor
condition-chlorotic  leaves,  wilting, and leaf
drop.

Tip Die Back

    The main stem is in good condition, but the
most apical portions are in very poor condition
exhibiting wilting and die back symptoms.

Basal Sprouts

    The main stem is dead but new growth is
initiated from the stem base or the root stock.

Not Found

    In  some  cases  seedlings  are  not found
during  a  particular  sampling period.  If  a
seedling is not found on two successive sampling
periods, the seedling is counted as dead.

Apparently Dead

    The general appearance of the stem is dry
and brittle with no live wood observed and there
is no observable green foliage growth.

Dead

    A decision as  to whether a tree  is dead is
generally  made only  following  a  sampling
period  in  which  the tree was classified  as
"apparently dead". Only if initial  observation
indicated  that  the  stem was in  such  poor
condition  that survival was unlikely should a
tree be listed as dead.

    To  completely evaluate the potential for
"forest" development in a created or restored
wetland, crown  cover should be  recorded for
species above  the  herbaceous stratum. In
addition, trees producing seed should be noted.
Table 1 is a summary of planted tree survival
(total of all species), change in height and crown
size from a created  wetland in  central Florida
(Erwin 1987).

    These  methods  for evaluating a  created
forested wetland  have  provided  data which
established trends of survival  and growth for
certain  tree species   after  four  years  of
monitoring (Erwin  1987). Forested wetland
creation projects should be monitored  using this
method for  a minimum  of five  years.  The
established trends will dictate whether further
intensive monitoring is required or if a reduced
periodic evaluation is appropriate to maintain
conditions required for maturation of the system.
   Biomass of vegetation per unit area may be
an important parameter  to  be  measured  in  a
restored wetland  when standing crop  of the
restored wetland is a criteria for  its success.  For
small quadrats and herbaceous  vegetation, the
biomass can be  measured by cutting all above
ground matter,  drying  it  in  an  oven,  and
weighing it. Ideally roots are also excavated, but
they are often ignored and consequently most of
the biomass data represents only  the above
ground plant matter.  Quadrat size and shape are
important.  The significantly limiting factor is
generally man-hours and the  cost to perform the
analysis.

   Productivity  can be determined  from these
measures  as the rate change and biomass per
unit area over the course of a growing season, or
a year or several years during the maturation of
a restored or created wetland.  This process is
described below.
PRODUCTIVITY

   Productivity may be a criteria for evaluating
the success  of  wetland  to  be  created  or
restored.

   The most accurate  means of measuring
primary productivity  is  to  measure the  net
photosynthetic rates of photosynthetic tissues, and
extrapolate to the community level, using the net
production per gram of biomass of each species
in a community.  Obviously, this assessment of
net primary productivity is not possible under the
circumstances  associated  with  the  typical
wetland creation  or restoration project. Conse-
quently, the most practical measurement of net
primary  productivity (NPP)  in frequently
conducted by calculating the change in biomass
through time where NPP = (Wt + 1 - Wt) + D + H
where  Wt + l - W t is the  difference in standing
crop biomass between two harvest times, D is the
biomass  lost to  decomposition and  H is  the
biomass  consumed by herbivores during  the
period between harvests.

   Above ground  biomass may be measured with
little error in herbaceous vegetation by replicate
samples harvested randomly from  a grid.   This
technique is  most   effective with  annual
vegetation, where little biomass is  lost to
decomposition during the growing season. If
herbivore activity is  significant,  comparisons
between replicate  samples taken inside  and
outside herbivore enclosures are often employed
(Barbour et al. 1987).
                                            23

-------
Table 1.   Summary of planted tree survival, change in height and crown size during 1987 growing
          season.
                                       SURVIVAL


                SPRING                 SUMMER                   FALL
          Number/Acre   %
Live            757    71
Dead            315    29
Number/Acre   %
     696      65
     382      35
Number/Acre %


  679       63


   406      37

SPRING
Height
123

SPRING
Height
38
GROWTH (HEIGHT cm)
PALL
Height Change in Crown
151 +28
CROWN (DIAMETER «n)
PALL
Height Change, in Crown
46 +8
                                            24

-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING

    One of the least known facets of freshwater
wetland   systems  is   the  role  of   the
macroinvertebrate  fauna. These  communities
are very  important,  forming an  intermediate
level  in the  wetland's food chain, providing  a
primary food source for higher organisms such
as   fish   and   wading  birds.   Certain
macroinvertebrate  species  are   excellent
indicators of water quality.

    Comparisons from one marsh to the next,
even  when  they may closely resemble  one
another  with   regard   to  hydrology  and
physiognomy,  may  yield  different  species
composition and diversity. Species composition,
richness, and  diversity  will  depend  on  the
season in which the monitoring was conducted,
the macrophyte  community from  which  the
samples were taken and the method of collection.

    The lack  of baseline  data  for wetland
habitats makes it impossible to detail the exact
degree  of macroinvertebrate utilization in  a
wetland creation project.   However, monitoring
should be required to determine whether, in fact,
a project is being utilized by at least some of the
desired species. The Macroinvertebrate monitor-
ing program should be  designed to complement
the  wetland  community and  water  quality
monitoring of the  project.  The objective is to
develop a predictive model of success for the long
term   trends   in  biological   community
development in a created wetland. In riparian
systems where flowing water is present, the use
of Hester-Dendy  multi-plate artificial substrate
samplers  seasonally, in combination with some
of  the  methods  described below,  may  be
appropriate. A number  of monitoring  plans
included  in  recently  issued  permits  have
required the use of Hester-Dendy plate samplers
in freshwater marsh systems where no flowing
water is present.  The author's research indicates
that the use of Hester-Dendy plate samplers in
static water situations provides unrepresentative
data when compared with  other methods.  Thus,
they should not be used in these situations.

    Substrate  coring and  leaf  and/or  stem
scraping are usually satisfactory methods for
obtaining quantitative data as  long  as  the
substrate  areas are measured and computed for
each sample. This  method has not been widely
used in many wetland systems, probably due to
the great expense in time  and labor.   It is often
common to  find  stem  samples harboring  few
organisms. The author  has used the method on
many reference and created wetlands and  has
observed  that, proper  qualitative  sampling,
usually  consisting  of dipnet  samples,   can
provide  a more accurate characterization of the
wetland.  Sample  size  should be as  large  as
possible with collections made within each niche
of each macrophyte community.

    Seasonal data  collection  for  at  least  one
annual cycle is recommended for the natural
wetland to be altered.  Monitoring of the created
wetland should be continued until the vegetation-
related goals are met.  Freshwater marsh and
some  salt  water  marsh  creation  projects
generally will require  less intensive monitoring
over a shorter period of time (two to five years)
than forested wetland projects.
WILDLIFE UTILIZATION

    The most  widely used generally successful
method of evaluating wildlife utilization of a
natural or created site is reliable observation.
The observations are made  during  the  correct
season, time  of  day,  and over  a satisfactory
number  of events  for  the  type  of  wildlife
anticipated by qualified personnel.  Once again,
where more specific goals have been established
with  regard to particular species  utilization,
more intense monitoring  may be required which
may involve quantitative surveys  to determine,
for example, the number  of nests per acre or
breeding pairs per season.  Wildlife utilization
of a wetland creation project is  almost  always
one of the specified or inferred goals, but actual
monitoring or observation  of wildlife utilization
is  often  lacking in  the  permit  conditions.
Special  consideration  should  be  given  to
endangered,  threatened, or listed  species (of
special concern).  The reference wetland should
always be evaluated with  respect to current or
possible future utilization by and  suitability for
listed species.  Habitat characteristics that are
necessary for use by  listed species  should be
thoroughly  documented.  In  addition,   the
wetland's proximity to other wetlands or  specific
types of upland habitat may dictate its degree of
utilization by particular  wildlife species.  Thus,
it is important to describe the location and type of
connecting corridors.

    There are cases when the proposed biological
structure of a created wetland focuses on preserv-
ing those species threatened  with extinction.
Managing a created habitat to favor these en-
dangered  species will inevitably hamper  the
growth of some more  abundant  species.  This
approach is appropriate if the criterion is to  pre-
serve a full  diversity of species  regardless of
relative abundance.   However, management is
often intensive.
RARITY

   An  often  overlooked   aspect  of  wetland
                                             25

-------
evaluation is the rarity or uniqueness of one or
more components of the habitats within a region.
While fish, wildlife, and vegetation are usually
evaluated,  other aspects are  often overlooked.
Items of importance include the rarity of the
specific habitat in that particular  stage  of
succession; geomorphology;  water quality; and
other characteristics such as  stream flow and
cultural  criteria  such as   archaeological,
scientific,  and public/recreation significance.
SOCIAL ECONOMIC VALUES

    Sather  and  Smith  (1984)  state  that
nonconsumptive values up to this time have been
given secondary status to other wetland values
for which scientific criteria can be developed or
direct economic gain can be realized (Sather and
Smith 1984, Gosselink et al. 1974,  and Niering
1985).  This is partly related to the fact that
aesthetic or cultural values are more difficult to
measure since they involve a more  personal
approach as well  as value judgments (Niering
1985). There is a need to further develop a method
for  assessing  nonconsumptive  values  of
wetlands (Niering and Palmisano 1979).
ECOLOGICAL WATERSHED CONTEXT

   The author believes that wherever possible,
wetland evaluation should be broadened to assess
original or restored/created wetlands in  their
broader  ecological  and  hydrologic  context,
including  regional  wetland  functions.   Any
comprehensive wetland evaluation effort should
be preceded  by the  establishment of certain
criteria or goals which the investigator believes
to be fundamental to the existence, functions, and
contributions  of the  wetland  system to its
surrounding landscape and vice versa.  Failure
to address the  wetland system's surrounding
landscape leads to inaccurate characterization of
the wetland.  Additional work  is  needed  to
develop definitive techniques and  models for
better assessing  the  importance  of individual
wetlands in a broader watershed context for flood
control, flood conveyance, pollution control, food
chain  support,  habitat,  and other purposes.
However, approximations  can be made   with
existing approaches.  Inter-relationships between
wetlands, transitional  areas,  and  immediate
uplands  need to be studied to determine the
importance, not only of adjacent lands, but  of the
functioning of wetlands in adjacent  areas  as
total systems.
                           QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
    As   discussed  above,  quantitative  and
detailed  evaluations are rarely  possible for all
wetland functions and all aspects of a wetland at
any stage in  a wetland restoration/creation
project due to cost or time limitations.  In some
instances, they are simply  not  needed, as, for
example, with proven designs or in the later
stages of a restoration/creation project where the
goal is to determine compliance rather than  to
design a system.

    The   author's  experience  with  wetland
reclamation  in Florida suggests  that  successful
freshwater  marsh  creation  (see  Erwin  this
volume), and mangrove and saltmarsh creation,
can take place with more generalized qualitative
evaluations.  Proper  planning,  design,  and
management can  result in  the  creation  of a
functioning  freshwater marsh within three full
growing  seasons (Erwin  1986).  In this case,
qualitative baseline monitoring of the reference
wetland and post-construction monitoring of the
created wetland for a minimum of three or four
years is usually adequate.

   The topics needing attention in a quantitative
evaluation  remain  much  the  same  in  a
qualitative evaluation, but the approaches differ.

   The author offers several suggestions  with
regard to  specific  aspects of qualitative
approaches in the following sections.
                               VEGETATION MAPPING
    Vegetation mapping of wetlands can provide
both  physiognomic  and  floristic information,
and may be useful in several different ways.  If
the wetland area to be evaluated is too large to
evaluate by the methods previously described due
to short  time allotted for analysis and/or  a
restricted budget, vegetation  mapping  on an
aerial  photograph  verified by groundtruthing
may be the answer.  The investigator should try
to distinguish as many different communities or
vegetation types as  possible and outline  the
boundaries of each  on the aerial  photograph.
Species richness and assorted observations on
topography, water depth, and wildlife utilization
should  be recorded for each vegetative type.
Acreages  for each type can  then be  computed
                                              26

-------
from the vegetation map.

    Vegetation mapping  may  also be used in a
final, but long term phase, following short term
intensive  data collection using the previously
described methods. A vegetation map could be
prepared  on a currently studied wetland  and
correlated with data for each mapped vegetation
type (Figure 1).  The author  has satisfactorily
used this method for evaluating large landscapes
with  wetlands. Vegetation mapping on high
quality aerial  photographs (black  and white,
color, and infrared sensitive film) taken on an
annual cycle can  confirm the continuity of
trends or changes in habitat types and vegetative
cover.  Figure 2 is a vegetation map of a portion
of a wetland reclamation study site where the
quantitative data collected will be correlated with
the detailed mapping (Erwin 1987 and Erwin this
volume). While  this method does not produce the
detailed  data previously  produced  by  belt
transects, it will provide  a relatively inexpensive
and reliable confirmation and  description of the
habitat. Maps should be regularly groundtruthed
to confirm the reliability of the habitat types  and
boundary   definitions.   Recently  developed
computer aided drawing  (CAD) allows for great
flexibility in generating  scaled vegetative maps
and habitat acreage figures.

    In addition to generalized vegetation maps,
a  more specific qualitative baseline vegetation
survey should be performed in most cases.
Transects should be established through wetlands
to be preserved,  impacted, and  created so  that
each major  vegetation zone, including adjacent
upland habitat, will be represented.  Each major
vegetation  zone  should   be   identified  and  a
sampling station (3.0 meter x 3.0 meter quadrat)
located within each zone.  All plant species should
be recorded. Relative abundance and percent
cover  of  species  should  be  noted. The same
transects  and stations should be used  for all
future post-construction monitoring.

   An example of the results obtained using this
method is shown in Table 2, which represents
baseline vegetation monitoring data collected in
four  quadrats  from  one of  several transects
(Transect  D, shown in Figure 3) established in
selected preserved and constructed wetlands of a
proposed  surface water  management system.
Each major vegetation zone is represented.

   Transect D  (Figure 3)  was  aligned  to
intersect each major vegetation zone in which a
3.0 meter x 3.0  meter quadrat (sampling station)
was established. All plant species were recorded.
Percent cover was estimated for each species.
The results are presented in Figure 4.  Figure 4
also illustrates the basic structural differences in
major species composition and cover between the
three macrophyte zones of this  marsh and the
adjacent uplands. In  some of the quadrats the
vegetated areas were  structurally complex and
the  stratified vegetation layers yielded cover
values greater  than 100% (Table 2).  The same
transects and quadrats will be used for all future
monitoring.

   In some cases where multiple wetlands are
present (i.e., Cladium. Pontederia, and Spartina
marshes), it may be possible to group wetlands of
similar physiognomy and monitor  a subset of
each  group  using this method as a  minimum
requirement. This will still provide the required
data  as long  as  the investigator  selects  a
representative wetland from each group and all
vegetation zones  are  monitored. If  there are
adjacent upland habitats that are recognized as
an important component of the wetland system,
the transects and quadrats should extend into the
adjacent upland habitat.
                       POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
    Project evaluation is essential both during
and after construction to determine compliance
with  project goals  and permit mid-course
corrections. Certain aspects of such evaluation
may need to be quantitative (depending upon the
project goals and measures of success), but much
of it can be qualitative.  Based upon the author's
experience,  the following are suggested as key
components of a monitoring plan for post project
evaluation.
MAINTENANCE PLAN

    The methods to be used for maintaining the
wetland after construction should be submitted
with  the  original  baseline  survey. The  plan
should address removal of nuisance species, i.e.,
Melaleuca. Brazilian pepper, purple loosestrife,
and cattails, and assure an 80% survival rate for
planted or recruited species. An evaluation of the
success of the maintenance  effort should be
discussed in annual reports.
ANNUAL REPORTS

   Post-construction  monitoring  should  be
conducted annually for five  years (minimum
three years) at the end of the wet season (October-
                                            27

-------
                   AGRICQ SVAMP WEST-MARSH  COMMUNITY (September 1986-1987)*
          HYDRDCOTYLE
 MIXED BRDAD-LEAF MARSH SSP.

 MIXED BREAD-LEAF MARSH/
   TYPHA

I PANICUM/JUNCUS/SPARTINA
  A UU-llll PDNTEDERIA

4 B (VT^I PONTEDERIA
    nriifi   /Panlcuh  hemrtomon/NaJas
  C §SSS PDNTEDERIA/TYPHA/GAGITARIA
SALIX/BACCHARIS/LUDVIGIA


SCIRPUS

SCIRPUS/TYPHA
                                                                                t	j TRANSITIONAL-UPLAND
                                                                             *  t	H GRASSES

                                                                             DW ESSSj! CPEN WATER
                                          A |*«!*!*| TYPHA
                                 B
TYPHA/HYDRDCDTYLE
      or HYDRILLA

SAGITTARIA/KYDRCCDTYLE
                                                                                        N
       Prellrilnary napping based on September 1986 non-rectified CIR aertal photo with ground verification
       in 1989 by Kevin L. Erwln, Consulting Ecologlst, Inc.
   Figure 1.  Vegetation map of plant communities, acreages, and percent cover on a 106.94 acre parcel in
             southwest Florida produced by Computer Aided Drawing (CAD).
                                                    28

-------
ACRICO SWAMP WKST-IUHSH COKUDMTr (September 19M-1M7)*
         HTOtOCOTTLI
                                       uin/unnnau POL
                                         /Vyrio,
        runiuniu/yAiaam Hnanucan 
-------
Table 2.  Baseline vegetation data (%-Cover,  Ht.-Water Depth) from four 3 m x 3 m quadrats along a
           wetland/upland transect (Transect  D)  in a  surface water management system. M: Species
           present within Macrophyte community,  but outside of sample quadrat.
          SPECIES
QUAD D1
%    Ht (cm)
QUAD D2
%    Ht (cm)
QUAD D3
%     Ht (cm)
                                                                                        QUAD D4
                                                                                        %    Ht (cm)
          Background

          Water depth

          Beak rush
            Rhvnchospora spp.

          Broom sedge
            Andropogon spp.

          Cyperus sedge
            Cyperus spp.

          Floating orchid
            Habenaria repens

          Floating heart
            Nvmphoides cordata

          Gallberry
            Ilex qlabra

          Green algae

          Joint grass
            Manisuris spp.

          Ludwigia
            Ludwigia repens

          Marsh aster
            Aster spp.

          Maiden cane
            Panicum hemitomon

          Marsh fleabane
            Pluchea rosea
                                  15
      dry
10    122-183
                      moist
                  70   30-60
                                                                     65
                                         7-8
                                    1    30-60
                                                     <1    30
                                    30     30-60
                                                     1    30
                                                         25
          Pickerel weed
            Pontederia lanceolate

          Plume grass
            Erianthus spp.

          Red root
            Lachnathes caroliniana

          Rusty lyonia
            Lvonia ferruoinea

          San Palmetto
            Serenoa repens

          St. Johns wort
            Hypericum spp. A

          St. Peter's wort
            Hypericum stans

          Sundew
            Drosera spp.

          Hire grass
            Arlstida stricta

          Yellow eyed grass
            Xyris app.
80
      30
      90-120
      15-30
                   25   60-90
                                          0.25
                                                      90    30-75
                                                      15    60-90
                   1    30-90
                                                        30

-------
                      PROPOSED DIKE
                      BOUNDARY-
                                             LEGEND


                                       •    PHOTO STATION


                                       X    STAFF  GAUGE

                                       1    QUADRAT NUMBER

                                       A-E  TRANSECTS

                                       (   )  ACREAGE
                 641 FLOW WAY
                (2.59)
                                                                              641
                                                                             (4.22)
           COVERTYPE
             SUMMARY
  COVER
  TYPE
 AREA
(ACRES)
   411 Pine Flatwoods     125.44
   641 Fresh Water Marsh 118.08
  *** Total ***
243.52
**p.
*— cs
cs
,

1-16-89
r=660*
Wttl
«*• BMttfM IMaW
«- +-T-M
•f
"JMH "~
mmcTto rftwm
"•
Reservoir South
Wetland Monitoring Plan
Kevin L. Erwin
Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
8077 Bajride Parlmy
Fort HJOT. FL 33601
(813)337-1600
Figure 3.  Locations of transects, quadrats, water level recording stations, and photo location stations
         in preserved and created marshes within a surface water management-reservoir system.
                                         31

-------
                                                  n  c\J
 c
 0)
I—I
Q_
c
QJ
£

0>

Jj'u
te QJ
    .
  C/J
QJ
•t-'

0)
QJ
U
m
  o
                                              ID  TD  T)  TD
                                               0)  TJ  OJ  fD
                                               U  D  D  D
                                              C3  C5  a  a
                                                     Dl
           en
           UJ
           i—i
           u
           UJ
           Q_
           LO
               TD
                C
                D
                O
                L.
                cn
                Q)
CT
_J
LD

UJ
D_
Q_
CO
     CE
UJ   CE
CE   0
Q_   Q_
CK
CE
CJ

CJ
CE
              Q_
              UJ
                   UJ
                   LO
                                       O
                                       O
                                                           in
                                                           (V.
                                                           a
                                                           in
                                                            in
                                                            c\j
                                                            a
Q_
Q_
LO

D_
>
X
                       LO
                                 CE
                                                                  .
                                                                 LLl
                                                                 >
                                                                 a
                                                                 u
                                            LJ
                                            u
                                            (z
                                            UJ
                                            Q_
                                                                         11
                                                                         If
                                                                         o «
                                                                        '3 S
                                                                        
-------
  November).  Reports should be submitted within
  90  days  following sampling,  and  should
  document  any  vegetation changes  including
  percent  survival and  cover  of planted and/or
  recruited species (trees and herbs). Issues related
  to water levels,  water quality,  sedimentation,
  etc., should be addressed and recommendations
  or changes for improving the degree  of success
  discussed.
  FIXED POINT PANORAMIC
  PHOTOGRAPHS

      Establish locations for fixed point photos in
  each wetland area to be monitored by providing a
  range pole in each section of photo panorama for
  scaling purposes.  Photos should provide physical
  documentation  of the condition of the  wetland
  and  any changes taking  place within it. They
  should accompany the baseline vegetation survey
  and each annual report.  Photo points and range
  pole locations are to remain the same throughout
  the duration of the monitoring program.
  wetland  area  to  be  monitored.  Staff gauges
  should be located in the deepest portion of the
  wetland  and set to National Geodetic Vertical
  Datum (NGVD) elevation. Water levels should
  be  recorded  monthly  and  summarized with
  annual reports.
  PLAN VIEW

     A plan view  showing locations of transects
  through wetland areas  with rain gauge, staff
  gauge(s), and photo points should be provided
  with the baseline vegetation survey.
  OBSERVED WILDLIFE UTILIZATION

     Qualitative   observations  of   wildlife
  utilization of the created/restored wetland should
  be  recorded  during all visits and  annual
  surveys. If wildlife utilization is a major success
  criteria, extensive observations should be taken
  at least monthly.
  RAIN GAUGE

      A  rain gauge in a conveniently located area
  of the project site should, in general, be provided.
  It is  unnecessary  for  some projects. Rainfall
  should be recorded  daily. A summary of rainfall
  should accompany annual reports.
  STAFF GAUGE

      Staff  gauges  should  be  provided in each
 FISH AND MACROINVERTEBRATES

     Qualitative  macroinvertebrate  and  fish
 should in many instances, be collected within
 each  macrophyte  zone  containing  standing
 water.  Samples should be collected utilizing a D-
 frame dip net for a period of at least 20 minutes
 per station.  All samples should be field sorted,
 preserved in 70% ethanol,  and identified to the
 lowest possible  taxon. A checklist  of species
 collected should be compiled for submittal with
 annual reports.
                                CONCLUDING REMARKS
       Wetland  evaluation  approaches including
  post project monitoring  must, of  course, be
  tailored to the specifics of the site and project
  goals.  This requires expertise and creativity on
  the parts of the project designers and reviewers.
  Without  such  expertise  and creativity, huge
  amounts  of money may be  spent  on gathering
 useless data while no attempt is made to gather
 essential data.  Qualified wetland scientists with
 knowledge  of  wetland   ecology,  hydrology,
 wildlife,  and  an  appreciation  of  practical
 considerations in restoration or creation must be
 involved  in  the  design  and  execution  of
 evaluation efforts.
                                     LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, P.R.  1983.  A Method for Wetland Functional
   Assessment. Volume II. The Method. U.S. Department
   of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
   Office of Research, Environmental Division.  Wash-
   ington, D.C. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).
Adamus, P.R. and Stockwell, L.R. 1983. A Method for
   Wetland  Functional  Assessment.  Volume  1.
   Critical Review and Evaluation of Concepts.  U.S.
   Department of Transportation. Federal Highway
   Administration.  Office Research,  Environmental
   Division. Washington, D.C. (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).
                                               33

-------
Harbour,  M.G., J.H.  Burk, and W.D. Pitts.   1987.
   Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings
   Publishing Company,  Inc., Menlo Park,  California.

Bauer, H.L. 1943.  The statistical analysis  of chaparral
   and other  plant communities by means of transect
   samples. Ecology 24:45-60.

Best, G.R. and K.L. Erwin.  1984. Effects of hydroperiod
   on  survival and  growth  of tree  seedlings  in  a
   phosphate  surface-mined reclaimed wetland, p. 221-
   225.   In National Symposium  on Surface  Mining,
   Hydrology,  Sedimentology,  and  Reclamation,
   University  of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Clairain, E.J., Jr.  1985.  National  wetlands functions
   and values study plan, p. 994-1009.  In Proceedings of
   the  50th  North  American  Wildlife and Natural
   Resources  Conference.   The  Wildlife Management
   Institute, Washington, D.C.

Erwin, K.L.   1986.   Agrico Fort  Green  Reclamation
   Project, Fourth  Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.   1987.   Agrico Fort  Green  Reclamation
   Project, Fifth  Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Euler,  D.L., F.T.  Carreiro,  G.B. McCullough, EA Snell,
   V. Glooschenko, and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An Evaluation
   System  for  Wetlands  of  Ontario South  of the
   Precambrian Shield, First Edition. Ontario Ministry
   of  Natural  Resources  and  Canadian  Wildlife
   Service, Ontario Region.

Golet,  F.C.   1973.   Classification  and evaluation of
   freshwater wetlands as wildlife  habitat  in the
   glaciated Northeast, p. 257-279. In Transactions of the
   Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol. 30.

Gosselink, J.G.  1984. The Ecology of Delta Marshes of
   Coastal Louisiana: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
   and Wildlife Service, Biological Services FWS/OBS-
   84/09, Washington, D.C.

Gosselink, J.G., E.P. Odum, and R.M. Pope. 1974.  The
   Value of the Tidal Marsh.  Center for Wetlands
   Resources  Pub.  LSU-SG-74-03.  Louisiana State
   University, Baton  Rouge.

Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.).  1979.
   Wetland Functions and Values:   The State of Our
   Understanding.  Proceedings  of the National
   Symposium on Wetlands, Lake Buena Vista, Florida,
   American Water Resources Association  Tech. Publ.
   TPS 79-2, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Heimberg,  K.  1984.  Hydrology of north-central Florida
   cypress domes, p. 72-82.  In K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum
   (Eds.), Cypress  Swamps.  University  Presses of
   Florida, Gainesville.

Hollands,  G.G.   1985.  Assessing  the relationship of
   groundwater and wetlands, p. 55-57.  In J.A. Kusler
   and  P. Riexinger  (Eds.),  Proceedings:  National
   Wetlands  Assessment  Symposium.  Association of
   State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

Kusler, J.A. and P. Riexinger (Eds.).  1985.   Proceedings
    of  the National Wetland Assessment Symposium.
   Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New
   York.

Larson, J.S. 1982. Understanding the ecological values of
   wetlands, p.  108-118.  In Research  on Fish  and
   Wildlife   Habitat.   EPA-600/8-82-002.  U.S.
   Environmental  Protection Agency,   Washington,
   D.C.

Lindsey,  A.A.  1955.  Testing the line  strip method
   against full  tallies in diverse forest types.  Ecology
   36:485495.

Lonard, R.I., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R. T. Huffman, J.W.
   Hardy, L.D.  Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W. Watts.
   1981.  Analysis  of  Methodologies  Used  for  the
   Assessment   of  Wetlands Values.   U.S.   Water
   Resources Council, Washington, D.C.

Lonard, R.I., E.J. Clairain,  Jr.,  R.T. Huffman, J.W.
   Hardy, L.D.  Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W. Watts.
   1984.  Wetlands  Function and Values Study Plan,
   Appendix A: Analysis  of  Methodologies  for
   Assessing Wetlands Values. Technical Report Y-83-
   2, U.S.  Army Engineer  Waterways Experiment
   Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Marble, A.D. and M.  Gross.  1984.   A method  for
   assessing wetland  characteristics   and  values,
   Landscape Planning II 1-17.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.  Van
   Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York.

Motts,  W.  and A.  O'Brien.  1980.  Hydrogeologic
   evaluation of wetland basins for land use planning.
   Water Resources  Bulletin 16(5):

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

Niering, W.A. and A.W. Palmisano.  1979.  Use values:
   harvest and  heritage, p 100-113.  In J.R. Clark and
   J.E. Clark (Eds.), Scientists Report,  The National
   Symposium on Wetlands.  National Wetlands Tech.
   Council, Washington, D.C.

Novitzki, R.P.  1978. Hydrology of the Nevin Wetland
   near Madison, Wisconsin.  U.S. Geol. Sur. Water
   Resources Investigation.  No. 78-48.

Novitzki,  R.P.    1979.   Hydrologic characteristics of
   Wisconsin's wetlands and their  influence on floods,
   stream flow, and sediment, p. 377-388.  In  P.E.
   Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland
   Functions   and  Values: The   State  of  Our
   Understanding.  American  Water  Resources
   Association,  Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ogawa, H. and  J.W.  Male.  1983.  The Flood Mitigation
   Potential of Inland Wetlands. Water Resources
   Research Center Publication No. 138, University of
   Massachusetts, Amherst.

Peters,  D.S., D.W. Ahrenholz, and T.R. Rice.   1979.
   Harvest and value of wetland  associated  fish and
   shellfish, p.  606-617.  In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark,
   and J.E.  Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions  and
   Values:  The State of Our Understanding. American
   Water  Resources  Association,   Minneapolis,
   Minnesota.
                                                    34

-------
Reppert, R.T., G. Sigleo, E. Stakniv, L. Messman, and C.
    Myer.   1979.   Wetlands  Values: Concepts and
    Methods for Wetlands Evaluation.  IWR Research
    Report  79-R-l,  U.S.  Army Engineer  Institute for
    Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith.  1984.  An Overview of
    Major Wetland  Functions and Values.  NWS/OBS-
    84/18.  U.S. Department of the  Interior, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley.
    1980. A Habitat Evaluation System (HES) for Water
    Resources Planning.  U.S. Army  Engineer Division,
    Lower Mississippi Valley, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service.  1980.  Habitat Evaluation
    Procedures (HEP)  manual.  102  ESM, Washington,
    D.C.

Verry, E.S. and D.H. Boelter.   1979. Peatland hydrology,
    p. 389-402.  In P.E.  Greeson, J.R. Clark.and J.E.
    Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions and  Values:  The
    State of Our  Understanding.  American  Water
    Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Weller, M.W. 1981, Freshwater Marshes. University of
   Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Winchester, B.H. and L.D. Harris.  1979. An approach to
   valuation of  Florida  freshwater  wetlands.  In
   Proceedings  of the  Sixth Annual Conference  on
   Wetlands Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough
   Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Winchester,  B.H.  1981 a.  Assessing ecological value of
   central Florida wetlands:  a case study, p. 25-38.  In
   D.  Cole  (Ed.), Proceedings of  the Eighth Annual
   Conference on Wetlands Restoration and  Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College,  Tampa,  Florida.

Winchester,  B.H.  1981b.   Valuation of coastal plain
   wetlands in the southeastern United States, p. 285-298.
   In Symposium on Progress in Wetlands Utilization
   and Management, Orlando, Florida.

Woodin, H.E. and A.A. Lindsey.  1954.  Juniper-Pinyon
   east of the continental divide as  analyzed by the line
   strip method. Ecology 35:474-489.
                                                     35

-------
                      APPENDIX I: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
                                 ON WETLAND EVALUATION
Abele, L.G. 1974. Species diversity of decapod crustaceans
   in marine habitats.  Ecology 55:156-161.

Adamus, P.R. 1983.  A Method for Wetland Functional
   Assessment. Volume II. The Method. U.S. Department
   of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
   Office  of  Research,   Environmental  Division.
   Washington, D.C.  (No. FHWA-EP-82-24).

Adamus, P.R. and Stockwell, L. R.  1983.  A Method for
   Wetland Functional Assessment. Volume 1. Critical
   Review and Evaluation of Concepts. U.S. Department
   of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration.
   Office Research, Environmental  Division.  Wash-
   ington, D.C. (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).

American Public Health  Association.   1971.  Standard
   Methods  for  the Examination  of  Water  and
   Wastewater.  13th ed.   Amer. Public Health Assn.,
   New York.

Anderson, B.W., R.D. Ohmart, and J.D. Disano.  1978.
   Revegetating the riparian floodplain for wildlife, p.
   318-331.  In R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (Tech.
   Coord.), Strategies for Protection and Management of
   Floodplain  Wetlands  and   Other  Riparian
   Ecosystems.  General Technical Report  WO-12, U.S.
   Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Bailey, N.T.J.  1951.  On estimating  the size  of mobile
   populations from recapture data.  Biometrika 38:293-
   306.

Bailey, R.G. 1976.  Ecoregions of the United States.  U.S.
   Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Bailey, R.G.  1978.  Description of the Ecoregions of the
   United States. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Bakelaar, R.G. and E.P. Odum.  1978. Community and
   population level responses to fertilization in an old-
   field ecosystem. Ecology 59:660-665.

Ball, M.E. 1974.  Floristic changes on grasslands and
   heaths  on the Isle of  Rhum after a  reduction or
   exclusion of grazing. J.  Environ. Manage. 2299-318.

Barbour,  M.G.,  J.H.  Burk, and W.D.  Pitts.   1987.
   Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings
   Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park,  California.

Bauer, H.L.  1943.  The statistical analysis  of chaparral
   and  other plant communities by means of transect
   samples. Ecology 24:45-60.
Beauvis, T.W.  1984.
   land exchanges.
Evaluating wetlands in federal
     i4:19-28.
Bell, III, H.E. 1981.  Illinois Wetlands: Their Value in
   Management.  Illinois Institute of Natural Resources
   Report 81/33, Chicago, Illinois.

Beschel, R.E. and P.J. Webber. 1962.  Gradient analysis
   in swamp forests.  Nature 194:207-209.

Best, G.R. and K.L. Erwin. 1984.  Effects of hydroperiod
    on survival and  growth  of tree  seedlings  in a
    phosphate surface-mined reclaimed wetland, p. 221-
    225.   In  National  Symposium on Surface Mining,
    Hydrology,  Sedimentology,  and  Reclamation.
    University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Bormann, F.H.  and G.E. Likens.  1979.  Pattern  and
    Process in a Forested Ecosystem.  Springer-Verlag,
    New York.

Botkin, D.B., et al. 1982.   Ecological characteristics of
    ecosystems.  In W.R.  Siegfried  and  B.R. Davies
    (Eds.), Conservation of Ecosystems:  Theory  and
    Practice.  South African  Natl. Sci. Prog.  Rep.
    61 .CSIR, Pretoria.

Bowman,  K.O.,  K. Hutcheson,  E.P. Odum,  and L.R.
    Shenton.  1969. Comments  on the  distribution of
    indices of diversity, p. 315-359.  In G.P. Patil, E.G.
    Pielou, and  W.E. Waters (Eds.), Statistical Ecology.
    Vol. 3. Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, University
    Park,  Pennsylvania.

Boyd, C.E.   1972.  A  bibliography of interest in the
    utilization of vascular  aquatic plants.  Economic
    Botany 26:74-84.

Boyd, M.  1982.  Salt marsh faunas:  colonization  and
    monitoring,  p. 75-82.  In M. Josselyn (Ed.), Wetland
    Restoration  and Enhancement ia California. Report
    T-CSGCP-007,  California  Sea   Grant  College
    Program,  University  of  California,   LaJolla,
    California.

Bradshaw, A.D.  and  M.J. Chadwick.   1980.   The
    Restoration  of Land:  The Ecology and Reclamation
    of Derelict  and Degraded Land.  Univ.  California
    Press, Berkeley, California.

Bray, J.R. and J. T. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the
    upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin.
    Ecol. Monogr. 27:325-349.

Briand, F. 1983.  Environmental control of food  web
    structure. Ecology 64:253-263.

Brown, M.T. and H.T. Odum. 1985. Studies of a Method
    of Wetland  Reconstruction  Following Phosphate
    Mining. Final Report. Florida Institute of Phosphate
    Research,  Publication #03-022-032.

Buikema,  Jr., A.L. and J.  Cairns, Jr. (Eds.).  1980.
    Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays.  STP 715. Amer.  Soc.
    Testing and Materials,  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Butler, G.C.  1976. Principles of Ecotoxicology. SCOPE
    12. Wiley, New York.

Butler, G.C.  1978. Principles of Ecotoxicology. SCOPE
    12. Wiley, New York.

Cain, S.A. and G. M. de Oliveira  Castro.  1959. Manual
    of Vegetation Analysis.  Harper, New York.

Cairns, Jr., J. 1982. Artificial Substrates.  Ann Arbor
    Sci., Ann  Arbor, Michigan.
                                                    37

-------
Cairns, J., Jr. and Dickson, K.L., eds. 1973.  Biological
   Methods  for the Assessment of Water Quality.  STP
   528.  Amer. Soc. Testing and Material, Philadelphia,
   Pennsylvania.

Cairns,  Jr.,  J. and K.L.  Dickson.  1978.  Field and
   laboratory protocols for evaluating the  effects  of
   chemical substances on aquatic life.   J. Test Eval.
   6:81-90.

Cairns, Jr., J. and K.L. Dickson. 1980. Risk analysis for
   aquatic ecosystems, p. 73-83. In Biological Evaluation
   of Environmental Impacts. Rep. FWS/OBS-80/26. U.S.
   Dept.  Interior, Fish  and Wildlife  Service,  and
   Council Environ.  Quality, Washington, D.C.

Cairns, Jr.,  J., K.L. Dickson, and E.E. Herricks (Eds.).
   1977.  Recovery  and  Restoration  of  Damaged
   Ecosystems.  Univ. Virginia Press,  Charlottesville,
   Virginia.

Cairns,  Jr., J. and  W.H. van der Schalie.   1980.
   Biological  monitoring, Part  I.  Early  warning
   systems.  Water Res. 14:1179-1196.

Cairns, Jr., J., K.L. Dickson, and G. F. Westlake (Eds.).
   1977.  Biological Monitoring  of  Water  and Effluent
   Quality.  STP 607. Amer. Soc. Testing and Materials,
   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Cairns, Jr., J., J.R. Stauffer, Jr., and C.H. Hocutt. 1978.
   Opportunities for maintenance and rehabilitation of
   riparian  habitats:  eastern United States, p. 304-317.
   In R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (Tech. Coord.),
   Strategies  for  Protection  and  Management  of
   Floodplain  Wetlands   and  Other   Riparian
   Ecosystems. General Technical  Report WO-12, U.S.
   Dept. of Agric.,  Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Calkins, H.W., and R. F. Tomlinson. 1977.  Geographic
   Information Systems:  Methods and Equipment for
   Land Use Planning.  U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
   Virginia.

Canter, L.W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment.
   McGraw  Hill, New York.

Canter,  L.W.  1979.  Water  Resources  Assessment
   Methodology and Technology Source Book. Ann Arbor
   Sci., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Carpenter, S.R. and J. E. Chancy. 1983.  Scale of spatial
   pattern:  four methods compared. Vegetatio 53:163-160.

Chabreck, R.H.  1979.  Wildlife harvest and wetlands of
   the United States, p. 618-631. In P.E.  Greeson, J.R.
   Clark, and J.E. Clark  (Eds.), Wetland  Function and
   Values: The  State of Our Understanding. American
   Water  Resources   Association,  Minneapolis,
   Minnesota.

Chamberlain, R.  1982. Methods used to  evaluate fish
   utilization  of  a  salt  marsh  restoration   site  in
   Humboldt Bay,  California, p. 97. In M. Josselyn (Ed.),
   Wetland  Restoration  and  Enhancement   in
   California.  Report T-CSGCP-007, California Sea
   Grant College  Program,  University  of California,
   LaJolla,  California.

Christenson, J.W.  1979.   Environmental Assessment
   Using Remotely  Sensed  Data. Gov.  Print.  Off.,
   Washington, D.C.
Christian, C.S. and G. A. Stewart. 1968. Methodology of
   integrated surveys, p. 233-280. In Aerial Surveys and
   Integrated Studies. UNESCO, Paris.

Clairain, Jr., E.J. 1985. National wetlands functions
   and values study plan, p. 994-1009. In Proceedings of
   the  50th North  American Wildlife  and  Natural
   Resources  Conference.  The  Wildlife Management
   Institute, Washington, D.C.

Clairain, Jr., E.J., R.A. Cole, R.J. Diaz, A.W. Ford, R.T.
   Huffman, L.J. Hunt, and B.R. Wells. 1978. Habitat
   Development  Field Investigations, Miller  Sands
   Marsh  and  Upland Habitat Development  Site,
   Columbia River, Oregon. Technical Report  D-77-38,
   Waterways Experiment  Station, U.S. Army Corps of
   Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Clark,  B.D.,  R.  Bisset,  and  P.   Wathern.  1980.
   Environmental Impact Assessment: A Bibliography
   with Abstracts. Mansell, London.

Clark, B.D., K. Chapman, R. Bisset,  and P. Wathern.
   1978. Methods of environmental  impact analysis.
   Built Environ. 4111-121.

Clark, J.E. 1979.  Freshwater wetlands:  habitats  for
   aquatic invertebrates, amphibians,  reptiles,  and fish,
   p. 330-343.  In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E.
   Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions  and Values: The
   State of Our Understanding.  American Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Clifford, H.T. and W. Stephenson. 1975. An Introduction
   to Numerical Classification.   Academic  Press, New
   York.

Cole,  D. (Ed.).  1979. Proceedings of the 6th Annual
   Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Cole,  D. (Ed.).  1980. Proceedings of the 7th Annual
   Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Cole,  D. (Ed.).   1981. Proceedings  of the  8th Annual
   Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Coleman, B.D.,  M.A.  Mares, M.R.  Willig, and Y.H.
   Hsieh.   1982.  Randomness,  area  and  species
   richness. Ecology 63112-1133.

Collins, B.  and  L. Maltby. 1984.  A Statistical Analysis
   of "An  Evaluation System for Wetlands  of Ontario,
   First Edition 1983".   Canadian  Wildlife  Service
   Publication.

Connor, E.F. and E.D.  McCoy. 1979. The statistics and
   biology of the species-area relationship.   Am. Nat.
   113:791-833.

Costanza, R.  1984. Natural resource evaluation and
   management:  Tollward Ecological Economics, p. 7-
   18.  In A.M. Jansen (Ed.), Integration  of Economy
   and Ecology~An  Outlook  for the Eighties. Univ. of
   Stockholm Press,  Stockholm, Sweden.

Costanza,  R.  and S.C. Farber. 1985. Theories and
   methods  evaluation  of   natural   systems:   a
   comparison  of  willingness  to  pay  and energy
   analysis based  approaches.   Man. Environment.
                                                    38

-------
   Space and Time 4:1-38.

Cottam,  G. 1947. A point method for  making  rapid
   surveys of woodlands. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 28:60.

CRC. 1981. Handbook  of  Chemistry and Physics:  A
   Ready-Reference Book  of Chemical  and  Physical
   Data. 62nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Daubenmire, R. 1966. Vegetation:  Identification of typal
   communities.  Science 151:291-298.

Denslow, J.S. 1980.  Patterns of plant  species diversity
   during  succession  under different disturbance
   regimes. Qecologia 46:18-21.

Dillon,  T.M.  and M.P.  Lynch.  1981.  Physiological
   responses as determinants of stress in marine and
   estuarine organisms,  227-241. In G.W.  Barrett and R.
   Rosenberg  (Eds.),  Stress  Effects  on  Natural
   Ecosystems. Wiley, New York.

Dunn, W.J. and G.R. Best. 1983. Enhancing ecological
   succession: 5.  seed  bank survey of some Florida
   marshes  and  the  role of seed banks in  marsh
   reclamation.  In Proceedings,  National Symposium
   on Surface Mining,  Hydrology, Sedimentology and
   Reclamation.  Office  of  Continuing  Education,
   University of Kentucky,  Lexington, Kentucky.

Dunne,   T.  and  L. B.   Leopold. 1978.  Water  in
   Environmental Planning. Freeman, San Francisco,
   California.

Ecologistics Limited. 1981. A Wetland Evaluation System
   for   Southern  Ontario.  Prepared   for   the
   Canada/Ontario  Steering Committee on  Wetland
   Evaluation  and the Canadian Wildlife Service,
   Environment Canada.

Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation  science concepts: I. Initial
   floristic composition, a  factor in old-field vegetation
   development.  Vejretatio4:412-417.

Errington, J.C. 1976. The effect of regular and random
   distributions on the analysis of pattern. J.  Ecol.  61:99-
   105.

Erwin, K.L. 1983. Agrico Fort Green Reclamation Project,
   First Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining  Company,
   Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.   1984.  Agrico Fort  Green Reclamation
   Project,  Second  Annual  Report.  Agrico Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.   1985.  Agrico Fort  Green Reclamation
   Project,  Third Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.   1986.  Agrico Fort  Green Reclamation
   Project, Fourth  Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.   1987.  Agrico Fort  Green Reclamation
   Project,  Fifth  Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry,  Florida.

Erwin,  K.L.  1988.  Agrico  Fort Green Reclamation
   Project,  Sixth  Annual  Report.  Agrico  Mining
   Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L. and F. D. Bartleson.  1985.  Water quality
   within a central Florida  phosphate  surface mined
   reclaimed wetland, p. 84-95.  In F.J. Webb, Jr. (Ed.),
   Proceedings of the 12th Annual  Conference  on
   Wetland Restoration  and Creation.   Hillsborough
   Community College Environmental Studies Center,
   Tampa, Florida.

Erwin, K.L. and G.R. Best.  1985.  Marsh community
   development in a central Florida phosphate surface-
   mined reclaimed wetland.  Wetlands 5:155-166.

Erwin, K.L., G.R. Best, W.J.  Dunn, and P.M. Wallace.
   1984.  Marsh and forested wetland reclamation of a
   central Florida phosphate mine, p. 87-103. Wetlands
   4:87-103.

Euler, D.L., F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, E.A Snell,
   V.  Glooschenko, and  R.H.  Spurr.   1983.   An
   Evaluation System for Wetlands of Ontario South of
   the Precambrian Shield.  First Edition.  Ontario
   Ministry  of Natural  Resources and  Canadian
   Wildlife Service,  Ontario  Region.

Ewel, K.C. 1976. Effects of sewage effluent on ecosystem
   dynamics in cypress  domes, p.  169-195.  In  D.L.
   Tilton, R.H. Kadlec,  and C.J. Richardson (Eds.),
   Freshwater Wetlands and  Sewage Effluent Disposal.
   University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum. 1978.  Cypress swamps for
   nutrient removal and wastewater recycling, p. 181-
   198.  In MP. Wanielista and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr.
   (Eds.), Advances  in  Water  and  Wastewater
   Treatment Biological Nutrient Removal.   Ann Arbor
   Sci. Publ., Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,

Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum.  1979.  Cypress domes:
   nature's tertiary treatment filter, p. 103-114. In W.E.
   Sopper  and  S.N. Kerr (Eds.),  Utilization of
   Municipal  Sewage Effluent  and Sludge on Forest
   and  Disturbed  Land. The Pennsylvania  State
   University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Ewel K.C. and H.T. Odum (Eds.). 1984. Cypress Swamps.
   University Presses of Florida,  Gainesville, Florida.
Fager, E.W. 1972.  Diversity:
   Nat. 106293-310.
a sampling study.  Am.
Fetter, Jr., C.W., W.E. Sloey, and F.L. Spangler.  1978.
   Use of a natural marsh for wastewater polishing. J,
   Water Pollution Control Fed. 50:290-307.

Forman, R.T.T. 1979. The pine barrens of New Jersey:
   an ecological mosaic, p. 569-585.  In R.T.T. Forman
   (Ed.),  Pine Barrens:  Ecosystem and  Landscape.
   Academic Press, New York.

Forman, R.T.T.  1982.   Interactions Among Landscape
   Elements:  A Core Landscape Ecology, p. 35-48.  In
   S.P. Tjallingii and A.A. de Veer (Eds.), Perspectives
   in  Landscape Ecology. PUDOC,  Wageningen,  The
   Netherlands.

Forman, R.T.T. 1983.  Corridors in a landscape:  their
   ecological structure and function. Ekologia (USSR).
                                                   39

-------
Forman, R.T.T., A.E. Galli, and CJ1. Leek.  1976.  Forest
   size and avian diversity in New Jersey wood lots with
   some land use implications.  Oecologia 261-8.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron.
   structural  components  for  i
   BioScience 31:733-740.
       1981.  Patches and
        landscape  ecology.
Fox, J.E.D. 1976. Constraints on the natural regeneration
   of tropical moist forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 1:37-65.

Frankel, O.K., and M.E. Soule. 1981.  Conservation and
   Evolution.  Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Game, M. 1980.  Best shape for nature reserves.  Nature
   287:630-632.

Game,  M. and  G.F. Peterken.  1980. Nature  reserve
   selection  in  central Lincolnshire Woodlands.   In
   M.D. Hooper (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on
   Area and Isolation.  Institute  of Terrestrial  Ecol.,
   Cambridge, U.K.
Gauch,  Jr.,  H.G.  1982.
   Community  Ecology.
   Cambridge.
Multivariate  Analysis  in
Cambridge Univ.  Press,
Gauch, Jr., H.G. and R.H. Whittaker. 1981. Hierarchical
   classification of community data. J. Ecol. 69:135-152.

Gehlbach,  F.R. 1975.  Investigation, evaluation, and
   priority ranking of natural areas.  Biol. Conaerv. 8:79-
   88.

Gillison,  A.N.  and   D.J.  Anderson  (Eds.).  1981.
   Vegetation Classification  in Australia.   Austr. Natl.
   Univ. Press, Canberra.

Glooschenko,  V.  1983. Development of an evaluation
   system wetlands in southern Ontario. Wetlands 3:192-
   200.

Goff, F.G., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow. 1982.  Site
   Examination for Threatened and Endangered Plant
   Species. Environ. Manage. 6:307-316.

Goh, B.S.  1980.  Management and Analysis of Biological
   Population. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Goldstein,  R.A. and D.F. Grigall.  1972.   Computer
   Programs  for  the Ordination  and Classification of
   Ecosystems.  Rep. ORNL-IBP-7140.  Oak Ridge Natl.
   Lab., Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Golet, F.C.   1973.   Classification  and evaluation of
   freshwater wetlands as wildlife  habitat  in  the
   glaciated northeast, p. 257-279.  In Transactions of the
   Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,  Vol. 30.

Goodall, D.W.  1974. A new method for the analysis of
   spatial pattern  by  random  pairing  of quadrats.
   Vegetatio 29:135-146.

Goodall, D.W. 1978.  Sample  similarity  and  species
   correlation,  p. 99-149.  In  R.H. Whittaker (Ed.),
   Ordination of Plant Communities. 2nd ed.  Junk, The
   Hague.

Goodman, G.T. and S.A. Bray. 1975. Ecological Aspects of
   the  Reclamation of Derelict  and Disturbed Land.
   GEO Abstract, Norwich, U.K.
Gosselink, J.G.  1984.  The Ecology of Delta Marshes of
   Coastal Louisiana:  A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
   and Wildlife Service, Biological Services FWS/OBS-
   84/09, Washington, D.C.

Gosselink, J.G., EP. Odum, and R.M. Pope.  1974. The
   value of the tidal  marsh.   Center for Wetlands
   Resources Pub.  LSU-SG-74-03.   Louisiana  State
   University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Gosselink, J.G.  and R.E. Turner.  1987.  The role of
   hydrology in freshwater ecosystems, p. 63-78. In R.E.
   Good, D.F.  Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.),
   Freshwater  Wetlands:  Ecological Processes  and
   Management Potential. Academic Press, New York.

Green, R.H.  1979.  Sampling Design  and Statistical
   Methods  for Environmental  Biologists.    Wiley-
   Interscience, New York.

Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.).  1979.
   Wetland  Functions and Values:  The State of Our
   Understanding, Proceedings of  the National
   Symposium  on Wetlands,  Lake  Buena Vista,
   Florida.  American  Water Resources  Association
   Tech. Publ. TPS 79-2, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Greig-Smith, P.   1952.   The  use of random and
   contiguous quadrats in the  study of the structure of
   plant communities.  Ann. Bot. Lond. NS 16:293-316.

Greig-Smith, P.  1961.  Data  on  pattern within plant
   communities: I. the analysis of pattern.  J. Ecol.
   49:695-702.
                             Greig-Smith, P. 1964.  Quantitative Plant Ecology.
                                ed. Butterworths, London.
                                                 2nd
                             Greig-Smith, P. 1983.  Quantitative Plant Ecology.  3rd
                                ed.  University  of California  Press, Berkeley,
                                California.

                             Grime, J.P. 1974.  Vegetation classification by reference
                                to strategies.  Nature 250:26-31.

                             Grime, J.P.  1979.  Plant  Strategies and Vegetation
                                Processes. Wiley, New York.

                             Harman, W.N. 1972. Benthic substrates:  their effect on
                                freshwater mollusca. Ecology 53:271-277.

                             Harper, J.L. 1969.  The roles of predation in vegetational
                                diversity.  Brookhaven Symp. Biol. 22:48-62.

                             Harrison,  G.W.  1979.  Stability under environmental
                                stress:   resistance,  resilience,  persistence and
                                variability.  Am. Nat. 113:659-669.

                             Hartshorn, G.S. 1975. A matrix model of tree population
                                dynamics,  p. 41-51. In F.B.  Golley and E.  Medina
                                (Eds.), Tropical  Ecological  Systems.  Springer-
                                Verlag, New York.

                             Hefner, J.M.   1982.  The national wetlands inventory:
                                tools for wetland creation and restoration, p. 265-277.
                                In F.J. Webb,  Jr.  (Ed.), Proceedings  of the  Ninth
                                Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration  and
                                Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
                                Florida.
                                                     40

-------
Heimburg, K.  1984.  Hydrology of north-central Florida
   cypress domes, p. 72-82. In K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum
   (Eds.),  Cypress  Swamps.   University  Presses of
   Florida,  Gainesville, Florida.

Helliwell, D.R.  1969. Valuation of Wildlife Resources.
   Regional Studies 3:41-47.

Higgs, A.J. and M.B. Usher.  1980.  Should nature
   reserves  be large or small?   Nature 285:568-569.

Hill,  A.R.   1975.   Ecosystem  stability in relation to
   stresses  caused by human activities.   Can. Geogr.
   19:206-220.

Holdgate, M.W.  and M.J.  Woodman  (Eds.).  1976.  The
   Breakdown and Restoration of Ecosystems.   Plenum,
   New York.

Hollands, G.G.   1985.   Assessing the relationship of
   ground water and wetlands, p. 55-57.  In J.A. Kusler
   and P.  Riexinger (Eds.),  Proceedings:   National
   Wetlands  Assessment Symposium.   Association of
   State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

Hollick, M.   1981.  The  role of quantitative  decision-
   making   methods   in   environmental   impact
   assessment.  J. Environ. Manage. 12:65-78.

Holling, C.S.  1973.  Resilience and stability of ecological
   systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4:1-24.

Horn, H.S.  1975. Forest Succession.  Sci. Amer. 232:90-98.

Horn, H.S.  1976.  Succession, p. 187-204. In R.M. May
   (Ed.),  Theoretical  Ecology.    Principles  and
   Applications.  Saunders, Philadelphia.

Howell, E.A.  1981.  Landscape design, planning,  and
   management:    an  approach  to the  analysis of
   vegetation. Environ. Manag. 5:207-212.

Humphreys, W.F. and D J. Kitchener.  1982. The effect of
   habitat    utilization  on  species-area   curves:
   implications  for optimal reserve area.  J. Biogeogr.
   9:391-396.

Hutcheson,  K.  1970.  A  test for comparing diversities
   based on the  Shannon Formula.  J. Theor. Biol. 29:151-
   154.

Innis, G.S.  and R.V. O'Neill (Eds.).   1979.   Systems
   Analysis of Ecosystems.   Intl.  Coop. Publ. House,
   Fairland,  Maryland.

Ivanovici, A.M.  and W.J. Wiebe.   1981.   Towards a
   working  "definition" of stress: a review and critique,
   p. 13-47. In  G.W. Barrett and R. Rosenberg (Eds.),
   Stress Effects  on Natural Ecosystems. Wiley, New
   York.

Johnson, M.P.,  L.G. Mason,  and P.H. Raven.  1968.
   Ecological  parameters and plant species  diversity.
   Am. Nat. 102:297-306.

Johnson, RA.  1981.  Application of the  guild concept to
   environmental   impact   analysis  of  terrestrial
   vegetation.  J. Environ. Manage. 13:206-222.

Kadlec, RJH. 1979. Wetlands for tertiary treatment, p. 490-
   540. In  P.E. Greeson, J.R.  Clark,  and J.E.  Clark
   (Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values:  The State of
       Our  Understanding.  American Water Resources
       Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

   Kadlec,  R.H.  and  D.L. Tilton.  1979.  The  use  of
       freshwater wetlands  as a wastewater treatment
       alternative. CRC Grit. Rev. Environ. Control 9:185-
       212.

   Karr, J.R.  1981.  Assessment of biotic integrity using
       fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

   Keammerer,  W.R., W.C.  Johnson, and R.L. Burgess.
       1975.  Floristic  analysis of the Missouri  River
       bottomland forest in North Dakota. Can. Field Net.
       98:5-19.

   Kershaw, K.A. 1973.  Quantitative and Dynamic Plant
       Ecology.  2nd ed.  Elsevier, New York.

   Kessell,  S.R.  1981.  Application of  gradient analysis
       concepts  to resource management modeling.  Proc.
       Ecol. Soc. Aust. lid63-173.

   Klopatek, J.M., J.T. Kitchings, R.J. Olson, K.D. Kumar,
       and L.K. Mann.   1981.   A hierarchical system for
       evaluating regional  ecological  resources.  Biol.
       Conserv. 20:271-290.

   Krebs, C.J.  1972.  Ecology:  The Experimental Analysis
       of Distribution and  Abundance.   Harper & Row,
       New York.

   Krenkel, P.A. and V. Novotny.   1980.  Water Quality
       Management.   Academic Press,  New York.

   Kusler, J.A., and P. Riexinger. 1986. Proceedings of the
       National  Wetlands   Assessment   Symposium.
       Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New
       York.

   Lacasse, N.L. and  W.J. Moroz (Eds.).  1969. Handbook
       of Effects Assessment: Vegetation Damage.  Center
       for Air Environ.  Stud.,  Pennsylvania State Univ.,
       University Park,  Pennsylvania.

   Larson,  J.S.  (Ed.).  1976.  Models for Evaluation  of
       Freshwater  Wetlands.  Water Resources  Centre.
       University   of   Massachusetts,   Amherst,
       Massachusetts.

   Larson, J.S.  1982.  Wetland Value Assessment-State-of-
       the Art, p. 417-424.  In  B. Gopal,  R.E. Turner, R.G.
       Wetzel,   and  D.F.  Whigham (Eds.),  Wetlands:
       Ecology  and  Management.  Natural Institute  of
       Ecology  and International Scientific  Publications,
       Jaipur, India.

   Larson, J.S. 1982. Understanding the ecological values of
       wetlands, p.  108-118.  In Research on  Fish and
       Wildlife   Habitat.  EPA-600/8-82-002.   U.S.
       Environmental Protection  Agency,  Washington,
       D.C.

   Legendre, L. and P.  Legendre.  1983. Development in
       Environmental   Modeling.  Vol 3:  Numerical
       Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

   Levin, S.A. and R.T.  Paine. 1974.  Disturbance, patch
       formation, and community structure.  Proc. Natl.
       Acad. Sci. 71:2744-2747.

   Levin,  S.A.  1976.  Population  dynamic models  in
41

-------
   heterogeneous environments. Ann.  Rev.  Ecol. Svst.
   7:287-310.
Lewis, III, R.R. (Ed.). 1982. Creation and Restoration of
   Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
   Florida.

Lindsey, A.A. 1955.  Testing the line strip method against
   full tallies in diverse forest types. Ecology 36:485-495.

Lintz,  Jr.,  J. and D.S. Simonett (Eds.). 1976. Remote
   Sensing  of Environment. Addison-Wesley,  Reading,
   Massachusetts.

Llyod, M.  and R.J. Ghelardi, R.J. 1964. A  table for
   calculating the  "equitability" component of species
   diversity. J. Annim. Ecol. 33:217-225.

Lonard, R.I.,  E.J.  Clairain, Jr.,  R.T.  Hoffman,  J.W.
   Hardy,  L.D.  Brown, P.E.  Ballard, and J.W. Watts.
   1981.  Analysis  of Methodologies  Used  for  the
   Assessment   of Wetland  Values.   U.S.  Water
   Resources Council, Washington,  D.C.

Lonard, R.I.,  E.J.  Clairain, Jr.,  R.T.  Huffman,  J.W.
   Hardy,  L.D.Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W. Watts.
   1984.  Wetlands Function and  Values Study Plan,
   Appendix A: Analysis of Methodologies for Assessing
   Wetlands Values.  Technical Report  Y-83-2,  U.S.
   Army  Engineer Waterways Experiment  Station,
   Vicksburg, Mississippi.

MacArthur,  R.H.   1955.  Fluctuations of  animal
   populations, and a measure of community stability.
   Ecology 36:533-536.

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A  method for assessing
   wetland characteristics  and  values, Landscape
   Planning II1-17.

Marsh, W.M. and  Dozier,  J. 1981. Landscape:   An
   Introduction to Physical Geography. Addison-Wesley,
   Reading, Massachusetts.

May,  R.M.  1973.  Stability  and Complexity in Model
   Ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,  New
   Jersey.

Merks, R.L.  1968.  The  accumulation of 36  CL  ring-
   labelled  DDT in a freshwater  marsh. J.  Wildlife
   Manage. 32:376-398.

McEntyre, J.G. 1978. Land Survey Systems. Wiley, New
   York.

Mclntosh, R.P. 1980. The relationship between succession
   and the recovery process in ecosystems, p. 1-62.  In J.
   Cairns,  Jr. (Ed.), The Recovery  Process in  Damaged
   Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Sci., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mclntyre,  G.A. 1953. Estimation of plant  density using
   line transects. J. Ecol. 41:319-330.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G.  Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.  Van
   Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York.

Montanari, J.H. and J.A. Kusler. 1978. Proceedings of the
   National Wetlands Protection Symposium, June 6-8,
   1977, Reston, Virginia.  FWS/OBS-78/97,  Office of
   Biological  Services, Fish  and Wildlife  Service,
   Washington, D.C.
Mooney, H.A. and M. Gordon (Eds.). 1983. Disturbance
    and Ecosystems-Components of Response.  Springer-
    Verlag, New York.

Motts, W.  and  A.  O'Brien.  1980.  Hydrogeologic
    evaluation of wetland basins  for land use planning.
    Water Res. Bull. 16(5)

Mueller-Dombois,  D.  and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and
    Methods of Vegetation Ecology. Wiley, New York.

Naiman,  R.J. 1983.  The annual pattern and  spatial
    distribution of aquatic oxygen metabolism in Boreal
    Forest watersheds. Ecol.  Monogr.  53:73-94.

Naveh, Z. 1982.  Landscape ecology as an emerging
    branch of human ecosystem science. Adv. Ecol. Res.
    12189-237.

Naveh, Z. and A.S. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape Ecology.
    Theory  and  Application. Springer-Verlag,  New
    York.

Nelder,   J.A.   and  R.W.M.   Wedderburn.   1972.
    Generalized linear models.  J.  Rov. Statist.  Soc.
    135:370-384.

Nichols, R. and E. Hyman.  1980. A review and analysis
    of  fifteen  methodologies   for  environmental
    assessment. Water Research &  Technology  Report.
    U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington, D.C.

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

Niering,  W.A. and A.W.  Palmisano.  1979. Use  values:
    harvest and heritage, p  100-113.  In J.R. Clark and
    J.E. Clark (Eds.), Scientists Report, The National
    Symposium on Wetlands. National Wetlands Tech.
    Council, Washington, D.C.

Nixon, S.W. and V.  Lee.  1985. Wetlands  and  Water
    Quality—A Regional Review  of Recent Research  in
    the United State on the  Role of Fresh and Salt Water
    Wetlands as  Sources, Sinks, and Transformers  of
    Nitrogen, Phosphorus,  and Various Heavy  Metals.
    Report to the Waterways Experiment Station,  U.S.
    Army Corps, of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Novitzki, R.P.  1979. Hydrologic  characteristics  of
    Wisconsin's wetlands and their influence on floods,
    stream  flow,  and sediment, p. 377-388. In  P.E.
    Greeson, J.R.  Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland
    Functions  and  Values:  The   State  of  Our
    Understanding.  American  Water   Resources
    Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Novitzki,  R.P. 1978. Hydrology  of the Nevin Wetland
    near  Madison, Wisconsin. U.S.  Geol. Sur.  Water
    Resources Investigation.  No. 78-48.

O'Banion,  K.  1980.  Use  of  Value  Functions  in
    Environmental Decisions.  Environ. Manage. 4:3-6.

Odum,   E.P.   1969.  The Strategy  of   Ecosystem
    Development.  Scjgncfi 164:262-270.

Odum, E.P. 1979. The value of wetlands: a hierarchical
    approach, p. 16-25. In P.E. Gresson, J.R. Clark, and
    J.E.  Clark  (Eds.), Wetland Functions and  Values:
    The State of  Our Understanding. American Water
    Resources Association,  Minneapolis, Minnesota.
                                                    42

-------
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
   Canada 1983. An Evaluation System for Wetlands of
   Ontario  South of the Precambrian Shield.  1st ed.
   Toronto,  Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
   Canada.   1984.  An Evaluation System for Wetlands
   of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield.  2nd ed.
   Toronto,  Ontario, Canada.

Orians, G.H. 1975. Diversity, Stability and Maturity in
   Natural  Ecosystem, p. 64-65.  In W.H. van Dobben
   and R.H. Lowe-McConnell (Eds.), Unifying Concepts
   in Ecology.  Junk,  The Hague.

Orloci,  L.   1967.  An   agglomerative  method  for
   classification of plant communities. J. Ecol. 55:193-
   205.

Orloci,  L. 1978.  Multivariate  Analysis in Vegetation
   Research. 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague.

Paine, R.T.  1966.  Food  web  complexity  and  species
   diversity. Amer. Nat. 100:65-75.

Paine,  R.T. 1974.  Intertidal  community  structure:
   experimental studies  on the relationship  between a
   dominant  competitor and  its  principal  predator.
   Oecologia 15:93-120.

Paine,  R.T. 1977. Controlled  manipulations  in  the
   marine intertidal zone and their  contributions to
   ecological theory.  Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Spec. Pub.
   12245-270.

Paine, R.T. 1980. Food webs: linking interaction strength
   and community infrastructure.  J. Anim. Ecol. 49:667-
   685.

Patton, D.R. 1975. A diversity index  for quantifying
   habitat edge. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 394:171-173.

Paysen, T.E., J.A. Derby,  H. Black, V.C. Bleich, and J.W.
   Mincks.  1981. A  vegetation classification  system
   applied to southern California. U.S. Forest Service,
   Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, California.

Peet,  R.K. 1974. The  measurement of species diversity.
   Ann.Rev. Ecol. Svst. 5:285-307.

Peet,  R.K. and N.L.  Christensen. 1980. Succession:  a
   population process. Vegetatio 43:131-140.

Peters, D.S.,  D.W. Ahrenholz, and T.R.  Rice. 1979.
   Harvest  and value of wetland associated fish and
   shellfish, p.  606-617. In P.E. Greeson, J.R.  Clark, and
   J.E. Clark  (Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values:
   The State of Our Understanding. American Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Phillips, E.A. 1959. Methods of Vegetation Study. Holt,
   Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,  New York.

Pielou, E.G.  1966. Species-diversity and pattern-diversity
   in the study of ecological  succession. J. Theor. Biol.
   10:370-383.

Pielou,  B.C.  1975.  Ecological  Diversity.   Wiley-
   Interscience, New York.

Pielou, B.C.  1977. Mathematical Ecology. 2nd ed. Wiley-
   Interscience, New York.
Pimm, S.L. 1979. The structure of food webs. Theor. POP.
   Biol. 16144-158.

Pimm, S.L. 1982. Food Webs. Chapman & Hall, London.

Poole, R.W.  1974. An Introduction  to Quantitative
   Ecology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Preston, F.W. 1948. The commonness  and rarity of
   species. Ecology 29:254-283.

Preston, F.W. 1960. Time and space and the variation of
   Species. Ecology 41:611-627.

Quammen,  M.L.  1986.  Measuring  the  success of
   wetlands  mitigation.  In  J.A.   Kusler,   M.L.
   Quammen, and G.Brooks (Eds.), Proceedings of the
   National Wetlands  Symposium,  Mitigation of
   Impacts  and Losses.  Association of State Wetland
   Managers, Berne, New York.

Rau,  J.G. 1980.   Summarization of  environmental
   impact.  In J.G. Rau  and  D.C. Wooten (Eds.),
   Environmental   Impact  Analysis   Handbook.
   McGraw-Hill,  New  York.

Rau, J.G. and D.C. Wooten (Eds.). 1980.  Environmental
   Impact Analysis  Handbook. McGraw-Hill,  New
   York.

Reid,  R.A.,  N.   Patterson,   L.  Armour,  and  A.
   Champagne. 1980. A Wetlands Evaluation Model for
   Southern  Ontario. The  Federation  of Ontario
   Naturalists.

Reppert, R.T. and W.R.  Sigleo.  1979.  Concepts  and
   methods for wetlands evaluation under development
   by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, p. 57-62. In PJ3.
   Greeson,  J.R. Clark,  and  J.E.  Clark  (Eds.),
   Wetlands Function and Values: The State of Our
   Understanding. Technical Publication  TPS79-2,
   Water  Resources  Association,  Minneapolis,
   Minnesota.

Reppert, R.T., W.  Sigleo, E.  Stakhiv, L. Messman, and
   C.D.Meyers.  1979.  Wetland Value:  Concepts  and
   Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-
   Rl, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps
   of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Rowe, J.S. and J.W.  Sheard. 1981. Ecological land
   classification: a survey approach. Environ. Manage.
   5:451-464.

Sabins,  F.F. 1978. Remote  Sensing: Principles  and
   Interpretation.  Freeman, San Francisco, California.

Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An Overview of Major
   Wetland Functions and Values.   NWS/OBS-84/18.
   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Schaller, F.W. and P. Button (Eds.). 1979. Reclamation
   of Drastically Disturbed Lands. Amer. Soc. Agron.,
   Madison,  Wisconsin.

Schamberger,  M.L.,  C. Short, and A.  Farmer.  1979.
   Evaluation Wetlands as a Wildlife Habitat, p. 74-83.
   In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.),
   Wetland Function  and Values:  The State of  Our
   Understanding.   American   Water   Resources
   Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
                                                   43

-------
Schanda,  E.  (Ed.).  1976.  Remote   Sensing   for
   Environmental   Sciences:   Ecological  Studies,
   Analysis and Synthesis,  Vol.  18.  Springer-Verlag,
   Berlin.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population  size for species
   conservation.  BioScience 31:131-134.

Shannon,  C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical
   Theory of  Communication.  Univ.  Illinois  Press,
   Urbana, Illinois.

Sharitz,  R.R. 1982.  Plant community  structure  and
   processes, p. II-1-58. In M.H. Smith, R.R. Sharitz, and
   J.B. Gladden (Eds.), An Evaluation of  the Steel Creek
   Ecosystem in Relation to the  Proposed Start of L-
   Reactor.  SREL-12,ITCH-66e.  NTIS,  Springfield,
   Virginia.

Shugart, H.H., T.R. Crow, and J.M. Hett. 1973.  Forest
   succession models: a rationale and methodology for
   modeling forest succession over large regions.  For.
   Sci. 19:203-212.

Shugart, H.H., J.M. Klopatek, and W.R. Emanuel. 1981.
   Ecosystems  analysis and  land-use  planning, p.  665-
   699.  In E.J.  Kormondy and J.F. McCormick (Eds.),
   Handbook of  Contemporary  Development in  World
   Ecology. Greenwood, Westport, Connecticut.

Simpson, EH. 1949.  Measurement of diversity. Nature
   163:688.

Sinden, J.A. and G.K. Windsor.  1981.  Estimating the
   value  of wildlife for preservation:  a comparison of
   approaches.  J. Environ. Manage. 12111-125.

Smardon, R.C.  1979.  Visual-cultural values of wetlands,
   p. 535-544.   In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark,  and J.E.
   Clark (Eds.),  Wetland  Functions and Values:  The
   State   of Our Understanding.  American Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sondheim, M.W.   1978.  A comprehensive methodology
   for assessing  environmental  impact.   J.  Environ.
   Manage. 6:27-42.

Soule, M.E. 1980.  Thresholds for survival:  maintaining
   fitness and evolutionary  potential, p,  1-8. In M.E.
   Soule  and B.A. Wilcox (Eds.),  Conservation Biology:
   An  Evolutionary-Ecological  Perspective.  Sinauer,
   Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Sousa, W.P.   1980. The  responses  of a community to
   disturbance: the importance of successional age and
   species life histories. Oecologia 45:72-81.

Southwood,  T.R.E.  1978. Ecological  Methods,  with
   Particular Reference to the Study  of Insect Population.
   Wiley,  New York.

Strahler,  A.H.  1978. Binary discriminant analysis:   a
   new  method  for  investigating species-environment
   relationships. Ecology 59:108-116.

Strahler,  A.N. 1957.  Quantitative analysis of watershed
   geomorphology.  Trans. Am. Geophvs. Union 38:913-
   920.

Stumm, W. and J.J.  Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry:
   An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in
   Natural Waters. 2nd  ed. Wiley-Interscience, New
   York.

Suffling, R. 1980. An index of  ecological sensitivity to
   disturbance, based on ecosystem age, and related to
   landscape diversity.  J. Environ. Manage. 10:253-262.

Sutherland, J.P. 1974. Multiple  stable points in natural
   Communities. Am. Nat. 108:859-873.

Swartz, R.C. 1980. Application of diversity  indices in
   marine  pollution investigations,  p.  230-237.  In
   Biological  Evaluation of Environmental  Impacts.
   Rep. FWS/OBS-80/26.  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife
   Service,  and  Council on  Environ.   Quality,
   Washington,  D.C.

Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of natural diversity:  the
   problem of extinctionprone species. BioScience 24:715-
   722.

Tjallingii,  S.P. and A.A. de  Veer (Eds.). 1982. Perspec-
   tives in Landscape  Ecology. PUDOC, Wageningen,
   The Netherlands.

U.S.  Army Corps  of Engineers, Lower Mississippi
   Valley.  1980. A Habitat Evaluation System (HES) for
   Water Resources Planning.  Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1977.  Quality
   Criteria for Water. Off. Water Hazardous Materials,
   Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1980.   Habitat
   Evaluation    Procedures    (HEP)   Manual.
   Washington,  D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat as a Basis
   Environmental  Assessment.  101 ESM. Div. Ecol.
   Serv., Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation
   Procedures (HEP). 102 ESM.  Div.  Ecol. Serv.,
   Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service. 1980. Human Use  and
   Economic  Evaluation. 104  ESM. Div. Ecol.  Serv.,
   Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1981. Standards for the
   Development  of Habitat Suitability  Index Models.
   103 ESM. Div. Ecol.  Serv., Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Geological  Survey.  1970.  Potential  Natural
   Vegetation of the  United   States (map).  In  The
   National Atlas of the United States of America.
   Washington, D.C.

Usher,  M.B.  1975.  Analysis of pattern in real  and
   artificial plant populations. J. Ecol. 63:569-586.

Verry, E.S. and D.H. Boelter. 1979. Peatland hydrology,
   p. 389-402.  In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and  J.E.
   Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The
   State   of  Our  Understanding. American  Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Warner, M.L., J.L. Moore, S. Chatterjee, D.C. Copper, C.
   Ifeadi,  W.T.  Lawhon,  and R.S. Reimers.  1974.   An
   Assessment  Methodology  for the Environmental
   Impact of Water Resources Projects. EPA Rep. 600/5-
    74-016.  Washington, D.C.
                                                    44

-------
Weller, N.W. 1981. Freshwater Marshes. University of
   Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Weitzel, R.L. (Ed.). 1979. Methods and Measurements of
   Attached Microcommunities. Amer. Soc. Testing and
   Materials, Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania.

Westman, W.E. 1970. Mathematical models of contagion
   and their relation to density and basal area sampling
   techniques, p. 515-536. In G.P. Patil, E.G. Pielou, and
   W.E.  Waters (Eds.), Statistical Ecology, Vol I.,
   Spatial  Patterns  and  Statistical  Distributions.
   Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, University Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Westman, W.E.  1980. Gaussian  analysis: identifying
   environmental  factors   influencing  bell-shaped
   species distributions. Ecology 61:733-739.

Whitlatch,  E.E.  1976.  Systematic approaches to
   environmental impact assessment. Water Res. Bull.
   12123-138.

Whittaker, R.H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smokey
   Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 261-80.

Whittaker,  R.H.  1960.  Vegetation of the  Siskiyou
   Mountains,  Oregon and California.  Ecol.  Monogr.
   30:279-338.

Whittaker, R.H. 1965.  Dominance and diversity in  land
   plant communities.  Science 147250-260.

Whittaker, R.H. 1967.  Gradient analysis of vegetation.
   Biol. Rev. 42:207-264.

Whittaker, RJL 1970. Communities and Ecosystems. 1st
   ed. Macmillan, New  York.

Whittaker, R.H. 1972.  Evolution  and Measurement of
   Species Diversity. Taxon.21:213-251.

Whittaker,  R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems.
   2nd ed. Macmillan, New  York.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975.  The design and stability of plant
   communities, p. 169-181. In  W.H. van Dobben and
   R.H.  Lowe-McConnell (Eds.),  Unifying Concepts in
   Ecology.  Junk, The Hague.

Whittaker, R.H. 1978.  Direct gradient analysis, p. 7-50.
   In  R.H. Whittaker  (Ed.),  Ordination of  Plant
   Communities. 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague.

Whittaker, R.H. (Ed.). 1978. Ordination  of Plant Com-
   munities. 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague.

Whittaker, R.H. and SA. Levin. 1977. The role of mosaic
   phenomena  in  natural communities. Theor. Popul.
   EioJ.12117-139.
Whittaker, RH. and H.G. Gauch, Jr. 1978. Evaluation of
    ordination techniques, p. 227-336. In R.H. Whittaker
    (Ed.),  Ordination of Plant  Communities. 2nd ed.
    Junk, The Hague.

Whittaker,  R.H.  and   G.M.   Woodwell.   1978.
    Retrogression and coenocline distance, p. 51.70.  In
    R.H.  Whittaker  (Ed.),   Ordination  of  Plant
    Communities. 2nd. ed. Junk, The Hague.

Whyte, R.O. 1976. Land and Land Appraisal. Junk, The
    Hague.

Williams, J.D. and C.K. Dodd,  Jr.  1979. Importance  of
    wetlands to endangered and threatened species, p.
    565-575. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark
    (Eds.), Wetlands Functions and Values: The State of
    Our Understanding.  American Water Resources
    Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Wilhm,  J.L. and  T.C.  Dorris.  1968.   Biological
    parameters for water quality  criteria.  BioScience
    18:477-481.

Williams, W.T.,  G.N.  Lance,  L.J. Webb, and  J.G.
    Tracey.  1973. Studies in the numerical analysis  of
    complex rain-forest communities; VI: models for the
    classification of quantitative data. J. Ecol. 61:47-70.

Winchester, B.H. 1981.  Assessing ecological value  of
    central Florida wetlands: a  case study, p. 25-38.  In
    R.H. Stovall (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
    Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
    Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Winchester,  B.H. 1981.  Valuation  of coastal  plain
    wetlands in  the  southeastern United  States.  In
    Progress  in Wetlands Utilization and Management,
    Coordinating Council on  the  Restoration  of the
    Kissimee River  Valley  and Taylor Creek-Nubbin
    Slough Basin.  Orlando, Florida.

Winchester, B.H and L.D. Harris. 1979. An approach to
    valuation of Florida freshwater  wetlands, p. 1-26.  In
    D.  Cole  (Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
    Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
    Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Woodin, H.E. and A.A.  Lindsey. 1954. Juniper-pinyon
    East of the Continental  Divide  as Analyzed  by the
    Line Strip Method. Ecology 35:474-489.

Woodwell, GM. 1970. Effects of pollution on the structure
    and physiology of ecosystems. Science 168:429-433.

Word,  D.L.  (Ed.).  1980.  Biological  monitoring for
    environmental effects. Lexington Books,  Lexington,
    Massachusetts.
                                                   45

-------
           WETLAND DYNAMICS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR
                 RESTORED AND CREATED WETLANDS


                        Daniel E. Willard and Amanda K. Killer
                       School of Public and Environmental Affairs
                                   Indiana University


       "Who can explain why one species ranges  widely and is very numerous, and why
       another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the
       highest importance, or they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future
       success and modifications of every inhabitant of this world." (Darwin, 1859).

    ABSTRACT.  Wetlands are affected by intrinsic and extrinsic  forces.  Managers  cannot
    always predict or control the extrinsic forces  leading to wetland changes, nor can they predict
    the range of species adaptations to those  changes.  Managers should plan for extreme
    circumstances by including mechanisms for wetland adjustment and persistence and  by
    maintaining multiple sites as refugia to spread the risk of catastrophe.  Our recommendations
    include:

    - creating buffer zones and corridors

    - recreating spatial and temporal habitat variability

    - maintaining marginal wetlands as  reserve  sites

    - planning for worst case scenarios (cumulative impacts)

    - suggestions for managing for uncertainty and risk in wetland restoration and creation.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    For the purpose of this chapter, we consider
wetlands as ecosystems with water. As such they
respond  to  biological,  chemical and  physical
change and they demonstrate properties more or
less common to other ecosystems.  Many of these
properties have been discussed at length in many
textbooks of ecology.   Here we will  review
several concepts that seem to have applicability to
restoration and creation of wetlands.

    This  discussion  focuses on the methods by
which  wetland ecosystems change  and  the
methods  by which  plant  and  animal  species
adapt  to those  changes.   To  introduce  the
discussion we will  briefly review succession,
which  we call "change by  intrinsic elements"
and perturbations,  which  we call  "change by
extrinsic  forces".  Because  many wetlands are
open ecosystems, these kinds of changes often
operate together in ways that make them difficult
to distinguish.   For restoration and  creation
purposes,  this  separation helps  managers
understand what parts of the ecosystem  they can
manipulate,  what  parts  change  in  fairly
predictable ways and what  parts  remain
uncertain.

    Planning and regulation  must  consider
landscape consequences. Often when we cannot
understand the consequences of change at the
local level, we can gain insight by looking at the
change regionally, or vice versa. The role of a
wetland in the landscape depends on its change
pattern, its proximity to other habitat and its
persistence.   These  considerations  become
particularly important  as wetlands  become
stressed.  That a wetland has become entangled
in the permit process  may provide sufficient
evidence for stress.
                                           47

-------
     EQUILIBRIUM, INTRINSIC ELEMENTS AND EXTRINSIC FORCES
    Wetlands are  dynamic systems. While some
wetlands appear constant on a human-relevant
time scale (e.g., bogs and fens),  others change
much  more  frequently.  Generally,  newly
restored or created  wetlands  are  not in
equilibrium  and may  undergo  a period of
adjustment  before functioning in socially and
ecologically  desirable ways.   Some  ecologists
consider internal  vegetation readjustments not
as change, but rather as the maintenance of
ecosystem  equilibrium through homeostatic
balancing. Urban et al. (1987) show  that  our
perception  of  the  significance  of  wetland
responses changes as the scale from  which we
view  changes. For them  equilibrium  is a
function of geographic scale and may emerge if
that scale  is large enough.  DeAngelis and
Waterhouse  (1987) state that wetland changes
may occur regularly  or irregularly  and may
result from internal or external causes.  Each of
these views attempts to understand the relation
between  the  internal dynamics  of ecosystems
and external events that affect ecosystems.

    Managers,  restorers,  and  creators  of
wetlands act  through  extrinsic  forces  on
wetlands. These  extrinsic  forces  can cause
modifications  in the  intrinsic elements so  that
the wetland  provides functions  which society
values. Unfortunately the application of manage-
ment to wetlands is not yet an absolute science,
so outcomes  vary.  Unpredictable natural  ex-
trinsic forces such as drought, fire, or insect
infestation further  complicate  the  wetland
manager's ability to predict the  outcome of his or
her project with confidence. Those who work in
environments affected by anthropogenic sources
of extrinsic forces, such  as cities  or heavily
farmed land,  should  consider the sorts of  wet-
land ecosystems which can tolerate these forces.
                    HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH
    We discuss wetland creation and restoration
considerations from the perspective of wetland
dynamics.  We take  a  hierarchical  systems
approach (which  looks  at a  hierarchy  of
individualistic events) with particular emphasis
on  the   landscape  ramifications  of  wetland
dynamics and management activities. Urban et
al.  (1987) defines "landscape as a mosaic  of
patches, each  a  component of  a pattern".
Landscape ecology focuses "on the wide range of
natural  phenomena by considering the apparent
complexity   of  landscape  dynamics  and
illustrating how a hierarchical paradigm lends
itself to simplifying such  complexity".

    Random stochastic events play an extremely
important role in the creation and development
of wetlands. Habitat can only change in certain
ways at certain rates.  The dominant  variables
controlling a wetland frame the possibilities for
wetland   response  to  a  stochastic  event.
Community responses to intrinsic elements limit
the possible responses to extrinsic forces.   In
other words, if the wetland is in state X then a, b,
and c are possible responses, but if it is Y then d,
e, and f are possible.  This ecological "roulette"
confuses  the outcome  of any  wetland  change
sequence.  Managers are  stuck with statements
like, "If x  doesn't happen and y happens the way
it usually does, this wetland will look like this
in  10 years."   Annoyingly,  x and  y  are
uncontrollable.
           LOCAL WETLAND CHANGE IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT
    Andrewartha and Birch (1984) describe the
differential  effects  of local  and  regional
extrinsic events on populations and species.
Local populations of plants and animals prosper
and wane in response to the interaction between
their  population   dynamics  and the  local
environmental conditions.  In  wetlands subject
to  change,  local  populations  may  vary
considerably from season to season and year to
year.  Contrarily,  regional  populations  may
remain relatively  constant.    This  regional
constancy results from  the  asynchrony of the
separate local populations: when some have low
levels, others are high.

    Bertness and Ellison (1987) studied change
patterns in New England salt marshes.  Local
small scale extrinsic events caused differential
plant mortality.  These short term disturbances
changed  the  relationship  between  species,
allowing those with greater colonizing ability to
recolonize disturbances.   This  scrambled the
areal distribution  of the species and provided
new patterns.
                                            48

-------
    Most plants and animals which have evolved
to exploit wetlands have adapted to the change
patterns of wetlands. Plants and  animals have
considerable  physiological  and   genetic
adaptability.  Clausen et al. (1940) showed with
altitudinally separate populations of Phlox along
an  environmental  gradient  that  ecotypic
variability allows many plant  species to  use a
variety of habitats. McNaughton (1966) showed
that Tvpha latifolia varies somewhat within
populations and broadly across its range. Tvpha
can adjust its position along a gradient quickly
through vegetative growth.

    Animals  adapt  to  changing  wetland
conditions  through  a  variety of  behavioral
strategies  in addition  to the  genetic and
physiological  mechanisms  suggested above.
These strategies include movement, dispersal,
environmental change, or  no action. Weller
(1981)  describes  a  variety  of  behavioral
adaptations  for  freshwater  species  (e.g.,
muskrats,  Ondatra: black terns,  Chlidonias
niger).  Many species have adapted to wetland
environments which  combine both spatial and
temporal  heterogeneity.   This heterogeneity
allows internal adaptation.

    Most  species do not  occupy all of their
environment at any given time. Skeate (1987)
demonstrated regular periodic  movement  by 22
bird species to exploit ripening  fruit in northern
Florida  hammocks.  These  birds  oppor-
tunistically actively foraged on only  a  small
segment of their  habitat at any one time. The
portion of the habitat which the birds were not
using at any time was relieved of predation until
it had replenished the  supply of  fruit.   Wiens
(1985)  shows  the effect  of local rainfall  on
establishing varied patches in the desert.  Areas
that receive rain at a particular  time "reset"
themselves and  begin  new intrinsic change
sequences. In  a single square kilometer several
different  sequences operate   simultaneously.
Switching  from  patch  to  patch  allows  more
species of  animal to exploit these local  areas.
This  opportunistic  habitat  switching  is  a
behavioral  adaptation to changing conditions in
the landscape.   The survival   of the animals
depends to some extent on the continuing pattern
of changes  in the  various patches included in
their range.

    Opportunistic habitat switching may lead to
fluctuating population levels on  a given wetland.
Willard (1980) describes the resetting of small
ephemeral  farm ponds  in  Wisconsin and their
subsequent  use by migratory shorebirds.  Gen-
erally, farmers drained the ponds on their  farms
every four or five years, but patterns varied. The
shorebirds  preferred ponds on the first and
second  wet year  because  the opportunistic
invertebrates on which the birds prey had higher
population  densities during those years. The
shorebirds exploited fairly specific environments
by   finding  which   pond   provided   that
environment at a given time. Myers et al. (1987)
discusses  the  importance  of these changing
patches of foraging habitats to transcontinental
migratory shorebirds.  They argue that  even
though the ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres)
and red knots  (Calidris  canutus) used the
wetlands of Delaware Bay only as stopover  sites,
these sites were essential to their survival.  "On
these stopovers they [the  birds] doubled  their
weight in preparation for the last stage of  their
migration from South America to the Arctic."

    For  many  of the  species we have  just
discussed, the  various  patches of habitat are
isolated  from  one another.  Each  small bit of
habitat may be of  essential importance  to  a
species which uses it only irregularly, yet short-
term observation of these wetland habitats may
reveal little  habitat value. The loss of these
apparently low-value isolated sites may appear
as  a small loss of acreage  but may instead
constitute a large loss for the survival potential
of some desirable species.  This critical, but
ephemeral habitat contributes to the difficulty of
measuring the cumulative impacts of threats to
these otherwise unimportant appearing wetlands.
When  Gosselink and  Lee  (1987)  analyzed
cumulative impacts  in  bottomland hardwoods,
they expressed these impacts as a special case of
hierarchical organization of the landscape.  They
considered that an area contains a pattern of
optional patches that a population can use.   The
areas they described  often contained watersheds.
By  analogy  they described  the  collection of
disjunct  sites used by a duck as a "duckshed".
This analogy helps  understand the movement
and flow of the population as it exploits available
habitat within an area.

    Lewin (1986)   describes  the  necessary
movement of  African  elephants  (Loxodonta
africana)  within  their  large  home  range.
Elephant foraging behavior destroys trees so that
elephants must  move continually.  However, as
they eat the canopy trees they open up the forest
for  the rapidly increased growth of new forage
plants.  The "elephantshed"  must be  big enough
to allow  this cycle  to take  place  before the
elephants revisit.  The  foraging activity of the
elephants causes faster regrowth. In the absence
of elephants, the forage plants become replaced by
non-elephant food plants. The interaction of the
elephant  and  its  food  plants maintains  a
persistent community which is composed  of  a
fairly rapidly changing array of habitat patches.
In this  case the animal itself causes the  local
inconstancy of habitat, but is adapted to achieve a
balanced  ecosystem  which allows  both  the
animal and its food to survive.  From this Lewin
suggests  that change can provide persistence for
organisms and that if we attempt to manage for
constancy we may ultimately fail to conserve the
                                             49

-------
very  resources we intended  to  save.   He
summarizes  by urging  that we manage for
persistence, not constancy.

    All  change  may  not  necessarily  help
wetland species.  Many impacts, both  natural
and human-induced, are  environmental changes
of great magnitude  and size.  These extrinsic
forces sometimes cause  environmental change
beyond adaptability  of the species. Andrewartha
and Birch (1984) explain the effect  of local and
regional environmental events on the range and
success of species. They suggest that populations
succeed best  when local habitat patches change
asynchronously.  By the same reasoning, not all
of the habitat patches change in a manner, or at a
rate, beyond the ability of the species to adapt  at
the same time.  In essence, each population
distributes  risk by using independently  varying
habitats, so that as some of these habitats become
depleted others  will improve.    Plants  and
animals maintain themselves by using each site
to its limit. Some regional  extrinsic forces can
affect all of the habitat sites of a species, but most
affect only a portion of the species range. Those
sites which remain  habitable act as reserves  to
"spread the risk".   As human activities remove
portions of habitat, even though these parts seem
marginal at  the time, we may have critically
reduced the  species' ability to react  to other
perturbations, by removing these "reserve"  or
"emergency"  habitats, and  increasing the  risk
of population extinction.

    An  example may help  tie  these ideas
together.  The Kesterson (California), Stillwater
(Nevada),  and Malheur   (Oregon)  National
Wildlife Refuges all  provide wetland habitat for
a variety of water birds.  All occur in essentially
desert habitats where  they  experience irregular
cycles of drought and flood.  Each refuge cycles
differently.   A population of White  Pelicans
(Pelecanus ervthrorhvnchos) uses several  of
these refuges  alternatively.   The number  of
individuals on  each refuge  varies from year  to
year as the population tries to exploit the  best
conditions.   All these  refuges (and probably the
Great Salt Lake) constitute the "pelicanshed".
All the refuges act to allow pelicans to "spread
the risk".

   In contrast  the  sandhill  crane  (Gru s
canadensis) populations,  which winter on the
gulf  coast and nest in  eastern  Canada,  all
concentrate on the  Jasper-Pulaski  Wildlife
Refuge in northern Indiana during spring and
fall migration.  Because wetland habitat in the
midwest is so reduced, the  cranes have few other
choices. For several  weeks each year the entire
population is at risk on the same  site.  If that
small refuge fails to  provide resting and forage
for the cranes because  of  drought, fire,  or
contamination  the crane population  will suffer
severely.  Wildlife managers have  attempted  to
adapt other sites with some  success, but have
difficulty convincing politicians that it is wise to
conserve habitat on the speculation that a species
might need it briefly  sometime.

   The   sandhill crane  population  during
migration has  only a single locality which all of
the subpopulations use. An impact to this site
affects the entire crane population.   Since  the
pelican population  is comprised of  several
scattered  subpopulations, there is  a  greater
likelihood that the population  as  a  whole will
survive environmental changes at a  particular
refuge.  These  wetlands taken together comprise
a single pelican habitat unit.  Should  one of the
several refuges suffer an  impact which reduces
its habitat value, the  other refuges will still
support viable populations. The removal of any
one  option lowers the survival ability  of  the
pelicans by reducing their ability  to  distribute
risk, but  they will  survive.  However, for the
cranes   the   Jasper-Pulaski  Refuge   and
surrounding fields constitute the only option for
migratory stopover.  The loss of this site would
cause the crane population considerable distress.
The  problem  is  real because currently each
refuge has a water quality problem induced  by
agriculture, with the problems differing in kind
and severity.
           RESTORATION AND CREATION CONSIDERATIONS AND
                                 RECOMMENDATIONS
PERSISTENCE VS. CONSTANCY

    In some cases  the wetland complex survives
because  various  portions  of  the  system
continually change from one type to another, but
the  sum  of each habitat  type  more  or less
balances.   This dynamic balancing, which may
destroy a particular type of a subunit, also creates
that type elsewhere in the wetland system.  This
principle of dynamic balancing is not new, but
merely adds a temporal dimension to the concept
of spatial heterogeneity. Simply stated, some wet-
lands persist by balanced change over time and
space.

    Resilience is a measure of the ability to per-
sist in the presence of perturbations arising from
weather,  physiochemical  factors,  other organ-
                                             50

-------
isms, and human activities. (Krebs 1978). Per-
sistence is  "continuous existence"  (Webster
1970).

    A  conceptual  difficulty  arises  until we
clarify  whether  we  wish  to maintain  any
wetland at a specific locality, or whether we wish
to maintain a  specific  kind of wetland  at  a
specific  locality.  In many  cases  the  goal
requires that the site support a persistent bundle
of wetland functions,  not necessarily  a  wetland
that looks  a particular way.  Because form and
function are related, some  wetland types do
perform some functions better than other types.
Operationally, the regulator has to balance form,
function, and persistence.

    When  planning and managing  a  wetland
system it is important to examine the goals of the
project. A balance must be found between form,
function, and persistence. For example, wetlands
are often created for stormwater retention.  These
need to be persistent functional wetlands.  In
other  cases maintaining  specific  habitat
characteristics  requires  management practices
emphasizing constancy.

    Managed habitats can fail by becoming too
constant, changing the wrong way, or changing
too fast.   Jacobson  and Kushlan (1986) and
Kushlan (1987)  illustrate habitat sharing on an
alternate  time  basis  for endangered  species in
the  Everglades National Park.  These species
require quite different  seasonal  water levels.
Natural flood and drought cycles alternatively
allowed manatees, crocodiles,  woodstorks and
other  significant  species  high  reproductive
success.   Each  got  a turn  often enough to
maintain viable populations.   This was  at least
the  situation  before Florida irrigation and
drainage projects  limited the upper end of the
gradient.   Now animals using it can  find no
appropriate  sites during high  water years.
Current regulated water use must recreate these
variable sequences.   Many  organisms  exist
through their ability to adapt quickly.  Habitat
must vary if these species are to survive.
FREEBOARD, BUFFERS,
AND CORRIDORS

    Our  management  practices have  hurt the
habitat value of scattered  wetlands  by limiting
the   adaptability  of  individual   wetlands.
Individual  wetlands  have considerable  but
limited powers of  recovery.   Managers often
place dikes or other structures in the flood plain
so that  wetlands cannot  expand up  gradient
during high  water periods, leading to limited
adaptability.  Artificial wetland boundaries often
cut off the 100 or  50 year high water  level of the
wetland  (e.g.,  Great Salt  Lake).  Wetland
creation, restoration  and  other management
plans must contain considerable "freeboard" for
extra protection.

    Unconfined wetlands  allow  vegetation to
grow up and down the bank and adjust itself to
changing hydroregimes.  Steep landward banks
may occur as a result of bulkheads on bars or
beaches, levees on stream channels, or seawalls
on lakes.  The steep sides of confined  systems
remove the potential for adjustment and therefore
force the loss of plant species,  animals  and
habitat. Buffers are needed to avoid such losses.
Buffers  allow for the expansion and contraction
of the plant communities  to respond to variations
in hydroperiod, and thus  increase the probability
of persistence.

    Planning for environmental corridors helps
reduce  the   isolation of the  wetlands in  or
adjacent  to  the corridors,  which  in  turn
facilitates movement and recolonization  of these
wetlands.  The corridors  themselves can provide
a variety of beneficial  functions, as  well as
acting as buffers.

    An increase in the area of a created wetland
may be  as simple as adding a modest buffer area
and  yet may  have  a large improvement in
persistence.  The buffer will allow the biota in the
wetland to adapt to changing water levels.  The
buffer can also become additional refugia for the
resident animals.

    Little formal information  exists  on  the
definition and construction of buffer zones.  But
the rationale and need for  buffers seem clear.
Buffers  provide an area of refuge for plants and
animals between their normal  or  preferred
habitat and human activities.
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL
HETEROGENEITY AND SIZE

    Increased freeboard, corridors,  and buffer
areas  add  internal  spatial  and  temporal
heterogeneity to a  wetland  construction and
restoration  project.   Because these forms of
habitat may  provide water connections between
potential portions of the wetland, they can become
reserve sites and refugia for aquatic plants and
animals  which disperse through  water.  All of
these techniques increase the "effective" size of
the site.

    The effective size of a wetland includes the
area of the  wetland  available and accessible to
the plant and animal species of concern.   In
practice, the effective  area  for  a species  is
measured by  determining the interconnections
available with the dispersal mechanisms used by
that species.  For example, if a manager wished
to use topminnows (Poecilidae) for mosquito
control,  he  or she  should  provide  water
                                             51

-------
connections for at least some portion of the year
between the portions  of the site that might allow
mosquitos to breed.  The best season for dispersal
will  vary depending on  the  climate and the
natural history of the species.

    Given the heterogeneity  discussed above,
larger wetlands  invariably  provide  greater
habitat value (Andrewartha and  Birch, 1984).
This occurs for two reasons. First, greater area
provides additional spatial heterogeneity and
consequent  opportunity  to  spread the  risk.
Second, additional  spatial heterogeneity over a
larger area creates a more complex pattern. This
pattern complexity allows  for  an increase in
habitat diversity which supports and encourages
greater species diversity (MacArthur  1972).  In
terms of genetic resilience, more species present
on the site help guarantee that some species will
adapt and survive  if severe impacts occur.  In
this sense, species diversity spreads the risk.
MANAGING UNCERTAINTY

    Two kinds  of  uncertainty  simultaneously
plague and bless careful managers. The first of
these includes  our inability to predict  with
certainty  both  natural  and   anthropogenic
extrinsic  impacts.  The  second  includes the
unpredictable behavioral adaptations that plants
and animals sometimes make.

    The poet Robert Burns once said that the best
laid plans of mice and men oft times go astray.
For those  who  attempt  to manage  natural
resources this regularly applies.  Things happen.
In  the midwest within the  last year we  have
experienced a  17-year cicada (Magicicada
septendecim)  outbreak,  record  high  wind
conditions,  and a  prolonged summer drought.
All of these have increased the danger from fire.
While scientists predicted the cicada emergence,
the event happens so infrequently that little was
known about the effects of the cicadas on natural
ecosystems. Thus,  managed   habitats  may
combine    natural   events   which  occur
simultaneously through chance.   This stochastic
summing  of independently varying impacts can
over stress the adaptability of the species  and the
ecosystem  even when the same impacts taken
singly would cause  changes well  within the
homeostatic limits of the ecosystem.

    A third subtle uncertainty frustrates  wetland
restoration efforts.  Wetlands often act as  sinks
for waterborne contaminants. Many accumulate
potential pollutants while they act to clean water.
These contaminants can build up to levels which
harm wetland plants and animals.

    Our land use  management  practices  have
hurt the habitat value of many scattered wetlands
by creating habitats  which  contain   threats
animals cannot detect. Animals lack the ability
to detect many fatal pollutants such  as DDT,
selenium, mercury,  and PCBs.  A  wetland with
valued habitat characteristics, but accumulated
contaminants may lure animals to their death.
For  example,  wetlands  which  receive high
Habitat Evaluation Procedure  (HEP) ratings
may  have  contaminants   present.  These
contaminants  may  occur at levels  of concern
while  the  site  is   otherwise physically and
biologically attractive to the important species.
Our study of the Kesterson  National Wildlife
Refuge may help us  understand this problem.

    Wetland evaluation systems seldom include
detailed  chemical  analysis  and   even  if
evaluation  considers the  presence of  chemical
contaminants,  the data are often not available to
predict impact on particular species.  For many
contaminants, we know little about  their effect on
plants and animals.   Chemical  analyses are
also costly  (up to $1000/sample) and often raise
questions which defy easy  solution.

    In some parts of the United States, wetlands
have become so reduced  that  little habitat
remains  and plant  and  animals  quickly
colonize even marginally appropriate sites.
Thus, managers accidentally  create or restore
wetlands which can  become attractive nuisances.

    We know of   no  easy  answer to  the
contaminant problem.  If the situation indicates
that  such a  problem might exist  (e.g.,  an
abandoned landfill,  an agricultural wastewater
sump, an area which receives  stortnwater runoff
from urban  or  industrial  sites,  the prudent
manager should get some samples analyzed for
potential pollution  problems.  Site  restoration
may require pollutant removal or  abatement.
Unfortunately,   this  may involve hazardous
waste control agencies and years of cost  and
delay. Due to the  different responsibilities and
training of agency personnel,  habitat  assess-
ments rarely consider pollutant  hazards  and
chemical analyses  seldom contain wildlife risk
estimates.   Improved agency coordination  and
an interdisciplinary approach to wetland evalua-
tion could help identify these problem areas.

    To counter the potential for adverse  and
unpredictable impacts, wetland restoration and
creation projects could be designed and planned
for a variety of unknown worst cases.   No simple
recipe exists to assure the health and survival of
the wetland, but applying a few guidelines taken
from our discussion may help:

1.  Understand  the  natural history  of the
    individual species of interest.

2.  Provide extra space and diverse conditions to
    improve the odds for survival of a  variety of
    species.
                                              52

-------
3.  Provide spatial heterogeneity which usually
    increases with size and gradient.

4.  Plan reserve sites as refugia when possible.
    Many species of plants and animals require
    reserve sites.   HEP  analysis can  often
    recognize  candidate reserve  sites   even
    though the population levels of the target
    species may be low at the time.
5.   Imagine  the  consequences  of  potential
    adverse impacts.  Try to design safeguards
    against these.

6.   When   the   potential   for   chemical
    contamination  exists, attempt to get  an
    analysis  of the  risk to the plants and
    animals that may use the site.
                      DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
    Assume that all wetlands naturally change
in size, in  community structure and in locality.
That is, they get bigger and smaller; they become
different sorts of habitats and, from time to time,
wetlands appear on the landscape and disappear.
Wetlands  probably maintain  some  regional
dynamic balance, but this balance is not precise.

    It  is difficult to design  for precise wetland
types  and boundaries.   They both  change
regularly.   Design for a  general  type which
contains  elements  for self  regulation  and
maintenance.  Regulators should set standards
for  long   term  monitoring  that  demand
"persistence" not "constancy" for restored and
created wetlands.

    Don't get concerned if the restored or created
wetland does  what it  will, as long as it does
something  (Lewis, pers.  comm. 1987). Remember
that the homeostatic strength of any wetland or
habitat cluster causes the system to adjust to some
external perturbations  and  not  others.   Most
landscape   units  develop  as  a  result  of
probabilistic external events which no one can
control.

    Encourage  designs  which include room for
change in  size and type.  Hydraulic gradients
allow greater  spatial heterogeneity to develop.
Climatic variation may  cause  vegetation  to
self-adjust  higher or lower on the gradient. Rare
species of plants and animals may require more
rigid designs.  Species achieve rarity in several
ways.  Some exploit  specialized local  niches
which  occur  infrequently  in  the landscape
(Yucca  Night  Lizards,  Xantusia  vigilis.
Limpkins, Aramus guarauna: Southern Cougar,
Felis  concolor).   Occasionally  these  species
become locally abundant.   Other rare species
scatter  widely   and   exploit  ephemeral
circumstances  that  provide   food,  reduced
competition, or predation (White Pelicans).  The
former  depend on  persistent  local conditions
which    wetland   builders    have  difficulty
constructing.  These local habitats may represent
the species only chance.  The latter fall prey to
incremental habitat destruction because each part
of their habitat is scattered over a large region
and is ephemeral.

    We  recommend that managers plan for the
worst combination of events the wetland they are
restoring or creating may encounter.  Natural
causes  may  force   animals  into  marginal
habitats as refuges. These then become essential.
The current population of animals may be at a
low and will use this habitat later.  An animal
population may  use a currently marginal  or
unused  site  as  a   reserve  under  different
unpredictable circumstances.

    All  wetlands have some public value, though
sometimes these values are not readily apparent.
Some   disturbed   wetlands  have  reduced
functional  value.   Undisturbed   naturally
functioning   wetlands  are   essentially
irreplaceable in the short run.

    Expect  change  in  size,  wetness  and
ecosystem type in created  and restored wetlands.
Therefore,  they  should be  designed   well
"oversize" compared  to the wetlands  for which
they compensate.

    Unfortunately, the natural  variability of
ecosystems, the  unpredictability of extrinsic
forces,  and the perversity of complex systems
make   any  absolute guarantee  of success
impossible. Therefore, in  addition to worst case
and  oversize  design,  most  projects  should
include  a monitoring program geared to  some
explicit but flexible and realistic goals.   To
protect  against the  potential (if improbable)
failure of the project, the project sponsors should
be asked to  provide, in every  permit,  some
financial guarantee  such  as a  long term  bond.
This bond should cover the cost of trying to repair
the original effort or if necessary, trying again.
                                             53

-------
                                         LITERATURE CITED
Andrewartha, H.G. and L.C. Birch. 1984. The Ecological
   Web:   More on the Distribution and Abundance  of
   Animals.  University of Chicago Press.

Bertness, M.D. and A.M. Ellison.  1987.  Determinants of
   patterns  in  a  New  England  salt  marsh plant
   community.  Ecolo(rical Monographs S7C2V.129-147.

Clausen,  J., D.D.  Deck,  and W.M. Heisey.   1940.
   Experimental Studies  on the Nature of Species.   I.
   The Effect of Varied Environments on Western North
   American Plants.     Carnegie  Institution  of
   Washington, Pub. 520, Washington, D.C.

Darwin, C.  1859.  On the Origin of Species.  Harvard
   University Press,  Cambridge, Massachusetts (1964
   ed.).

DeAngelis, D.L. and J.C. Waterhouse. 1987.  Equilibrium
   and  nonequilibrium concepts in ecological models.
   Ecological Monographs 57(1):1-21.

Gosselink, J.G. and L.C. Lee.  1987.  Cumulative Impact
   Assessment in Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Center
   for Wetland Resources,  Louisiana State University,
   Baton Rouge. LSU GEI-86-09.

Jacobson, T. and J.A. Kushlan.  1986.  Alligators  in
   natural  areas:    Choosing  conservation  policies
   consistent   with  local  objectives.  Biological
   Conservation 36:181-196.

Krebs, C.J.  1978.  Ecology:  The Experimental  Analysis
   of Distribution  and  Abundance.  Second  Edition.
   Harper & Row, New York.

Kushlan,  J.A.  1987.  External threats  and  internal
   management: the hydrologic  regulation  of the
   Everglades,   Florida,   USA.    Environmental
   Management 11(1):109-119.
Lewin, R.  1986.   In  ecology,  change brings stability.
   Science 2341071-1074.
MacArthur, Rfl.  1972.
   & Row, New York.
Geographical Ecology.  Harper
McNaughton, S.S. 1966. Ecotype function in the Typha
   community type. Ecological Monographs 36:297-325.

Myers,  J.P.,  R.I.G.  Morrison,  P.Z.  Antas,  B.A.
   Harrington,  T.E.  Lovejoy,  M.  Sallaberry,  S.E.
   Senner, and  A. Tarak  1987.  Conservation strategy
   for migratory species.  American Scientist 75:19-26.

Skeate, S.T.  1987.  Interactions between birds and fruits
   in  a  northern  Florida  hammock  community.
   Ecology 68(2):297-309.

Urban, D.L., R.V. O'Neill, and H.H. Shugart, Jr.  1987.
   Landscape  ecology.  BioScience 37119-127.

Webster, N.  1970.  Webster's New Twentieth Century
   Dictionary.  World Pub. Cleveland.

Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwater Marshes:  Ecology and
   Wildlife  Management.   University  of Minnesota
   Press.

Wiens,   J.A.    1985.    Vertebrate   responses  to
   environmental patchiness in  arid  and  semiarid
   ecosystems. In S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White (Eds.),
   The  Ecology of  Natural Disturbance and  Patch
   Dynamics.  Academic Press, New York.

Willard, D.E.   1980.   Vertebrate use of wetlands.
   Proceedings  of  Indiana   Water   Resources
   Association Meeting.
                                                    54

-------
                RESTORATION OF THE PULSE CONTROL
        FUNCTION OF WETLANDS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
                    TO WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
                                      Orie L. Loucks
                                Holcomb Research Institute
                                    Butler University
    ABSTRACT.  Many wetlands and  wetland restoration opportunities occur in the poorly
    drained headwaters of streams, along the stream floodplains, and at discharge points to larger
    water bodies.  All of these are greatly changed by upland development that accelerates flows
    and increases the runoff pulse from headwater areas.  In turn, the runoff increases scouring
    and transport of sediments, and subsequent deposition in or erosion of downstream wetland
    types. Successful restoration must consider how the hydrologic pulse may have been changed
    and whether pulse control measures can bring stream flows within a range consistent with
    historical development of downstream  wetlands.

        Comparison of spring versus summer loadings pulses indicates major differences in the
    seasonality of transport  of excess nutrients into wetlands and downstream  water bodies. The
    annual average loading is misleading, indicating that statements on wetland functions which
    ignore their role during pulsed events  probably understate their significance in the landscape.
    Modelling studies of runoff and sediment transport suggest the combination of reduced soil
    exposures and restoration of wetland  cover in temporary detention areas can produce major
    benefits in stream water quality.  With additional parameters, quantitative estimates could be
    made of the cumulative impact of wetland restoration toward mitigation of flood peaks and the
    transport of sediment and toxic substances into adjacent aquatic systems.

        At present, the general physical  relationships between land use and  hydrology provide
    only a guide to the prospective benefits we associate with investment in wetland restoration.
    They suggest how to  evaluate  tradeoffs in benefits and costs between a lower cost investment
    higher in the watershed  (carried out over large areas), versus investment in a higher risk but
    potentially higher quality wetland restoration along the main  stem or outlet of a drainage
    system. Although limited predictive capabilities  exist for assessing the efficacy of restored
    wetlands, they have not been subjected to  quantitative testing within the environment of
    wetland  restoration  technology.   There is  a  need for more complete treatment-response
    modeling and model testing if the predictive capability  needed to improve wetland restoration
    is to become available.
                                   INTRODUCTION
   Many studies have shown that impairment of
rural (and suburban) surface   water  quality
occurs during infrequent but  unusually large
storm events. These  events produce pulses in
runoff, leading to flood peaks, unusual levels of
sediment  transport  or  "washouts",   and
mobilization of contaminants from agricultural
lands or  industrial  sites.  Studies  also  have
shown that hydrologic detention in wetlands, or
other means  of delaying the  peak  hydrologic
response,  provides important buffering in the
transport of sediment and chemicals by reducing
the  size of the pulsed events. This chapter
examines  the basic principles  of  hydrologic
response and material  transport, emphasizing
pulsed events, and considers  the potential for
improving water quality  and aquatic ecosystem
functions  through  restoration of pulse-control
processes in wetlands.

    To meet these objectives the paper reviews the
relevant  literature  on  wetland hydrology,
sediment  transport  and  nutrient  detention.
Historical or "reference ranges" in hydrologic
or detention functions are emphasized as well as
modern  conditions, as a synthesis of both will
contribute to understanding the  potential for
restoration.  In landscapes where widespread
alteration of hydrologic and related  wetland
functions has occurred, little possibility exists for
consensus on a normal or reference state for
wetland  functions, particularly for processes that
ameliorate unusual pulsed events. One important
reference  point,  however,  is  the buffering
                                           55

-------
associated  with  the  original  vegetation  and
wetlands of a watershed. In the long-run, the
success of a newly created or restored  wetland
needs to be evaluated in relation to the capacity
of even the most natural of remaining wetlands
to function within present-day hydrologically
altered watersheds.

    The question  of how to further reduce the
effects of unusual hydrologic events,  including
the transport of foreign substances, is significant
now because the Agricultural Stabilization Act of
1985  could withdraw  up to  50  million acres  of
land  from  agricultural  use.  Implementation  of
this  program  is  already  being  seen  as
significant for further wetland restorations.
Although the set-aside programs (sodbuster and
swampbuster) emphasize highly credible  soils,
some of the  alternate uses  will  permit the
restoration  of  wetlands,  or  more  likely
restoration of the buffering capacity of vegetation
and wetlands in  the  headwater  areas  of
watersheds. Indeed, a potential exists to  focus
certain of the set-aside programs so  that they
greatly enhance the water quality improvement
potential  of wetlands  in  agricultural  areas,
thereby  enhancing  the recovery  of wetland
functions and downstream water quality.
               PRINCIPLES EVIDENT FROM EXISTING STUDIES
DISTRIBUTION OF WETLANDS
ON A LANDSCAPE

    Although wetland types  vary widely from
one area to another across the landscapes of the
United  States, a very  common wetland  type,
making up by far the largest  part of wetland
acreages in the central regions, are depressions
that provide temporary detention of water. These
wetlands  are  characterized  simply by poorly
drained soils (gleysols) and  the  presence  of a
number of wet-habitat indicator species.  This
wetland type is  best illustrated by the  shallow
basin type described by Novitzki (1979), Figure 1.
Frequently these shallow wetlands are  drained
for  agriculture,  and  no  longer  function as
wetlands. They  are not usually protected  by state
or federal wetland programs, and most often are
not   subject  to  permitting  or  mitigation
requirements. Indeed, although  the classification
by Cowardin et al. provides for the inclusion of
such temporarily flooded  wetland types within
the palustrine wetland systems, and they can be
mapped by following the distribution of gleysol
soils, they are not well illustrated in the cross-
sectional  diagrams shown by  Cowardin et al.
(1979).

    Despite the very large area of temporary
detention in many watersheds, the withdrawal of
shallow basin wetlands through  ditching and
drainage has greatly increased the rate at which
water is discharged from the  upland landscape
into  the  remaining wetlands,  streams  and
floodplains. The importance of this relationship
is  shown in  Figure  2,  where the  stream
hydrograph with good retention has a much lower
flood peak and a longer discharge time than the
stream  without detention (Reppert et al. 1979).
The presence of the drainage channel system
increases the  flood peak  and greatly increases
the potential for transport of substances  into the
aquatic environment (Carter et al. 1979, Novitzki
1979).
DETENTION IN NATURAL DRAINAGES

    Studies in  the Lake Wingra Basin around
Madison, Wisconsin from 1969  to 1974 (Loucks
and Watson 1978, Loucks 1981, Loucks 1986) have
illustrated  the hydrologic and nutrient detention
potential   of  wetlands  in  natural  drainage
systems. One  part of this study focused on a
comparison of the modern hydrology of the Lake
Wingra basin with the pre-settlement hydrology
reconstructed  from  measurements   on  a
subwatershed  within   the   University   of
Wisconsin  Arboretum. Data   summarized  by
Prentki et al. (1977) have shown that the natural
subwatershed (Marshland Creek, a large natural
area  of forest, prairie and  shallow  basin
wetlands),  yielded much less  runoff than that
characterizing watersheds of similar  size in the
suburban areas around the Arboretum. Runoff
from the natural watershed occurred only during
snowmelt  when the soils were  still partially
frozen.  Runoff occurred from  the   other
watersheds during almost every significant rain
event throughout the  study period. The hydrology
for the entire  Lake Wingra  basin, for both
present and  presettlement  conditions,  is
summarized in  Table  1.  The  runoff under
current conditions,  where   shallow  basin
wetlands have been  filled or drained,  is  about
twice  that estimated  for  the  presettlement
watershed. A  related decrease of almost ten
percent is shown for  the inflow from springs and
groundwater to the lake.

    Because the concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus are higher in runoff waters compared
to groundwater, the hydrologic  changes have
resulted in  large   differences  in the nutrient
                                             56

-------
       SHALLOW BASIN
      Dry Much of the Time
MODERATELY DEEP BASIN
  Only Occasionally Dry
  DEEP BASIN
Permanently Wet
 Figure 1.  Different plant communities in surface water  depression wetlands  related to  water
           permanence and basin depth (Novitzki 1979).
Discharge
                                Storm profile
                                    Hydrograph w/o storage
                                         Maximum  retention
                                                    Hydrograph with storage
                                                 Rainfall
                                        Time
 Figure 2.  Flood hydrographs for watersheds with and without wetland storage capacity (from Reppert
           et al. 1979).
                                            57

-------
loadings to this lake, as summarized in Table 2.
Nitrogen input has increased slightly due to the
increased runoff. Phosphorus has much  higher
concentrations  in runoff, and along with the
increased  proportion  of surface runoff, yields an
increase of almost two-thirds in the loading  of
this key nutrient.  This  level  of increase,
resulting   in  large part  from  the loss  of
temporary detention, produces what is  widely
recognized as a water quality impairment.

    A  key  question  then is  whether  the
restoration  of wetlands  or other  temporary
retention basins at locations  between the altered
uplands  and  the receiving wetland or  lake
systems would  reduce  the  effects from  pulsed
transport of phosphorus  during  storm events.
Research reported by Flatness (1980), Huff and
Young (1980), and Perry et al. (1981) provides an
opportunity to answer this question. West Marsh,
a small area remaining at the west end of Lake
Wingra, is the receiving site for storm drainage
from a golf  course and urban area on the west
side of   the  City  of  Madison,  Wisconsin.
Measurements  of water  inflow,  and the net
detention  of water and  nutrients, were carried
out over a two year period (Flatness 1980). Two
findings are significant:  first, the largest part of
the net flow through of water, sediment, and
nutrients  across  the  marsh and  into the  lake
occurred  during  the spring runoff  when the
marsh  was frozen (as was seen in the natural
watershed in the Arboretum). The transport  of
water and nutrients is large enough during this
time that  the annual average detention achieved
by the wetland, expressed on an annual basis (as
has been done in the  past),  is a very modest 10
percent.

    The second finding,  however, is that  during
the summer when evaporation from the marsh is
high and the potential for nutrient uptake also is
high, the  wetland functioned so as to detain 83
percent of the  incoming phosphorus  (Table 3).
When this result is considered in the context of
how the  lake  ecosystem functions through the
seasons, one recognizes that the spring influx of
phosphorus meets a very large percentage of the
lake requirement at that time (as the algae and
zooplankton populations increase in mass by an
order of magnitude).  During  the summer no
additional input  of phosphorus is needed for a
healthy and fully functioning lake ecosystem
(remineralization is quite  sufficient).  These
relationships indicate a major difference  in the
seasonality of pulsed transport of nutrients to the
lake.  In this case, focus on the annual average
(Table  3)  is  misleading, indicating   that
statements on wetland functions that pass over
their role  during  pulsed  events  will  also
understate their significance in the landscape.
MODELING AREAWIDE SEDIMENT
SOURCES AND DETENTION

    Consider another study of detention  of
sediment and water within  the  shallow basin
systems  of an  agricultural landscape:   an
analysis  of Finley Creek, a small watershed
northwest   of  Indianapolis,  Indiana.  This
watershed was studied as a part of the research
on Eagle Creek between 1978 and 1982. The study
was  designed to evaluate  how much sediment
and  nutrient input could  be reduced through
changes  in tillage practices on this   largely
agricultural watershed, chosen as representative
of land use and runoff in  central Indiana. The
watershed contributes to the water supply for the
City of Indianapolis.

    A capability for evaluating runoff, transport,
and  deposition  of sediment within  a  small
watershed was developed by Beasley and others
at Purdue University (Beasley  et  al.  1985,
Huggins et  al. 1982, Lee et  al. 1985.) Their work
led to the ANSWRS  model (Areal  Nonpoint
Source Watershed Response  Simulation).  The
model  is, in effect, a fine  grid geo-information
system that allows two-dimensional calculation
of the proportion of runoff from each area in the
watershed. Given the volumes of water from each
area and the rates of flow  (from the runoff and
slopes), the amount of sediment mobilized from
the eroding surfaces  can be calculated. These
calculations  then  allow  estimation   of  the
sediment  subsequently  deposited  in   the
temporary detention depressions (shallow basin
wetlands) in the watershed  (see Figure 3), or
carried on to the stream itself. The model also
calculates the residual transport  of sediment to
the stream, thereby allowing estimation of the
potential for water quality improvement through
more environmentally compatible cultivation
measures.  The studies have shown reductions of
as much as 36 percent in  sediment input as a
result of changes in the tillage practices on the
gentle slopes. These results were obtained without
considering  the   introduction   of  natural
vegetation,  greenways, or restored wetlands near
the stream itself, steps that would further reduce
sediment transport to the streams.

    Given evidence that even the small, shallow
basins in this  watershed  play a large  role in
holding water and  sediment (at least during the
growing season), these modeling results suggest
the combination   of    reduced   tillage and
restoration  of  wetlands could  produce major
benefits in stream water  quality.  Using the
model with additional  parameters (for the effects
of  increased  permanent  green  cover),  an
estimate can be made of the areawide cumulative
impact  of  wetland  restoration toward  the
mitigation  of  flood  peaks and  transported
sediment and associated chemicals.
                                             58

-------
Table 1. A comparison of hydrologic inputs for a modern and predisturbance watershed, in volumetric and percent-of-
       total forms. (From Loucks and Watson 1978).
Source
                  Hydrologic Input (10 3 m3/yr)

  Present        Percent        Presettlement
                    Percent
Rainfall
Runoff
Springs and
Groundwater
TOTALS
920
990
430
6200
15
16
69
100
920
450
4500-4700
5900-6100
15
7
78
100
Table 2.   Estimated present and presettlement loadings, Lake Wingra. (From Loucks and Watson 1978).
Source
        Nitrogen
    Loading (kg yr ~*)

Present   Presettlement
          Phosphorus
        Loading (kg yr ~l)

Present       Presettlement
Rainfall

Runoff

Springs and
  Groundwater

Dryfall

N Fixation
 1200          1200

 5200          3000

18000   18000-19000


 1900      1800-1900

 3800  (assume 3800)
   34

  710

  160


   95
     34

    320

170-180


  92-95
TOTALS
30000   28000-29000
  1000
 620-630
                                                59

-------
Table 3. Phosphorus mass balance for Wingra runoff water, August 1975-August 1976 (From Livingston
        and Loucks 1978).
                                           Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
Season
Autumn (14 August - 13 December)
Winter (14 December - 10 February)
Spring (11 February - 7 May)
Summer*
Annual*
Input
(kg/day)
0.380
1.232
3.862
0.145
1.282
Output
(kg/day)
0.318
1.231
3.553
0.024
1.155
Retention
(kg/day)
0.061
0.002
0.309
0.120
0.127
Percent
16
1
8
83
10
* Assumes 100 percent infiltration for summer except 15 May and 24 June runoff event.
    Research on lake restoration (Cooke  et  al.
1986), related to the lake/watershed  studies cited
previously,  also should be considered for  its
potential relevance in a synthesis of mitigative
measures for wetlands.  The principles of lake
restoration have matured over the past fifteen
years,  and  are beginning  to be  viewed  as a
predictive science, despite our recognition that
virtually no two lakes are alike or  will respond
similarly   to   the  same  treatment.  The
investigations used to design  and evaluate the
prospective response  of lakes to  restoration
measures show that, before mitigation can be
expected to  meet goals set for a given lake, key
characteristics  of that  system  need to  be
understood. These include  knowing the entire
hydrology  of  the  lake  and  watershed,
particularly flushing time (i.e., the time required
for the incoming  water volume to  equal the
volume of water in the lake or wetland), the
annual and  seasonal net  loading  of  sediment
and nutrients (expressed in terms of equivalent
weight per unit area  of lake), and seasonal
hydrologic fluctuation,  shoreline aeration, and
related questions of sediment toxicities. Let us
consider how the lake restoration procedures and
principles would apply to evaluating the potential
for success in wetland restoration.

    Prior  to restoration,  the essential principles
for wetland evaluation need to address the
hydrology of the wetland, just  as  it  would be
addressed in evaluating the restoration  of a
small lake. Included are questions of the total
magnitude  of  the  hydrologic  inflows  and
outflows,  from  which  can  be calculated  an
apparent flushing time. The  flushing-time term
already is recognized  as the  dominant factor in
coastal  wetlands where tidal processes produce
daily flushing (de la Cruz 1978).   Freshwater
wetlands, on the other hand,  experience flushing
principally  during  unusual  runoff events,
although not all freshwater wetlands experience
flushing.   In addition, just as for lakes, the
relative importance of  surface  water input as
opposed to  groundwater  input, and  how the
balance of these inputs controls the  resultant
chemistry  of the  wetland, are  essential to
understanding the biological  community that
can be sustained on a restored wetland.

    Related to these questions  are the seasonal
and longer-period  hydroperiods for  the  sites
being considered for restoration. Although we are
accustomed to dealing with annual averages, the
key characteristics of the  wetland  and the
associated water courses are  often  dominated by
pulsed  events only partially mediated  by the
system as a whole~as the  examples cited earlier
in this chapter illustrate.

    For the  annual  hydroperiod  of wetlands,
saturation is expected during the winter or
spring, followed  by a major drying down in most
parts of the country during the summer. Here, as
we saw earlier, one needs to consider a reference
                                              60

-------
      N
Soil loss > 20 MT/ha




Deposition > 10 MT/ha
                         FINLEY CREEK
                            Indiana MIP
                         Management Strategy
                   61

-------
pattern:  What was the pre-alteration fluctuation
pattern influencing or controlling a wetland type
for which we may  now  be setting restoration
goals?  An estimate  of pre-alteration properties
should  be  compared   with  the   existing
hydroperiod, so  as  to evaluate  whether the
transition from present conditions to the patterns
associated with the  proposed restoration can be
achieved. Illustrative  data on  the  changes
induced  in  a wetland  hydroperiod,  and the
associated wetland degradation, are reported by
Bedford and Loucks (1979).

    Another important property, the logarithmic
relationship  between  annual   flood   peak
(expressed as the ratio to mean annual  flood),
and  the  return  interval over which  unusual
events  are expected to recur in small watersheds
is  shown in  Figure  4.  This  relationship  is
similar to one used to estimate the hundred-year
flood peak for rivers.  In restoring wetlands, the
size and return-period of extreme events must be
considered, whether the event is a 100-year flood,
a  20-year unusual  event  (at  twice the  mean
annual flood), or the 5-year pulse (at 30 percent
greater than the annual flood).  There is always
some probability, perhaps one in a  hundred
(which approaches  certainty for 100  or more
wetland or  stream systems in  any given  year),
that extreme  events will  affect a  wetland
restoration.  The significance of  return-time
considerations lies in the fact that restoration  on
a  large  number of  wetlands must be designed
for  events  that are unusual locally, but  fairly
frequent over a large population of wetlands.
Indeed, the threat of serious erosion of wetlands,
or even burial through sediment transport from
the  adjacent uplands,  must be incorporated into
restoration  designs.

    Consider also the well-known exponential
rise in sediment load  associated with increased
water  flow rates.  Few  studies discuss  the
increased transport  of toxic substances to  the
aquatic  environment   under  peak  flow
conditions,  but  exponential  increases  in
transport seem to be the best first approximation
for  estimating these components as well.  When
these two relationships are combined (probability
of extreme events  in  a large population  of
wetlands, and exponential increase in sediment
and toxic substance transport), one begins  to
appreciate  the potential for relatively simple,
physical predictive tools to aid in understanding
the  wetland functions sought  in restorations.
Indeed, restoration of  sediment and  nutrient
detention may be  achieved  more  effectively
through  a   large number of relatively low-cost
wetlands in the upper reaches of watersheds than
through a similar number of often high-cost (and
high-risk) wetland restorations  farther down in
the  watershed. These wetlands are more subject
to  being   overwhelmed  by large-volume flows
and transport from the relatively uncontrolled
system above them.
                  IMPLICATIONS FOR RESTORATION OF THE
                            PULSE CONTROL FUNCTION
    An  important  part  of  the design  of   a
wetland restoration intended  to improve pulse
control rests with characterizing the processes
involved.  The discussion above has introduced
the concept of small, but large-area influences,
the  central  principle  in  "buffering".  The
regulatory aspect of this question  is evident in
requirements  for  a  "buffer zone"   to  be
established along  the margins of important
wetland habitats.   Debate currently focuses on
whether a "buffer" should be 50, 100, or up to 300
feet wide. This concept and terminology is used
despite  the fact that  a  technical  definition of
"buffer" emphasizes properties of resilience, i.e.,
the capability to continue to resist an altered state
despite  an  unusual  degree  of input  or force
toward that alteration. Wetlands distributed in
the shallow basins throughout the headwaters of a
watershed,  unrelieved  by  present-day tile-
drainage  and channeling, provide  buffering
capability in the original technical sense.  On
the other  hand, a  strip of land retained  around
the edge of a wetland provides  important habitat
for species that may utilize the wetland border as
shielding from human  activity.  This  strip of
upland cover,  however,  provides little buffering
capacity  for the hydrologic and sediment pulses
from  upstream, which  represent  the greatest
intrusion into  the wetland during pulsed events.
These two  different  functions   now being
associated with "buffering" should be made more
explicit   during   permit   review,   and
documentation of each aspect should be required
when proposing mitigation. For  the present,
provision for  the wetland margin  buffer zones
exists in  some  permitting  procedures,  and
although broad mitigative  functions  are  an
accepted benefit  from  these  reserves,  serious
differences  of opinion  will  remain  until  the
terminology and listing of benefits are more
precise.

    Given  that unbuffered  events impacting
wetlands can be many times larger than average
peak   flow   conditions,    designs    for   an
optimal  buffering capacity  to control man-
induced   peaks  should  seek  a  severalfold
reduction in the size of these  fluctuations. A
                                             62

-------
    reduction in  the  size and frequency of these
    events,  expressed  in  clearly  measurable
    standards  (e.g., as  in  Figure  4), should  be
    articulated  as a  performance criterion  for
    wetland restoration. Such measures should then
    be  incorporated  into  design  criteria  for
    restoration projects. In the examples considered
    here,  one  reference point  for performance
    criteria is  the magnitude of the extreme-event
    pulses in natural systems, while the magnitude
    of the extreme-event pulses characteristic of
    urban watersheds is an opposing reference point.
    Major  pulse  reduction  can  be  expected
    downstream when restoration is carried out close
    to the headwaters of small drainage systems, but
    water quality benefits will be expressed locally
    as well as downstream.  However, as more  and
    more of the area of a drainage basin loses this
    "headwater"  buffering  capacity,  the  more
    extreme  are the pulsed events midway or lower
    in  the   watershed  and  the  more difficult is
                     restoration or protection of wetland functions in
                     those areas.

                         These  general  physical  relationships can
                     provide only a guide to the expectations likely to
                     be  associated  with  investment in  wetland
                     restoration.  However, they also are a means for
                     guiding estimates of the long-term survivability
                     of a restoration project, at least in relation to the
                     return-time  of  extreme events that  could
                     negatively impact the restoration.  These physical
                     relationships also suggest how we might evaluate
                     the  tradeoff in benefits and costs. In its simplest
                     form,  the  tradeoff is  between a  lower-cost
                     investment higher in the watershed (little more
                     than small area set-asides), versus investment
                     in a higher risk (but potentially higher quality)
                     wetland restoration along the main stem or outlet
                     of a drainage system. Additional research is
                     needed before fully quantitative expressions of
                     these tradeoffs can be formulated.
T)
O
O
CO
3
C
C
CO
C
CO
CD
E
CO
DC
        1.01     1.1
1.5    2      3       5         10        20  30     50     100

     Return  period,7J.  ,  (years)
   Figure 4.  Regional-flood-frequency  curve  for  selected  stations  in  the  Youghiogheny  and
             Kiskiminetas  River basins (Pennsylvania and Maryland),  showing the return time for
             pulsed events expressed as a ratio to mean annual flood. A reduction in the hydrologic
             detention of wetlands raises the slope of this curve (U.S. Geological Survey, from Linsley et
             al. 1975).
                                                 63

-------
                                     RESEARCH]
      While   wetlands    function   in    many
  important ways, and while technology exists for
  proceeding  with  confidence on a  moderate
  number of restoration goals, great  limitations
  exist in our understanding of the variability in
  response among sites. These  limitations restrict
  our ability to predict the outcomes of restoration
  measures.   Priority   research   needs   for
  improving  our understanding  of  risks  and
  benefits  in  wetland restoration, particularly
  during pulsed events, can be addressed under the
  following four headings:

  1.   A need exists  for additional  case studies of
      hydrologic and water quality responses to the
      distribution of wetland  buffering capacity
      under a wide variety of weather conditions,
      soils, and topography. These studies should
      include an increased emphasis on the role of
      wetlands  in  intercepting  and  retaining
      nonpoint source pollutants,  including toxic
      substances mobilized from adjacent uplands.

  2.   Although  some  quantitative  predictive
      capability exists for assessing the efficacy of
      restored wetlands, or of specific components
      in the restoration processes,  these have not
      been  subjected to  significant  testing or
      validation.  There  is  a  need  for  more
      complete treatment-response modeling and
      model  testing  if the predictive  capability
      required   for  improved   designs   and
      implementations  is  to  become  widely
      available.

  3.   A  need  has  developed for specific  case
      studies regarding  the  benefit and  cost
      relationships   from  allocating a "buffer
      zone" around  wetlands where development
      is underway. How much benefit is achieved
      from a 100-foot or 300-foot strip along the edge
      of a  wetland receiving the discharge from a
      highly developed watershed?  What response
      can   be   expected   from   a restoration
     and rehabilitation under such conditions? A
     tradeoff may exist between values in the 300-
     foot strip, some of which may not be of great
     benefit to the  wetland,  and a  comparable
     investment  at  strategic  locations  in
     headwater  areas. This  research  requires
     predictive capabilities for both the border or
     edge benefits of the buffer zone, as well as the
     pulse-control processes.

 4.   Finally,  research  should  evaluate  the
     hierarchical relationships among hydrologic
     and nutrient pulse control functions, as one
     proceeds  from  the small watersheds that we
     are beginning to understand to the  larger
     watersheds  and landscapes  where  water
     quality questions are paramount. Do new
     principles   come   to   bear?   Can   a
     geoinformation system such as the ANSWRS
     model be extended to adjacent watersheds to
     assess   cumulative impacts   from  the
     restoration of a pattern of wetlands across the
     landscape? The tools  appear to be available to
     address these questions,  and they should be
     evaluated as soon as  possible.

     Some  of   the   above    research  needs
 require   a strategy either of establishing new
 wetland study sites,  or broadening the depth and
 perspective  of  existing  wetland research sites
 and initiatives. Because so much  already is
 underway, the research needs  described  here
 need not be thought  of as requiring  a new
 program, but rather a re-articulation of several
 existing studies in  order  to meet additional
 needs. Limited work on wetlands  already is
 underway  through  the  Long-Term Ecological
 Research sites sponsored by the National Science
 Foundation,  and relevant modeling  is underway
 at several of the EPA research laboratories  and
 through their supporting institutions. Together,
 these  initiatives  indicate  sufficient  work-in-
 progress to conclude that the above research is a
 reasonable target for a five-year program.
                                      LITERATURE CITED
Beasley,  D.B., E.J. Monke, E.R. Miller,  and L.F.
   Huggins.   1985.  Using  simulation  to assess  the
   impacts of conservation  tillage  on  movement of
   sediment  and  phosphorus into  Lake  Erie.  J. Soil
   Water Conserv. 40(2):233-237.

Bedford, B.L. and O.L. Loucks.  1979. Changes in the
   Structure, Function, and Stability of a Wetland
   Ecosystem  Following  a  Sustained Perturbation.
   Progress report on 1978 research.  Water Resources
   Center, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison.
Carter, V.,  M.S.  Bedinger, R.P.  Novitzki,  and W.O.
   Wilen.   1979.  Water  resources and wetlands,  p.
   344-376. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark
   (Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State  of
   Our Understanding.  Proceedings of the National
   Symposium  on  Wetlands,   American  Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Cooke, G.D.,  E.B.  Welch, S.A.  Peterson,  and P.R.
   Newroth.  1986.   Limnology,  lake diagnosis, and
   selection of restoration methods, p. 9-51. In G.D.
                                                64

-------
   Cooke, E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R. Newroth
   (Eds.), Lake and Reservoir Restoration,  Butterworth
   Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
   1979.   Classification  of  Wetlands and Deep water
   Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the
   Interior,  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service, Washington,
   D.C.

de la Cruz, Armando A.  1978. Production and transport
   of detritus in wetlands. In PJ5. Greeson, J.R. Clark,
   and J.E.  Clark  (Eds.),  Wetland Functions and
   Values:     The  State  of  our  Understanding.
   Proceedings  of   the  National   Symposium  on
   Wetlands, American Water  Resources  Association,
   Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Flatness, D.E. 1980.  Particulate Phosphorus-Availability
   in Tributaries of the Great Lakes and Removal in a
   Marsh  System.   M.S.  Thesis,  Water Chemistry
   Program,  University of  Wisconsin,  Madison,
   Wisconsin.

Huff, D.D. and H.L. Young. 1980. The effect of a marsh
   on runoff: I. A water budget model.  J. Environ. Qual.
   9:633-640.

Huggins, L.F., D.B. Beasley,  D.W. Nelson, T.A. Dillaha,
   III,  D.L.  Thomas, C.  Heatwole,  E.J. Monke, R.A.
   Dorich, and  L.A. Houston.  1982.  NFS pollution:
   evaluating alternative controls  by simulation and
   monitoring, p.  5-1 - 5-80.   In A.H. Preston (Ed.),
   Insights  into Water  Quality—Final  Report.  Indiana
   Heartland Model Implementation Project.

Lee, J. Gary,  S.B. Lovejoy, and D.B. Beasley. 1985. Soil
   loss reduction  in  Finley Creek,  Indiana:   An
   economic  analysis of  alternative  policies.  J. Soil
   Water Conserv.. January-February 132-135.

Linsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus.  1975.
   Hydrology for Engineers.  McGraw-Hill Series  in
   Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
   McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Livingston, R.J.  and  O.L. Loucks. 1978.  Productivity,
   trophic  interactions,  food-web   relationships  in
   wetlands and associated systems, p.  101-119. In P.E.
   Greeson, J.R. Clark,  and JJE. Clark (Eds.), Wetland
   Functions   and   Values:   The   State  of  Our
   Understanding.   Proceedings  of the  National
   Symposium  on  Wetlands,  American   Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Loucks, O.L.  1981.  The littoral zone as a wetland:  Its
   contribution  to  water quality, p. 125-138.  In B.
   Richardson  (Ed.), Selected  Proceedings  of the
   Midwest  Conference on Wetland Values  and
   Management, June 17-19,1981.

Loucks, O.L.  1986.  Role of basic ecological knowledge
   in  the  mitigation  of  impacts   from  complex
   technological  systems:  agriculture, transportation
   and urban.  In O.L. Loucks (Ed.), Proceedings of a
   Conference on Long Term Environmental Research
   and   Development.    Council on  Environmental
   Quality (CEQ), Washington, D.C.

Loucks, O.L. and V. Watson. 1978.  The use of models to
   study wetland regulation of nutrient loading to Lake
   Mendota, p. 242-252. In C.B. DeWitt and E. Soloway
   (Eds.),   Wetlands, Ecology,  Values, and  Impacts.
   Proceedings  of  the Waubesa   Conference  on
   Wetlands.  University of Wisconsin-Madison, Inat.
   for Env. Studies, Madison, Wisconsin.

Novitzki, R.P.   1979.   Hydrologic  characteristics of
   Wisconsin's wetlands  and their influence on floods,
   stream flow,  and sediment, p. 337-388.  In P.E.
   Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland
   Functions  and  Values:  The   State  of  Our
   Understanding.    Proceedings  of the  National
   Symposium   on   Wetlands,  American   Water
   Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Perry, J.J., D.E. Armstrong, and D.D. Huff.   1981.
   Phosphorus fluxes in an urban marsh during runoff,
   p. 199-211.   In B.  Richardson  (Ed.),  Selected
   Proceedings of the Midwest Conference  on Wetland
   Values and  Management,  Freshwater  Society,
   Navarre, Minnesota.

Prentki,  R.T., D.S.  Rogers, V.J. Watson, P.R.  Weiler,
   and O.L.  Loucks.  1977.  Summary tables of Lake
   Wingra  Basin data,   p.  89.   In  Univ. of  Wise.
   Institute for Env. Studies,  Report 85, December 1977.
   Madison,  Wisconsin.

Reppert,  R.T., W. Sigleo, F. Stakhiv,  L. Messuram, and
   C. Meyers.  1979.  Wetland Values:  Concepts and
   Methods  for Wetlands Evaluation.  Institute for
   Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft.
   Belvoir,  Virginia.
                                                    65

-------
     VEGETATION DYNAMICS IN RELATION TO WETLAND
                                     CREATION
                                   William A. Niering
                  Connecticut College and Connecticut College Arboretum
    ABSTRACT. An understanding of the ecological  processes involved in wetland vegetation
    development is essential to wetland managers concerned with wetland creation. Ascertaining
    a sound hydrologic system is basic in any attempt to re-create a wetland system since the
    vegetation and associated  fauna are dependent upon a consistent but usually fluctuating
    hydrologic regime.  Any hydrologic manipulations  can also greatly modify what species will
    become established in a given site or those that may decline in abundance.  Traditional
    succession-climax dogma has limited usefulness in interpreting vegetation change.  Thus an
    understanding of the complex of factors involved  in the process, including chance and
    coincidence, makes the task of the manager even more challenging.

       Since vegetation  change is not necessarily predictable and orderly, as is sometimes
    thought, it is often difficult to predict the ultimate vegetation in a given created site.  Some
    wetland communities once created may be relatively stable; others may undergo directional or
    cyclic change, thus adding to the complexity of the ultimate vegetation.

       Therefore,  one of the major goals in wetland  creation should be the persistence of the
    wetland as a self-perpetuating oscillating system.  This can be achieved by assuring a  sound
    hydrologic regime.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    In wetland creation it is important  to
understand the patterns and processes involved
in vegetation or biotic change.  Such ecological
concepts as succession and climax usually come
to mind in  this regard.   However, depending
upon one's  interpretation,  they  can actually
hamper rather than  aid  in  understanding
wetland dynamics.  How do wetlands change?  Is
it an orderly, predictable, directional pattern  as
suggested by  traditional  succession?  Will a
given wetland reach a so-called climax state?
Does  it  succeed  to upland  communities?
Although  most  ecologists  have modified their
views concerning these  concepts, there  is still
much debate concerning their interpretation as
well  as their  continued  use  (Egler  1947;
Heinselman  1970; Drury & Nisbet 1973; Niering
& Goodwin 1974; Pickett 1976; Mclntosh 1980,
1981;  MacMahon 1980,  1981;  Zedler  1981;
Patterson 1986; Niering 1987).

    The purpose  of this chapter is to  review
wetland vegetation  dynamics  occurring  in
natural  systems  in   order  to   provide  a
background  for evaluating wetland change in
created systems.
                      WETLAND VEGETATION DYNAMICS
    The  concept of succession has been most
closely associated with vegetation dynamics.  As
traditionally conceived by Clements  (1916), it set
forth  a  rather   orderly,  predictable  and
directional process for vegetation change in
which one set of communities replaced another
until  a relatively  stable system (climax) was
established.   It  was  primarily  community
controlled and, in the  case  of wetlands, the
ultimate vegetation was believed to be an upland
climax.

    These  traditional  concepts  have  been
considerably modified  during the  last  half
century.  Yet, this does not diminish Clements'
contribution to plant ecology since his six basic
processes  involved  in  vegetation  change
(nudation,  migration,  ecesis,  competition,
reaction  and stabilization) are still  relevant.
However,  it is  now  recognized that autogenic
(soil development, competition for light, mineral
depletion or accumulation) as well as allogenic
factors  (flooding, drought,  fire, wind,  and
anthropogenic influences) are important in the
process.   In fact,  the latter  often  have an
overriding effect on the former. For example,  a
                                            67

-------
major disturbance that periodically interrupts a
wetland ecosystem can produce changes that may
last  for  decades or centuries. This introduces
uniformitarian vs. catastrophic  ecology (Egler
1977) in  which the latter, representing allogenic
change,  may  be so infrequent that it  can be
overlooked  by  short-term  studies   or  by
researchers who fail to  recognize the  role of
historical factors.  Disturbance is a natural and
normal part of ecosystem  dynamics (White  1979;
Pickett  & White  1985)  to  which  ecological
systems  have  become  adjusted,  especially in
terms of their recovery (Marks 1974; Bormann &
Likens 1979).

    Gleason  (1926)  was  one of the  first to
challenge Clements,  especially his idea of the
plant association and his organismic approach to
vegetation.  Instead, Gleason  promoted the
Individualistic  Concept in which  the differential
establishment and survival of the various species
in a  given site  were critical to the composition of
any resulting unit of vegetation.  In essence, the
genetic characteristics of each species limit its
ecological tolerance and every  environment has
its own  biotic potential.   For example, on an
Alaskan floodplain,  life  history processes or
species longevity,  not facilitative  interactions,
explained  forest  development  (Walker et  al.
1986). This concept has been recently developed
by van der Valk (1981, 1982) and applied to the
prairie pothole wetlands (van der Valk  & Davis
1978).  He found 12 basic life history  types in
which the life forms of  the plants, propagule
longevity,   and   propagule   establishment
requirements are critical.  Thus the plants which
develop  in a given  situation  will be  dictated
primarily by the life history requirements of
each  species  and its  presence or absence in the
seed bank.  No two  sites, even though similar,
will support exactly the same plant association.

    An extension of the Gleasonian approach has
resulted in  the continuum concept in which
discrete communities are not thought to exist, but
rather continua, since species tolerances overlap
along environmental gradients.   In studying
shoreline vegetation Raup (1975) was unable to
recognize  sufficient integration  of   species
populations to identify community types and thus
proposed the term "assemblages" which is
logical in certain wetlands. It is also important
to recognize  that vegetation is highly  variable
and   that  a  community is really a  relative
continuum between two discontinua (Egler 1977).

    Chance  and  coincidence  are  especially
relevant  in  wetland vegetation  development
(McCune & Cottam 1985; Egler 1987).  The role of
these  stochastic  factors is often  difficult to
measure and  quantify and therefore sometimes
overlooked.    The three successional  models
(Facilitation, Tolerance  and Inhibition) proposed
by Connell and Slatyer (1977) are  also relevant
in  understanding  wetland  dynamics.  The
Facilitation model relates to autogenic processes
resulting  in  vegetation change in which the
existing biota so influence the environment as to
induce  replacement of  one  set of species  by
another.   Accumulation  of  solely  organic
sediments may  lead  to such changes, but
evidence  of  autogenic  development at the
community level is limited.  This model  is the
traditional concept of  vegetation  change  as
conceived by Clements. It can occur but it is only
one of several possible processes or models that
can  be involved in vegetation change.  The
Tolerance model implies that  various  species
may continue  to become established  over  time,
and that differential tolerance to light, and other
limiting factors,  will  determine  those  species
which will ultimately dominate.  The Inhibition
model  suggests that those  species  which get
established  initially following  a disturbance
may well  inhibit others from taking over.  This
may be relevant in wetland situations  where
relatively  pure stands of cattail (Typha spp.) or
reed grass (Phragmites australis) initially  get
established and essentially exclude other species.
This parallels Egler's  (1954)  Initial  Floristic
Composition factor which sets  forth  the  same
idea. For example, in  intertidal  rocky  shore
wetland  communities   where  new  sites are
exposed following scouring, those species that get
established first  frequently  exclude  others
(Lubchenco & Menge 1978; Sousa 1979).  In fact,
this results in the patch pattern  dynamics so
typical  in intertidal systems (Paine &  Levin
1981; Dethier  1984). The concept of inhibition is
somewhat counter to the concept of succession,
since the vegetation development may be arrested
at a phase that is not considered "climax".  The
role of these models,  and possibly other factors,
should be carefully evaluated when interpreting
the causal factors contributing to biotic change.
WETLAND ZONATION AND
VEGETATION CHANGE

    Wetlands  have  long  been  regarded  as
transitional communities  with  a trend toward
terrestrialization or upland communities (Gates
1926). In fact, this  general misconception is still
portrayed in   certain  current biology  and
environmental  texts   using  successional
diagrams which  show a series of belts from open
water to upland forest and suggesting  that one
vegetation belt is replacing another centripetally.
This  zonation pattern often represents a set of
species populations that has found its  optimum
ecological requirements or tolerance in  terms of
water depth  and  frequency and duration  of
flooding.   Thus  these belts  may  not be  a
successional  sequence   of  one  community
replacing another,  but may represent relatively
stable vegetation types possibly in a state of flux,
depending  upon changing  hydrologic conditions
                                              68

-------
(Gallagher 1977).  Yet, there may be situations
where purely autogenic processes are involved in
this developmental sequence.

     In  Michigan,  Daubenmire (1968) indicates
that upland trees cannot grow on peat soils and
that a  transition to upland will not occur.   In
Connecticut, Nichols (1915) also indicates that
replacement of forested wetlands,  such as red
maple swamps, by upland  oak forest is highly
unlikely.   More recently Walker (1970)  states
that, "Although certain sequences  of transition
are 'preferred' in certain site types, variety is the
keynote of the hydroseral succession.  In spite  of
this the data  clearly indicate that bog  is the
natural  'climax'  of  autogenic   hydroseres
throughout the  British Isles and the transition
from fen to oak wood is unsubstantiated."

    Bogs frequently exhibit distinctive belts but
fail  to  represent  a successional sequence. In
Connecticut,  Egler (personal communication)
found trees the  same age in all belts, indicating
the effect of post-fire or cutting. At Cedar Creek
Bog in Minnesota, Buell  et al. (1968) followed
vegetation change over three decades.   They
found that  the width of the bog mat did not change
in position over this time.  However, the width of
the  various vegetation belts did change.   The
larch-shrub  zone  expanded  outward into the
floating sedge  mat, greatly reducing its  width.
An earlier droughty  period apparently favored
sedge development but as  the water level rose
over the 33 years of observation, shrubs and larch
trees expanded  outward.  Yet Lindeman (1941)
observing this bog over part of the same period
(1937-1947) found that the mat had advanced one
meter, which emphasizes the limitations of short-
term observations.  At Bryants Bog in Michigan,
studied since 1917, the bog mat has advanced into
the bog pool in an irregular manner averaging
2.1 cm  per year (Schwintzer & Williams 1974).
In 1972 the open water was 76%  of its extent in
1926. The mat vegetation has also changed over
more  than  five  decades.   The  advancing
leatherleaf belt which was dominant in 1917 was
succeeded by a high bog shrub community in the
drier years and eventually by a bog forest by the
late  1960's.  Then in the early 1970's the trees
died as the water level  rose and leatherleaf was
reestablished.  This emphasizes the dynamic non-
predictable cyclic pattern of vegetation change.
In Connecticut, I have observed the mortality of a
mature  spruce bog  forest  due  to extreme
prolonged flooding. In fact, beaver activities play
a major role in altering bog  vegetation (Rebertus
1986) and vegetation along boreal forest streams
(Naiman  et al. 1986).    In the  Minnesota
peatlands,  Heinselman   (1970)   found no
consistent  trend   toward   mesophytism,
terrestrialization,  or uniformity but rather  a
swamping of the landscape,  rise in water tables,
deterioration of the growth and a diversification
of landscape types.  In the northern Canadian
peatlands both water level fluctuations and fire
are  primary  factors   governing  vegetation
change. Here long-term records show  that the
spatial-temporal approach does not accurately
describe the dynamics of peatlands (Jasieniuk &
Johnson 1982).

    In  the  bottomland hardwood  forests  six
vegetation zones can often be recognized, based
on  soil moisture and  hydrology. However, as
Wharton et al. (1982) point out, the term "zone" is
somewhat misleading since many of these plant
communities are arranged in a mosaic pattern,
depending  upon  the   hydrologic  conditions.
Along  the  Northeast  riverine systems  the
vegetation pattern is also related to the frequency
and duration of flooding (Metzler  & Damman
1985).

    In  the marine environment, mangrove and
salt marshes  also  exhibit  distinct  belting
patterns.  In south Florida three mangroves - the
red  (Rhizophora mangle [most oceanward]),
black  (Avicennia  germinans),   and  white
(Laguncularia   racemosa [most landward])  -
frequently form a belting pattern which has been
interpreted as a succession oceanward (Davis
1940).  Egler (1948) questioned this interpretation
and, more  recently,  Ball  (1980)  found that
interspecific competition was  an important factor
in  controlling   the  zonation.   In  Panama,
Rabinowitz   (1975)  found   that   reciprocal
transplants can grow well in either zone.  She
also   found  that  a   primary  mechanism
controlling  zonation  is  tidal    sorting  of
propagules due to their size, rather than habitat
adaptation.  It appears that, once a given zone
reaches equilibrium, it is  unlikely to change
unless  disturbance occurs (Odum et al. 1982).  In
fact, major storms such as hurricanes are prime
site builders for  the establishment of mangrove
(Craighead  & Gilbert  1962;  Craighead  1964).
However,  in Australia, biotic influences such as
seed  predation  by  crabs  can also  have  a
significant  influence  on  these   intertidal
mangrove forests  (Smith 1987).

   Tidal wetlands of the  Northeast offer still
another example of close  integration  between
vegetation change and  hydrology. With coastal
submergence peat cores document a vegetation
development  from  the intertidal  salt  water
cordgrass  (Spartina alterniflora ) to salt meadow
cordgrass (Spartina patens').   There is also a
tendency for spike grass (Distichlis spicata) and
switch  grass  (Panicum virgatum) to replace
upland species as the marsh  advances landward
with sea  level  rise. However,  once  the  high
marsh  has  developed,  oscillations  in  the
vegetation patterns are primarily hydrologically
induced.    Waterlogged, poorly drained sites
favor  the short  form  of S.  alterniflora.  This
condition can  be  induced by  mosquito ditching,
with the levees along the ditches preventing the
                                              69

-------
flooded high marsh from draining.

    Once the high marsh has developed, myriad
vegetation changes can occur as documented by
the hundreds of peat cores taken by Orson (1982)
in  tracing the  ontogeny  of  the Pataguanset
marshes in Connecticut, and by the author along
the coastline  of Connecticut.   For example, a
single core 1 meter in length, representing 500-
1000 years, may show five or six vegetation types
or changes based  on the preserved rhizomes in
the core (Niering et al. 1977). There appears to be
no   predictable   unidirectional   pattern.
Hydroperiod, changes in micro-relief,  accretion
rates, salinity, redox potential, storms, and other
factors make these systems  too  complex to be
orderly or predictable (Niering &  Warren  1980).
As  stated by Miller  and  Egler  (1950),  "...the
present  mosaic  may  be  thought  of  as  a
momentary  expression,  different in the past,
destined to be different in the future, and yet as
typical as  would  be  a  photograph of moving
clouds."
                         WETLANDS AS PULSED SYSTEMS
    Odum (1971) set forth the concept of pulsed
stability as related to wetland systems.  Subjected
to more or  less  regular but  acute physical
disturbance imposed from  without, they are often
maintained  at   an   intermediate   state  in
development. This may further  reflect why
traditional successional concepts frequently have
limited application in wetland  systems.   Tidal
wetlands, for example, may be maintained in a
relatively  fertile  state  by  a  "tidal  energy
subsidy" which provides  rapid nutrient cycling
and  favors substrate  aeration.   Among the
freshwater  systems  the prairie potholes are
pulsed in an even more striking manner,  often
completely drying  up  in  droughty periods and
then reappearing  with the advent of adequate
precipitation.  During   droughts,   aerobic
breakdown of the organic  matter replenishes the
nutrient supply to favor future productivity. In
south  Florida,  the  Everglades  is another
fluctuating  system.   The  importance  of this
pulsing  is  dramatically correlated  with the
successful breeding of the  wood stork (Kahl 1964)
since  lower  water  levels  are  necessary  to
concentrate small  fish to  feed nestlings. Yet,  an
"energy subsidy" from agricultural runoff, with
its nutrient  enrichment,  can actually  be
deleterious to  the low nutrient  demanding
sawgrass, resulting in  its  demise and favoring a
dramatic  increase in  cattail.  The sawgrass
(Cladium  jamaicensis) can also be destroyed by
peat fires  which recently have increased due  to
drainage.   Under the natural fluctuating water
regime  the Glades burned  when  flooded  and
viable  sawgrass marsh was  maintained (Egler
1952). Other wetlands that are pulsed by drought
and fire are the evergreen  shrub pocosins along
the southeast coastal plain (Richardson 1981) and
the Okefenokee Swamp where fire and drought
have set the pattern for vegetation change for
decades (Schlesinger  1978; Hamilton 1984). As
previously mentioned,  dry periods favor rapid
decomposition and  peat  fires  can  aid  in
maintaining more hydric  conditions.   Some
species like the bald cypress, which normally
grows under flooded conditions,  actually require
bare soil conditions for  seedling  establishment.

   The pulsing concept is especially relevant in
wetland creation. Will there  be  fluctuating
hydrologic  conditions  in the  newly created
wetland?  Fixed water levels are not the rule in
nature.  Continuous  flooding or the absence  of
pulsing are deleterious to most trees. Pulsed, not
static water regimes,  should be one of the major
objectives in any  mitigation project, especially
those in inland waterways  and lake systems.
    In respect to ecosystem development, Odum
(1969) set forth a series of ecosystem processes--
community  structure and energetics—as related
to the stage of maturity in the process. Mitsch and
Gosselink (1986, see Table 7-1, p. 160-1) illustrate
how this scheme relates to  some of the major
wetlands in the United States.  It is obvious that
wetlands are highly variable with respect to these
criteria,  exhibiting aspects of both immature and
mature systems,  an attribute to be expected in
pulsed systems. For example, in most wetlands,
except bogs, mineral  cycles are open and  life
cycles are short, typical  of immature  systems;
food  chains,  however,   are  often  complex,
characteristic  of mature  systems. Figure 1
attempts to  more  holistically integrate  the
multiplicity of factors  involved  in biotic change
for both terrestrial and wetland ecosystems
without  using traditional  succession-climax
dogma.  Relatively stable states  can occur only to
                                              70

-------
                                   DISTURBANCE
                              Natural
                 Man-induced
                              Fire
                              Disease
                              Animals
                              Drought
                              Wind
                              Frost Action
                    Fire
                    Disease
                    Animals
                    Pollution
                    Past Land Use
              INITIAL FLORISTIC
                 COMPOSITION
                                    MIGRATION I
                             Vegetative Reproduction
                             Seed Bank (residual)
                             Seed (current)
                             Mode of Dispersal
                             Proximity of Propagule Source
                FACILITATION
                   MODEL
                 TOLERANCE
                   MODEL
                             Dependent on life history of
                             species and local site con-
                             ditions (i.e.- bare substrate,
                             windthrows, logs, moss mats,  etc.)
                INHIBITION
                   MODEL
Constantly shifting
mosaic of populations
at community or
regional landscape
level.
                                                       Nurse Plants
                                                             COMPETITION
                                                       Plant/Plant     Light
                                                       Herbivores      Nutrients
                                                       Allelopathy     Moisture
                                RELATIVELY
                               STEADY STATE
Mosaic of relatively
stable communities
at regional landscape
level.
                                                       Differential species  survival
                                                       and exclusion.
 Figure 1.   Holistic view of some of the factors and processes  involved in vegetation change.
           Following disturbance a given system may eventually reach a relatively stable state or be
           in a continuous state of flux (Niering 1987).
                                         71

-------
  be  modified  by disturbance,  often  due  to
  hydrologic changes.  As Mitsch and Gosselink
  (1986) indicate, the idea of a regional climax is
  inappropriate since both allogenic and autogenic
  factors   are   operative in wetland change.  They
 further point out that changes in wetlands are
 often not directional and "...in fact, wetlands in
 stable  environmental regimes  seem  to  be
 extremely stable, contravening the central idea
 of succession."
                            THE CONCEPT OF PERSISTENCE
      It is my opinion, and that of a growing
  number  of other ecologists, that the use of such
  terms as  "vegetation  development"  or  "biotic
  change"   is preferred  to  "succession," and
  "relative stability" or "equilibrium  state"  to
  "climax."   Some ecologists are now finding the
  concept  of persistence an even more relevant
  paradigm  in visualizing ecosystem  dynamics
  (Lewin  1986).    This idea  of  persistence  is
  especially  relevant  in  wetland ecology.   In
  wetland creation the objective is to create a viable
  persisting  system which will exhibit  a variety of
 functional roles.  Over decades or centuries one
 may expect changes in the vegetation structure
 and  composition  of the system.   Some  will be
 small, others catastrophic, but the wetland system
 will  persist.  Therefore, our goal in   wetland
 creation  should not always be to  duplicate a
 specific vegetation type but to create a wetland
 system that is hydrologically sound (Carter 1986)
 and incorporates the potential for all  those future
 biotic variations that might be expressed under
 differing hydrologic regimes in that particular
 site.
       RELEVANCE OF WETLAND DYNAMICS TO WETLAND CREATION
      In  conclusion,   it  may  be  helpful  to
  summarize  how those  involved  in wetland
  mitigation  will  find  an  understanding  of
  wetland dynamics especially relevant.

  1.   Natural  wetlands are  characterized  by
      distinctive,  usually fluctuating hydrologic
      regimes.

  2.   As pulsed systems, they are highly dynamic
      but can persist as relatively stable entities or
      be in a constant state of flux.

  3.   Biotic change in  wetlands is  usually not
      directional and  generally not predictable
      since  fluctuating water levels,  chance, and
      catastrophe are constantly interacting.
 4.   Short-term wetland observations concerning
     vegetation change toward wetter  or  drier
     conditions can be misleading, thus  dictating
     the need for long-term observations.

 5.   Considering   the  natural  ontogeny  of
     wetlands  over   centuries  or  millennia,
     human efforts in the  creation  of viable,
     functional wetland  ecosystems should be
     approached with trepidation and humility.

 6.   Any wetland  creation effort must  be aimed
     toward a  self-perpetuating system which will
     permit the potential for all the future biotic
     variations which  might occur in a natural
     system.
                                     LITERATURE CITED
Ball, M.C.  1980.  Patterns of secondary succession in a
   mangrove forest in south Florida.  Oecologia 44:226-
   235.

Bormann, F.H. and G.E. Likens.  1979.  Pattern and
   Process  in  a  Forested Ecosystem:   Disturbance,
   Development and the  Steady  State Based on the
   Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study.  Springer-Verlag,
   New York.

Buell, M.F., H.F. Buell, and W.A. Reiners.  19G8. Radial
   mat  growth on  Cedar Creek
   Ecology 49:1198-1199.
Bog, Minnesota.
Carter, V. 1986.  An overview of the hydrologic concerns
   related to wetlands in the United States. Canadian
   Jour. Bot. 64:364-374.

Clements, F.E. 1916.  Plant Succession: An Analysis of
   the Development of Vegetation.  Carnegie Institution
   of Washington Publ. 242.  Washington, B.C.
                                               72

-------
Connell, J.H.  and R.O. Slatyer.  1977.  Mechanisms of
    succession in natural communities and their role in
    community  stability  and  organization.   Am.
    Naturalist 3(982):1120-1144.

Craighead, F.C. 1964.  Land mangroves and hurricanes.
    Fairchild Trop. Gard. Bull. 19:5-32.

Craighead, F.C. and V.C.  Gilbert. 1962.  The effects of
    Hurricane  Donna on the  vegetation of southern
    Florida. Q.J. Florida Acad.  Sci. 25:1-28.
Daubenmire, R.F.  1968.
    and Bow, New York.
Plant Communities.  Harper
Davis, J.H., Jr.  1940.  The ecology and geologic role of
    mangroves in Florida.  Publ. 527.   Portugas  Lab.
    Paper 32:303-412.  Carnegie Inst., Washington, B.C.

Dethier, M.N.  1984.   Disturbance  and  recovery in
    intertidal  pools:  maintenance of mosaic patterns.
    Ecol. Monog.  54:99-118.
Drury, W.H. and I.C.T. Nisbet.
   Arnold Arb. 54:331-368.
      1973.  Succession.
Egler, F.E.  1947.   Arid southwest Oahu vegetation,
    Hawaii. Ecol. Monog. 17:383-435.

Egler, F.E. 1948.  The dispersal and establishment of the
    red  mangrove, Rhizophora.  in Florida.   Caribbean
    Forester 9:299-310.

Egler, F.E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation,
    Florida, and its management.   Vegetatio 3(4-5):213-
    265.

Egler, F.E. 1954.  Vegetation science concepts.  I.  Initial
    floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation
    development. Vegetatio 4:412-417.

Egler, F.E.   1977.   The Nature of Vegetation, Its
    Management and  Mismanagement:  An Introduction
    to  Vegetation  Science.   Aton Forest,  Norfolk,
    Connecticut.

Egler, F.E.   1987.  Trail Wood, Hampton, Connecticut.
    Vegetation  of  the Edwin Way  Teale  Memorial
    Sanctuary.  Connecticut Conservation Assoc.

Gallagher, J.L. 1977.  Zonation of wetland vegetation, p.
    752-758.  In J. Clark (Ed.), Ecosystem Management:  a
    Technical Manual for Conservation  of Coastal Zone
    Resources.   The   Conservation   Foundation,
    Washington, D.C.

Gates, F.C.  1926. Plant succession about Douglas Lake,
    Cheboygan County, Michigan.  Bot. Gaz. 82:170-182.

Gleason, H.A. 1926.  The  individualistic  concept of the
    plant association.  Bull. Torrev Bot. Club 53:7-16.

Hamilton, D.B. 1984.  Plant succession and the influence
    of disturbance in  Okefenokee  Swamp,  p. 86-111.  In
    A.D.  Cohen,  D.J.Casagrande,  M.J. Andrejko,  and
    G.R.  Best (Eds.),  Okefenokee  Swamp:  Its Natural
    History,  Geology,  Geochemistry.  Wetlands Surveys,
    Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Heinselman, M.L.  1970.  Landscape evolution, peatland
    types, and  the   environment  in  the Lake Agassiz
    Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota.  Ecol. Monog.
    40:235-261.

Jasieniuk,  M.A. and E.A. Johnson.  1982.   Peatland
    vegetation organization and  dynamics in  the
    western subarctic, Northwest Territories, Canada.
    Canadian J. Bot. 602581-2593.

Kahl, M.P.  1964.  The food ecology of the wood  stork.
    Ecol. Monog. 34:97-117.

Lewin, R.  1986.  In ecology, change brings  stability.
    Science 234:1071-1074.

Lindeman, R.I.  1941.   The developmental history of
    Cedar Creek Bog, Minnesota.  Am. Midland Nat.
    25:101-112.

Lubchenco,  J.  and B.A.  Menge.   1978.   Community
    development in a low rocky intertidal zone.  Eco{.
    Monog. 48:67-94.

MacMahon,  J.A.    1980.   Ecosystems  over  time:
    succession and other types of change, p. 27-58.  In
    R.H. Waring (Ed.) Forests:  Fresh Perspectives from
    Ecosystem  Analysis.   Proc.  40th Annual Biology
    Colloquium, Oregon  State Univ. Press.   Corvallis,
    Oregon.

MacMahon,  J.A.    1981.   Successions!  processes:
    comparisons among biomes with special reference to
    probable roles of and influences on animals, p. 277-
    304.  In D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin
    (Eds.), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application.
    Springer-Verlag, New York.

McCune, B. and G.  Cottam.  1985.  The  successional
    status of a  southern Wisconsin oak woods.  Ecology
    66:1270-1278.

Mclntosh,  R.P.   1980.   The  relationship  between
    succession and the recovery process in ecosystems, p.
    11-62.  In J. Cairns, Jr. (Ed.), The Recovery Process
    in Damaged Ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science Publ.

Mclntosh, RJ?.  1981. Succession and ecological theory,
    p. 10-23.  In D.C.  West, H.H. Shugart,  and D.B.
    Botkin (Eds.), Forest Succession:  Concepts and
    Application.  Springer-Verlag, New York.

Marks,  P.L.   1974.   The role of pin cherry (Prunus
    pensvlvanica L.) in the maintenance of stability in
    northern hardwood ecosystems.  Ecol. Monog. 44:73-
    88.

Metzler,  K.J. and A.W.H. Damman.  1985.  Vegetation
    patterns  in the  Connecticut River flood plain in
    relation to frequency and duration of flooding.  Nat.
    Canad. 112:535-547.

Miller, W.R. and F.E. Egler. 1950.  Vegetation of the
    Wequetequock-Pawcatuck   tidal   marshes,
    Connecticut.  Ecol. Monog. 20:144-172.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink.  1986. Wetlands.  Van
    Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo,  and J. E. Hobbie.   1986.
    Ecosystem  alteration of boreal  forest  streams  by
    beaver (Castor canadensis).  Ecology 67:1254-1269.
                                                     73

-------
Nichols, G.E.  1915.  The vegetation of Connecticut  IV.
   Plant societies in lowlands.  Bull. Torrev Bot.  Club
   42:168-217.

Niering,   W.A.     1987.     Vegetation   dynamics
   ("Succession"  and  "Climax") in  relation to plant-
   community management. Conservation Biology 1:287-
   295.

Niering, W.A. and R.H. Goodwin.   1974.   Creation of
   relatively  stable  shrublands  with  herbicides:
   arresting   "succession"  on  rights-of-way  and
   pastureland.  Ecology 55:784-795.

Niering,  W.A.  and R.S.  Warren.   1980.  Vegetation
   patterns and processes in New England salt marshes.
   BioScience 30:301-307.

Niering, W.A., R.S. Warren, and C.G. Weymouth.  1977.
   Our dynamic  tidal marshes:  vegetation changes as
   revealed by peat analysis.  Conn. Arboretum  Bull.
   221-12.

Odum,  E.P.    1969.   The  strategy  of  ecosystem
   development. §cjgn£g 164:262-270.
                   Rebertus, A.J.  1986.  Bogs as beaver habitat in north-
                       central Minnesota.  Am. Midi. Nat. 116:240-245.
Odum, E.P.   1971.   Fundamentals of Ecology.
   Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
             W.B.
Odum, W.E., C.C. Mclvor, and T.J. Smith III.  1982.  The
   Ecology  of the Mangroves of South  Florida:   A
   Community Profile.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
   FWS/OBS-81-24,  Office  of Biological  Services,
   Washington, B.C.

Orson, R.A.  1982. Development of the lower Pataguanset
   estuarine   tidal  marshes,  Niantic,  Connecticut.
   Masters Thesis, Connecticut College, New London.

Paine, R.T. and S.A. Levin.  1981. Intertidal landscapes:
   disturbance and  the  dynamics  of pattern.   Ecol.
   Monog. 51:145-178.

Patterson,  W.H. III.    1986.   A  "new  ecology"  -
   implications of modern  forest management.  "Let's
   strike 'climax' from  forest terminology."  J. Forestry
   84:73.

Pickett,  S.T.A.  1976.   Succession:   an  evolutionary
   interpretation.  Am. Naturalist 110:107-119.
Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White (Eds.).
   of  Natural  Disturbance  and
   Academic Press, Inc., New York.
1985. The Ecology
Patch  Dynamics.
Rabinowitz, D.  1975. Planting experiments in mangrove
    swamps of  Panama, p.  355-393.   In G. Walsh,  S.
    Snedaker,  and  H.  Teas  (Eds.),  Proc.  of the
    International   Symposium   on   Biology   and
    Management of Mangroves.    Univ.  of  Florida,
    Gainesville.

Raup, H.M.  1975. Species versatility in shore habitats,  i
    Arnold Arboretum 55:126-165.
                   Richardson,  C.J. (Ed.).   1981
                       Hutchinson   Ross  Pub.
                       Pennsylvania.
                                  Pocosin Wetlands.
                                Co.,  Stroudsburg,
Schlesinger,  W.H.   1978.   Community  structure,
   dynamics,  and nutrient  cycling in the Okefenokee
   cypress forest.  Ecol.  Monog. 48:43-65.

Schwintzer, C.G.  and G. Williams.  1974.  Vegetation
   changes in a small bog from 1917 to 1972. Am. Midi.
   Nat. 12:447459.

Smith, T.G. III. 1987. Seed  predation in relation to tree
   dominance and distribution in  mangrove  forests.
   Ecology 68:266-273.

Sousa, W.P.  1979.   Experimental investigations of
   disturbance  and ecological succession in a  rocky
   intertidal algal community. Ecol. Monog. 49:227-254.

van der Valk, A.G.  1981.   Succession in wetlands:  a
   Gleasonian approach. Effilagy. 62:688-696.

van der Valk, A.G. 1982. Succession in temperate North
   American wetlands, p. 169-179.  In B. Gopal, R.E.
   Turner, R.G.  Wetzel, and D.F.  Whigham  (Eds.),
   Wetlands:  Ecology and  Management.   National
   Inst.  of  Ecology   and  International  Scientific
   Publications, Jaipur, India.

van der Valk, A.G. and C.B. Davis.  1978.  The role of
   seed  banks in the vegetation dynamics of  prairie
   glacial marshes.  Ecology 59:322-335.

Walker, D.  1970.  Direction and  rate in some  British
   post-glacial hydroseres,  p. 117-139.  In D. Walker
   and R.G. West (Eds.), The Vegetation History of the
   British Isles.  Cambridge Univ. Press.

Walker, L.R.,  J.C. Zasada,  and F.S. Chapin III.  1986.
   The  role  of  life  history processes  in primary
   succession  on  an   Alaskan  floodplain.   Ecology
   67:1243-1253.

Wharton, C.H.,  W.M.  Kitchens, E.G. Pendleton,  and
   T.W.  Sipe.  1982.    The  Ecology of Bottomland
   Hardwood Swamps  of the Southeast:   A Community
   Profile.  U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Services FWS/OBS-
   81/37, Biological Services Program.

White,  P.S.   1979.   Pattern,  process  and  natural
   disturbance in vegetation.  Bot'Rev. 45:229-299.

Zedler, P.H.  1981. Vegetation change in chaparral and
   desert  communities   in  San  Diego  County,
   California, p. 431-447.  In  D.C. West, H.H. Shugart,
   and D.B. Botkin (Eds.), Forest Succession:  Concepts
   and Application.  Springer-Verlag, New York.
                                                     74

-------
                       LONG-TERM EVALUATION OF
                      WETLAND CREATION PROJECTS
                                     Charlene D'Avanzo
                                  School of Natural Science
                                     Hampshire College
    ABSTRACT.  Long-term success of wetland restoration and creation projects may be quite
    different from short-term success.   In  this chapter six criteria  are used to  evaluate  the
    long-term success  of more than 100 artificial wetland projects reported in the literature.
    Results from  numerous U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dredged material  stabilization
    projects demonstrate the importance of long-term monitoring and increasing  long-term as
    well as short-term  success.   Several studies reviewing wetland  creations are also used to
    demonstrate problems with projects in both the short and long-term.

        The long-term  evaluation of artificial  wetlands is very difficult because  wetlands  are
    created for a variety of purposes. We know little about basic aspects of many wetland systems,
    "succession" in wetlands is less straightforward than previously assumed, and  it is difficult
    to generalize from  one wetland type to another.  There is a striking range of opinions about
    the success  of wetlands  that have been  created.  On the one hand, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers' dredged material stabilization  program exemplifies artificial  wetland projects
    that appear successful over a decade or  more.  Several types of criteria including vegetation
    characteristics, soil chemistry,  and animal studies suggest that  several dredged material
    wetlands  are  becoming similar  to   reference  wetlands with time.  But, some wetlands
    characteristics (soil  carbon) may require  many years to reach natural levels.

        In  contrast, a great many other artificial wetland projects are problematic or failures.
    Reasons for failures include improper hydrology, erosion, herbivory,  and invasion by upland
    plants.  Many projects have never been  evaluated so their permanence is not known, and a
    disturbing number of required projects have  never been created.

        In  evaluating  projects with regard to persistence (long-term success) of the created
    wetlands, the following points are especially important:  1) 1-2 years of monitoring is too short;
    evaluations over as  long a period of time as possible (10-20 years) are desirable; 2) vegetation
    characteristics are  useful  but do not necessarily indicate function;  at a minimum, several
    parameters  should be  used (e.g.,  belowground/aboveground biomass comparisons);  3)
    chemical/physical aspects  of wetland soils  are  also useful in  evaluating trends in created
    sites; 4) local reference wetlands  are critical for comparative purposes; and 5) some wetlands
    should be created with great caution because they have failed in  the past (e.g., high salt marsh
    in the northeast) or because we know little about these wetland types (e.g., forested wetlands).
                    INTRODUCTION: A CHALLENGING TASK
    This chapter is a review and evaluation of
changes that have occurred over time in wetland
creation projects. The results of more  than 100
artificial wetland studies are discussed; the sites
range  from large-acreage federal projects to
small private  plantings.   The main  questions
addressed are:   1) how have artificial  wetlands
evolved over time,  and  2) what  can we  learn
from these effects concerning the feasibility of
creating wetlands with long-term functions?

    Evaluating  the  long-term   "success"  of
artificial wetlands is very difficult for a number
of reasons.   First,  wetlands are created for  a
wide variety of purposes—some are created as
mitigation for destroyed wetlands,  some  are
experimental  plantings, and still others  are
aimed  at  stabilization  of dredged  material.
Methods of evaluation are also not standardized.
Access  to publications of the studies differ as
well; publications in refereed journals are more
accessible while some  federal studies, such as
those by  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE),  are more difficult to obtain.

   A  second  reason  why  the  long-term
                                             75

-------
evaluation  of wetland  creation  projects is
especially challenging was pointed out by Larson
and Loucks (1978) a decade ago. We know little
about  many basic aspects of ecosystem-level
processes  in  wetlands.    For  example,  a
knowledge of wetland seed bank dynamics is
important for creation and evaluation of human-
made wetlands.  However, we are particularly
ignorant about this aspect of wetland ecosystems.
The  most basic of questions—how water level
influences seedling  recruitment (Keddy  and
Ellis 1985) and how  seed dispersal  and on-site
hydrology   influences   plant   community
composition (Schneider and Sharitz  1986)--are
just  being addressed for some  wetlands.  A
wetland-creation  evaluator  who  lacks  such
community/ecosystem information  will  find it
difficult to understand why the outcome of one
project differs from another.

    A  third reason particularly  relevant to
long-term wetland studies is the great difficulty
in predicting  vegetation  change  over  time
("succession")  in  many  wetland  types.   The
classical   Clementsian  view  of  wetlands
developing towards an upland  climax is not held
today by most  wetland ecologists (Niering 1987;
Guntenspergen and Stearns 1985).  For example,
bogs can  become  more  hydric with time  and
plants typical  of low marsh or brackish areas
can grow  in the high salt marsh zone (Niering
1987; Odum 1988).  The salt marsh example is
particularly important because  these are our best
studied wetlands.   However,  papers are now
being  published  that  discuss  factors (e.g.,
flooding,   disturbance,  and   herbivory)
influencing the distribution of  plants in the high
marsh of northeast US coastal marshes (Valiela
1984).  Once  again, without  this  kind of
information  long-term  changes in  high  salt
marsh vegetation  will be  difficult to predict.

    A  fourth  reason why  wetland creation
projects are challenging to evaluate over the  long
term, is that  wetlands are exceedingly varied,
highly  dynamic  systems.  They  are dynamic
because they  exist at  the interface between
terrestrial  and   aquatic  systems  and  are
unusually sensitive to variations  in hydrologic
regime (Guntenspergen and Stearns 1985).  As a
result,  it is difficult to generalize from  the
response of creation projects in one wetland type
to creations in different locales and habitats.

    We do know more about some wetland types
than  about  others. As an  example of  this
difference, Mitsch (1988)  summarizes the state of
art of wetland modelling;  he points out  that
freshwater marsh models are "primitive" while
coastal marsh models  are "well  developed".
Therefore,  generalization  about   saltmarsh
creations   may   be more   accurate   than
generalizations   about freshwater  marsh
creations.
DIVERGENT VIEWS ABOUT THE
LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF WETLAND
CREATIONS

   There  is a striking range  of opinions about
the success of  wetland creation  projects.  The
reported outcomes of USAGE  Dredged Material
projects are  generally  positive (e.g., Newling
and  Landin  1985).   Other  researchers  also
conclude from relatively long-term  studies that
under  proper hydrologic regimes  created salt
marshes appear  similar to natural ones (e.g.,
Seneca et al. 1976).

   On the other hand, the success of many other
wetland  creations  and mitigations  is  less
certain.   For example,  several  summaries of
wetland restoration projects in California point
to problems.   Josselyn and  Buchholz  (1984)
concluded from a statewide analysis that most
California sites were not carefully monitored
after project completion; therefore, long-term
success or failure of these  creations  is  not
known. Race (1985) says that "...it is  debatable
whether any  sites in  San Francisco Bay can be
described   as completed, active  or successful
restoration projects at  present".   Eliot (1985)
evaluated  permits of 58 projects in San Francisco
Bay that required wetland restoration. She states
that "...the 58  projects  are diverse, frequently
unsuccessful, and do  not adhere  to established
mitigation policies.  Many projects have not been
completed. Of those that have  been,  many do not
resemble  the existing remnant marshes in San
Francisco  Bay".

   Difficulties  with mitigation projects  are not
limited to California.  In Washington state Kunz
et al. (1988)  reviewed Section 404  projects and
concluded that  1) mitigations  resulted in a net
wetland loss  of 33% in 6 years (1980-1986), 2)
some wetlands  (forested) were not  replicated at
all, 3) time lags  between project initiation and
mitigation completion resulted in  a loss of at
least 1-3 growing seasons per project, 4) there was
no routine procedure for tracking compliance,
and 5) 5 of the 35 projects were never restored or
negotiated.

   Why do these conclusions  differ so greatly?
The  people involved in the  USAGE Dredged
Materials Program  partially  answer  this
question.   They have  a great  deal of experience
which they can  apply to each project, particularly
with regard to  hydrologic design.  For example,
Newling  (USAGE, pers. comm.)  states  that
someone familiar with the project  design must be
on-site when  dredged material  is applied to a site
because  elevation  above water is critical to
project success.  Such experience may be lacking
in other creations.
                                              76

-------
           THE SIX CRITERIA USED FOR WETLAND ASSESSMENT
    In this chapter I address wetland creations,
as opposed to restoration or mitigation, unless
these other activities have taken place. I define
wetland creations  as  artificial wetland habitats
established in new locations.  Manipulations of
already existing wetlands—flooding marshes to
enhance wildlife  use,  for  example—are  not
described here.   Terminology  is  debatable  in
wetland creation studies.  For example, Harvey
and Josselyn (1986) criticized Race (1985) for her
use  of the  term "wetland restoration"  in
describing  various experimental  plantings  in
San Francisco Bay.

    The projects I discuss differ greatly in 1) age
of the human-made wetland when evaluated (14
months to 40 years); 2) use of natural controls for
comparisons;  3)  use of quantitative methods in
contrast to qualitative ones;  and 4) reasons for
the creations. Nevertheless, the  wetland creation
projects  discussed  provide considerable  in-
formation  to address   questions concerning
change of these artificial wetlands with time.

    Although  the  focus  of this  chapter  is
permanence  of  created  wetlands  and their
evolution with time, most artificial wetlands are
too young to provide information for long-term
studies.  Many of the projects described in  this
chapter were evaluated 1-2 years after they were
created. Exceptions are USAGE dredged material
projects; some of these have been studied for 14
years.

    The criteria used in  this chapter to evaluate
success and  describe  how  the  human-made
wetlands change  with time are:

1.   Comparison of  vegetation growth char-
    acteristics (for example, biomass or density)
    in artificial and natural wetlands after two
    or more growing seasons;

2.   Habitat requirements (for example,  upland
    vs wetland)  of plants invading the created
    site;

3.   Success of planted species;

4.   Comparison  of animal species composition
   and biomass in  human-made  and natural
    sites;

5.   Chemical  analyses  of artificial wetland
   soils compared  to natural wetlands; and

6.  Evidence of  geologic or hydrologic changes
   with time.

   These criteria are typically used in wetland
ecosystem  studies  (e.g.,  Valiela  1984).  In
addition,  plants  are emphasized  as  wetland
indicators because  they reflect the hydrologic
regime and  perform   numerous  important
functions (D'Avanzo 1987).

COMPARISON OF VEGETATION
GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS IN
HUMAN-MADE AND NATURAL
WETLANDS

   Using  vegetation criteria, USAGE scientists
have   generally  judged  successful   marine
wetland creations  on dredged  materials.  But
these  studies  also note  the  importance  of
long-term  monitoring.   For example, Hardisky
(1978) found that in Buttermilk Sound, Georgia,
aerial  biomass of saltwater cordgrass,  Spartina
alterniflora. planted in dredged spoil  was 1.3-5.5
times less  after four growing seasons than that of
cordgrass in natural sites. Of the 16 comparisons
of aboveground biomass of  various plants listed
in this study, in 13 cases the biomass  was greater
in natural saltmarshes. Belowground  biomass
for Buttermilk  Sound S. alterniflora was  also
2.1-12.4 times  less than  that of comparison
marshes.   Hardisky expressed concern about
erosion, herbivory,  and competition between
saltmarsh  and  invading  plants. By  1982
Newling and Landing (1985) were more  positive
about this site because aboveground biomass was
more  similar  to that  in  reference marshes.
Belowground biomass still lagged behind.

   In  contrast, in  a different dredged spoil
stabilization  project   in North  Carolina,
aboveground S.  alterniflora production measured
in the third through fifth growing seasons was
within the range of that seen in similar  natural
marshes;  belowground production exceeded
natural controls (Hardisky 1978).

   At  the Bolivar  Peninsula dredged materials
site  in Texas  the  marsh grasses, Spartina
alterniflora and  Spartina patens, dominated
plots after 3 years  although erosion was noted
there  (Webb et  al. 1986).   Newling and Landin
(1985) concluded from  preliminary  analysis  of
this  site after  4 years that stem height  and
aboveground biomass  equaled or  exceeded
reference locales while root biomass was  less.  In
addition, at the Apalachicola Bay salt marsh site,
Newling et  al.  (1983) monitored stem  density,
height, occurrence and flowering in 8 quadrats 6
years  after  the site  was  planted with  §L
alterniflora and S. patens: these parameters were
similar to  those in reference marshes.

   Not all Corps salt marsh projects have been
                                             77

-------
entirely successful. Stedman Island in Aransas
Bay, Texas, was almost entirely vegetated after
two years but after 39 months S.  alterniflora at
low elevations died (Landin  and Webb  1986).
The reason for the die-off is not known, but this
study  shows the  importance  of  long  term
monitoring.

    Some freshwater marshes created within the
Corps  dredged materials  program  are also
judged successful over a relatively short  period
of time  when vegetation criteria  were  used.
Windmill  Point on the James River, Virginia,
is a freshwater tidal marsh established in 1974-5.
Emergent plants similar to those in comparison
marshes were observed in 1978-82 (Newling and
Landin 1985).  Another freshwater intertidal
locale, Miller Sands on  the Columbia River in
Oregon,  was planted in  1976.   Vegetation
development has been slower here than at other
Army  Corps sites  and  some plantings  failed.
However,  vegetation began to invade bare areas
after  several years.   Since  freshwater tidal
marshes  have only been studied  in the last
decade or so, experience and information which
could help explain the results here are limited.

    Other projects in which vegetation was used
to evaluate  the long-term success of created salt
marshes  show mixed results.   In two artificial
Spartina foliosa marshes in San  Francisco Bay,
plant density in experimental plots was less than
a third of that in nearby natural  stands, but the
site  was only  evaluated  after  two  growing
seasons (Morris et al. 1978).  Plantings in a salt
marsh mitigation for  a marina  in  Bourne,
Massachusetts failed because the marsh grass
was planted too low in the intertidal zone and
because  the grasses were  eaten by waterfowl
(Reimold and Cobler 1986).   Josselyn  and
Buchholz  (1984) analyzed 3 wetland restoration
projects in  Marin  County, California; plantings
failed  in  2  sites because proper elevation was
difficult  to  achieve  and contaminated dredged
spoil used to raise elevation may have hindered
plant growth.

    Shisler and Charette (1984) compared eight
artificial salt marshes to eight adjacent natural
marshes in  New Jersey.  Overall  live biomass
after 2-6 years was similar in created sites and
natural  marshes  and,  not  surprisingly, total
biomass    (including   dead   litter)   was
significantly  lower  in  the  human-made
marshes.  However,   density  and  number  of
reproductive grass   heads in  the  artificial
wetlands were also  lower than   in controls.
These  vegetation differences, invasion by plants
not  characteristic   of  salt  marshes,  and
significantly different soil chemical parameters
(described below)  led Shisler and  Charette to
recommend no  further construction  of high
marsh habitat in New Jersey.

   Restoration of areas previously vegetated by
marine  plants  appears  less  problematic.
Thorhaug (1979) planted the seagrass Thalassia
in Biscayne Bay, Florida in areas that had been
denuded by thermal effluent.  After four years,
she measured  similar grass  densities in planted
areas compared to controls; for these planted
seagrasses, flowering  and fruiting compared
well  with controls.  It is important to note that
these were sites that had previously supported
Thalassia  and,  therefore,  the  success  of
revegetation after thermal emissions ceased was
promising.

   The  vegetation characteristics  described
above—above and  belowground  biomass, plant
density, and number of reproductive  stalks—are
among  the most commonly used  quantitative
measures  of plant growth.    Using  these
characteristics as  measures  of success,  it is
difficult to  make long-term generalizations about
wetland studies.   In New Jersey for example,
only low S. alterniflora has  been successfully
established and S.  patens exhibited very limited
success;   therefore,   one   cannot  predict
replacement  of  low marsh by  high marsh, a
change  that  can   occur  in  natural  marsh
ontogeny. We can say that growth of plants in the
artificial habitats is sometimes different from
that  in  controls even  after  4-6  years.   It is
difficult to determine temporal trends, however,
since many sites were  not  analyzed over time.
In several dredged material  sites that have been
evaluated  over time, vegetation becomes more
similar to reference sites.  This is not so in  the
California examples.  Therefore, it is impossible
from many existing descriptions to determine
whether these created wetlands  are becoming
more like the natural controls as they age.

   What generalizations about wetland creation
have been drawn  by  others from  vegetation
studies in  artificial wetlands?  Again, opinions
greatly differ.  On one hand, Zedler et al. (1982)
conclude:  "Regardless  of the techniques used,
the  examples are  too few,  and their period of
existence too  short to  provide  an instructional
guide  for marsh  restoration  projects   in
California.  At present restoration must be viewed
as experimental". In contrast, the Corps appears
more  confident about the information base.
Landin and Webb (1986) state that: "The Corps
has  strived for  development  of viable wetland
sites and will continue to do so.  When problems
have arisen on sites, or failure noted ...lessons
were learned ...  and these mistakes were  not
repeated on later sites".
                                              78

-------
COMPARISON OF ANIMAL SPECIES
COMPOSITION AND BIOMASS IN
ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL
WETLANDS

    While  we emphasize vegetation  in  this
chapter, it  is instructive to evaluate animal
responses in created wetlands. One set of studies
again  demonstrates  the value  of long term
analyses.  In a North Carolina dredged material
site, Cammen (1976a)  found significantly more
macroinvertebrates and 10 fold greater biomass
in natural plots compared to those in the 2 year
old human-made marsh.  In  addition, in the
natural  marsh,  isopods,   polychaetes,  and
mussels were  the  dominant  fauna  while
amphipods  and flies  dominated  the  artificial
plots.  In one sampling location, less than 40%
overall faunal similarity  was   seen  in the
natural/created comparison and in another site
the similarity was less than 10% after  three
growing seasons.  Sacco et al. (1988) studied the
macrofauna in this marsh 15 years after it was
created.  The macrofauna had greatly changed
and was mainly composed oligochaetes (56%)
and polychaetes (36%). Therefore, Sacco  et al.
concluded   that  the  macrofauna  in  the
human-initiated marsh began   to  resemble
natural marshes within 15 years, although fauna
in reference sites were not listed in  this abstract.

    In a different comparison of North Carolina
dredged spoil  restoration, Cammen (1976b) also
found  significantly lower animal density and
biomass as well as different animal populations
in several year old created systems.  In this case,
insect  larvae  dominated the created wetland
while  polychaetes accounted for  most  of  the
biomass in the natural marsh.  In contrast to
Cammen's  findings,   in  the  New  Jersey
mitigation  sites  evaluated  by  Shisler  and
Charette   (1984),   many   species   of
macroinvertebrates were common to natural and
artificial marshes and populations were highly
variable in each.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF
INVADING PLANTS

    The persistence of obligate wetland plants
with time-either planted or naturally colonizing-
-and their  successful  dominance over  other
vegetation,  is one  good measure of creation
failure or success.  Data  on species changes of
wetland  versus nonwetland plants over time
indicate mixed success of creation projects.

    Kruczynski and  Huffman (1978)  studied
marsh  and  dune vegetation on dredged material
in  Apalachicola  Bay,  Florida.    One  island
supported no  plant growth after 17 months
because of erosion.  Dikes stabilized another
island  where 42 plants-many upland indicators
such  as  morning  glory (Ipomoea  sp.)  and
cudweed  (Gifola  germanica)—were  already
growing  alongside planted  Spartina  after  14
months.  Shisler  and Charette (1984) describe
plant  species  characteristic  of  upland/marsh
ecotones  in numerous artificial marsh  projects
in New  Jersey.   In Creekside  Park,  a San
Francisco Bay  restoration site, upland species
and bare ground occupied as much of the marsh
surface area as  marsh  vegetation after eight
years.   High  marsh in  particular  was not
vegetated  due to  high  salt concentrations
(Josselyn and Buchholz 1984).

   On 40 Florida coastal islands of various ages
composed of dredged material studied by Lewis
and  Lewis (1978), exotic  upland plants were
common  invaders,  while these  plants were
unusual  on natural islands; "the  predominance
of the exotic  Australian  pine  and Brazilian
pepper in the  later serai stages  is  unique  to
dredged  material islands  in  Florida.  The
maritime forest climax  is rare ..."  Birds may
have  influenced plant invasion and success  on
these islands.

   Invasion  by  upland plants into  artificial
wetlands was  not  seen  in many  studies.
However, development of non-wetland flora was
not an unusual  occurrence and  is  cause for
concern  (Odum  1988).    In  addition,  many
artificial  wetlands were observed only after 2  or
3 growing  seasons, which may be insufficient
time  for establishment and growth  of upland
vegetation or to determine if wetland flora will
persist.

SUCCESS OF PLANTED VEGETATION

   Particular types of vegetation are planted  in
artificial  wetlands to temporarily stabilize soil,
provide wildlife habitat, or for  aesthetic reasons.
Disappearance  of these plants over time is not
unusual  (Hardisky 1978;  Shisler  and  Charette
1984; Dial  and Deis 1986; Odum 1988).   Cer-
tainly, plants  in artificial  wetlands,  as  in
natural ones, will likely change with time as,
for example, seeds in the soil or imported seeds
germinate.  If these  newly observed plants are
obligate wetland  plants,  we may, by  definition,
call the creation site a wetland.  However, it is
much more difficult to decide  whether the new
wetland  is a  success if  unanticipated  plants
invade a project.   What if freshwater  marsh
plants grow  in  a saltmarsh project? Is the
creation a failure? The answer to  this question
largely depends on  the  specific functions the
artificial  wetland  is designed to serve and these
must  be  outlined in  detail in  the  management
plan.   In any  case,  it is useful  to  document
unanticipated results.

   Examples   of  unplanned    vegetation
communities in artificial  wetlands  are common.
Hardisky  (1978)  noted  after  four   growing
                                             79

-------
seasons an influx of fresh and brackish  water
plants overtopping planted spikegrass (Distichlis
spicata) in a Georgia estuary dredged material
site. Hardisky predicted that the salt tolerant D.
spicata  would be outcompeted.  The growth of
freshwater plants in this  location indicated a
complete inability to predict the hydrology of the
area.  Similarly, freshwater wetland plants such
as the royal fern (Osmunda regalis) and a rush
(Juncus sp.) dominated the high marsh in a West
Florida dredged material project where Spartina
patens had originally been planted.  In the New
Jersey artificial marshes,  Spartina patens  was
planted  in  some  locations  but  Spartina
alterniflora  was dominant during  subsequent
samplings (Shisler and Charette 1984).  Spartina
foliosa was planted in a 95 acre (38.4 ha) dredged
material site in San Francisco Bay; here, as in
other locations in California where S. foliosa has
been planted, Salicornia has invaded the area
(Race 1985).  Dial and Deis (1986) reviewed 10
mitigation or restoration projects in Tampa Bay,
Florida.  The survival of Spartina  alterniflora
ranged from 10-93% and the number of plants per
square meter ranged from 0  to 230.  Dial and
Deis (1986)  attribute  plant  deaths to erosion,
competition by upland plants, and poor planting
techniques. Finally,  Savage (1978) photographed
the same mangrove plantings  in  Tampa Bay,
Florida over a six year period; Rhizophora and
Laguncularia did not survive while Avicennia
did.

    Odum (1988) points out that invasion by
unwanted plants  is  common in  freshwater
artificial wetlands.  Typha spp. often crowd out
more valuable planted species, leading  to the
"cattailization of America".

    Other factors influencing the success of
plantings of created wetlands include predictions
of hydrologic conditions and  proximity to seed
source.  High water levels and lack of control of
water level resulted in death of trees planted on
the shore of Missouri River reservoirs (Hoffman
1978).   Eastern cottonwood (Populus  deltoides)
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica) did not
survive  inundation,  while  broadleaf  cattail
(Tvpha latifolia)  and white  willow (Salix alba)
did.  Cattle  grazing also influenced vegetation
success on the banks  of these  dams.   Reimold
and Cobler  (1986) evaluated  five mitigation
projects  in the  northeast U.S.; they rated one
freshwater  site after  two growing seasons as
"marginally successful" because banks were too
steep and water too deep for emergent vegetation.
Two  other  freshwater  mitigations  rated
"ineffective"  by  Reimold and Cobler were  only
seen after one year (D'Avanzo 1987).   Gilbert et
al. (1981) studied a  49-acre tract in Florida that
has been mined for phosphate  and  noted invasion
by 50  wetland  plant species after 3  years.
However,  plantings had failed  because the
hydrology of the  site had been incorrectly
predicted.  Gilbert et al.  (1981) concluded that
species  potentially invading the  approximately
27,000  acres  in  Central  Florida  used  for
phosphate  mining were site-specific;  invading
types depend on source material and type of
habitats close to the restoration.  In the case
studied, unmined wetlands supporting  a diverse
native flora  were adjacent to  the mitigation
project.

   Race  (1985) reviewed 15  experimental
plantings in San Francisco Bay.  She concluded
that  many  problems—high  soil  salinities,
incorrect slope and tidal elevations, erosion  and
sedimentation,  and poor  water  circulation-
-accounted  for  numerous  failures  of  the
plantings.  For example, in  the Bay Bridge site,
10% of the  Spartina  foliosa and 20% of the
Distichlis spicata transplants survived one year;
Salicornia transplanting was more successful.
S. foliosa spread well from plugs at the  Marin
County  Day School location after two years, but
the stated objective of the project—erosion control--
was not met.   All  S.  foliosa   experimental
plantings in the Anza Pacifica lagoon  failed
within  2-3  years;  the  mitigation   site  was
replanted  and,  again,  after  three  years only
remnants of the planted plugs  remained.   In
three USAGE erosion control projects, neither
seedlings, sprigs, nor plugs  survived longer than
eight months (Race  1985); survival  of marsh
plugs was  good only  in unexposed areas  of
marsh and creeks.  Experimental plantings  of
cordgrass  seedlings in  Muzzi Marsh prior  to
mitigation were dead after one year.   The 125
acre (50.6 ha) Muzzi Marsh project is becoming
naturally colonized by Salicornia and Spartina.

    The  highly  experimental nature  of marsh
creation is clear from Race's critical  review  of
these projects.   (See Harvey and Josselyn, 1986
for a critique of this  review  and Race, 1986 for a
reply).   Since  saltmarsh restoration  is  a  new
technology and one with a relatively poor science
base, failure of experimental  plantings  is not
surprising.   However, it  is disturbing when
projects that are  largely unvegetated or  that
support  exotic  vegetation are called successful
restorations (Race 1985).
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOILS IN
CREATED AND NATURAL WETLANDS

    Little data exist on sediment characteristics
of  human-made wetlands  or  of  comparisons
between these sites and natural controls (Race
and Christie 1982), although this  data base is
growing.  Several studies do show that nitrogen,
phosphorous, and organic matter increase  with
age of the  created  site (Reimold  et al. 1978,
Lindau and Hossner 1981, Craft et al.  1988a).
While organic carbon  at  various  depths  was
considerably less  in human-made  marshes  in
                                              80

-------
North Carolina, Cammen et al. (1974) estimated
that organic content of soils in  these creation
projects would reach reference concentrations in
4-26 years. Studies by Craft et al. (1988b) with
natural isotopes support this trend since marsh
plants  were the main source of organic carbon in
both natural and transplanted marshes.  After 2
years,   organic  matter concentrations,  total
nitrogen, and ammonium-nitrogen  levels  in
experimental marsh  soils  from Texas dredged
spoil projects were on average 2-3 times lower
than those in natural marshes  (Lindau and
Hossner  1981).     Concentrations  of  these
parameters increased with  time and Lindau and
Hossner concluded that, assuming a linear rate
of increase, concentrations would be equal  to
those in surrounding marshes in 2-5 years.

    Despite such  predictions, Race and Christie
(1982)  are cautious in their  analysis of these
findings;  "no man-made  marsh  to  date has
shown  the stabilization of physical and chemical
properties in  the  range of values for  natural
marshes".   Their  caution  is  supported  in the
findings of Craft et al. (1988a)  who compared
natural  and  planted  soil  in 5  sites;  they
concluded that organic matter pools develop  in
15-30 years but development of soil C, N, and P
pools take much longer.

    In some cases,  the substrate  in the created
wetland differs greatly from  that in genuine
wetlands. Shisler and Charette (1984) found that
sand was the substrate most often used in eight
artificial marshes studied  and this resulted in
distinct edaphic differences.   Artificial  marsh
sediment was lower in organic matter, nitrogen,
phosphorous and  salinity  when  compared  to
nearby  reference marshes.  Only pH was the
same.

    Chemical/physical analyses  of artificial
wetland soils are particularly useful  indicators
of project progress and success with regard to
changes with time. It is possible to predict trends
(increasing  organic  carbon concentration, for
example)  and to determine rates of change of
these parameters. The few  studies in which this
approach was used show that created sites become
more like  natural ones with time.  An important
question for mitigation projects is:  how much
time?  The time scale of these projects is several
years  and sediment  in genuine wetlands  has
developed  during hundreds and  thousands of
years.
EVIDENCE OF GEOLOGIC OR
HYDROLOGIC CHANGES WITH TIME IN
ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS

   Much of this information  has been described
above but  it deserves reemphasis because the
geologic/hydrologic  setting  is  so  critical  in
wetlands.    Clearly,  dramatic  geologic  or
hydrologic  changes—including sediment erosion
or deposition, or groundwater seeps—will  alter
creation projects as planned.

   Some creations, such as the  Panacea Island
project  in  Florida (Kruczynski  and Huffman
1978), have entirely eroded away. Waves killed
planted mangroves  in  a Tampa  Bay creation
(Savage  1978).  Wave  erosion and sediment
inundation  was also a  problem in  some  New
Jersey mitigations (Shisler and  Charette 1984).
In a freshwater bank stabilization project, high
water killed numerous  planted floodplain  trees
(Hoffman 1978).  Finally,  Gilbert et al. (1981)
noted that  plantings failed in a phosphate  mine
revegetation project because the hydrology of the
site was poorly understood.

   Some of these events could have  easily been
prevented.  Dikes can be better constructed and
creations should be not attempted in areas where
erosive forces may negate the project. However,
storm damage  is impossible  to predict in many
locations, including the  coast and floodplains of
rivers.   Therefore, it is not surprising that  some
creations fail.
                                      CONCLUSION
    What conclusions can be drawn concerning
the long-term  evaluation  of  wetland creation
projects discussed in  this chapter?   Using six
criteria as  measures of success, there is  a
striking contrast  in  the  2-15 year success of
different projects.  On one hand, for a decade or
more  the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
evaluated a large number of  wetlands created
with  dredged  materials.   When  vegetation
parameters  are used, many of these projects
become structurally similar to  reference sites
with time. In addition, one 15-year old animal
study  showed  a  similar  trend.    Several
evaluations  of soil chemistry also indicate that
these wetlands become more like natural  ones
with time.  USACE researchers  evaluate  their
experiments and use this information in  new
projects; a large data base about similar types of
projects is communicated within the program.

   It is important to recognize  that  even the
"old"   USAGE   artificial  wetlands  are  not
identical to reference wetlands;  for example, soil
carbon and belowground plant  biomass are
                                              81

-------
  developing slowly.  Therefore, when an artificial
  wetland  is built  as a  mitigation  for  a lost
  wetland, decades may pass  before the created
  project assumes the structure and function of the
  lost habitat.  During this time, the important
  functions  that  the  destroyed wetland may have
  served (Larson  and Neill 1987) may be  lost to
  society.

      In contrast to  these  USAGE projects, many
  other  artificial  wetlands—mitigation projects and
  experimental plantings—are judged problematic
  or partial  failures in studies of up to several
  years.     Reasons  for  failures   include
  contamination  of soils,  herbivory,  erosion, and
  inappropriate  hydrologic regime.  In addition,
  many  created  wetlands  have   never  been
  evaluated  and, therefore,  their  success  in  not
  known.  Studies also indicate that a small but
  disturbing number of required projects were
  never even initiated.

      Many creation  projects fail  because  of
  improper hydrology. Basic to the  entire concept of
  wetland creation is the existence of a functional
  hydrologic  regime  appropriate  for   the
  establishment  and  development   of the specific
 wetland species.  For example, water level depth,
 seed  bank  potential,  and  sloping  marginal
 contours  are  crucial  to  the development  of
 emergent aquatic plants (Niering 1987).  Some
 types of artificial wetlands  do  appear stable after
 several years; perhaps the hydrology of these
 habitats is less  challenging to predict than  in
 other locales. For example, the establishment of
 low Spartina alterniflora  salt marsh has  met
 with  considerable success  while  the creation of
 high  Spartina  patens  salt  marsh  has been
 problematic (Shisler and Charette 1984). Most
 high  marsh sites are  adjacent  to  upland  and
 therefore the hydrology of the high marsh is more
 unpredictable  than  that of the low marsh  and
 more difficult to reproduce.

     Some  created wetlands systems will  remain
 relatively stable over time while others can be
 expected to change. Hydrology is an  important
 factor determining  wetland community changes
 with  time. The basic goal is to create persistent
 functional wetland  systems. In some situations
 this may be  more  important than creation  of
 specific  wetland types  because the  present
 structure  of  a wetland may  be a momentary
 expression of the wetland of the future.
                                       LITERATURE CITED
Cammen, L.M.  1976a.  Macroinvertebrate colonization of
     Spartina marshes artificially established in dredge
     spoil. Est. Coastal Mar. Sci. 4: 357-372.

Cammen, L.M.  1976b.  Abundance  and  production of
     macroinvertebrates  from natural  and artificially
     established salt marshes in North Carolina.  Amer.
     Midi. Nat. 96:487-493.

Cammen, L.M.  1976c. Accumulation rate and turnover
     time of organic carbon  in  salt  marsh sediments.
     Limnology and Oceanography. 20:1012-1015.

Craft, C.B., S.W. Broome, and E.D. Seneca. 1988a. Soil
     nitrogen,  phosphorus   and organic  carbon  in
     transplanted estuarine marshes, p. 351-358. In D.D.
     Hook  (Ed.),  The Ecology  and Management  of
     Wetlands. Vol. I:  Ecology of Wetlands.  Timber
     Press, Portland Oregon.

Craft, C.B., S.W. Broome, E.D. Seneca, and W.J. Shower.
     1988b.  Estimating sources of soil organic matter in
     natural and transplanted estuarine marshes using
     stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen.  Est. Coast.
     Shelf Sci. 26:633-641.

D'Avanzo,  C.    1987.   Vegetation  in  freshwater
     replacement wetlands in the northeast, p. 53-81.  In
     J.S.  Larson  and  C.  Neill (Eds.),  Mitigating
     Freshwater Wetlands Alterations in  the Glaciated
     Northeastern U.S.:  An Assessment of the Science
     Base, Publ. No. 87-1, The Environmental Institute,
     University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts.

Dial. R.S. and D.R. Deis.  1986.  Mitigation Options for
   Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by Port  and
   Other Water Dependent  Developments in Tampa
   Bay, Florida.  Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
   Report 86(6).

Eliot, W.  1985.   Implementing Mitigation Policies in
   San Francisco Bay:   A Critique.   State Coastal
   Conservancy, Oakland, California.

Gilbert, T.,  T. King, and B. Barnett.  1981.   An
   Assessment of Wetland Habitat Establishment at a
   Central Florida Phosphate Mine. Fish and Wildlife
   Service,   U.S.   Department   of   Interior,
   FWS/OBS-81/38.

Guntenspergen, G.R. and F. Stearns.  1985.  Ecological
   perspective on wetland systems, p. 69-97.  In P.J.
   Godfrey,  E.R. Kaynor,  S.  Pelczarski, and J.
   Benforado  (Eds.), Ecological Considerations in
   Wetlands Treatment  of  Municipal Wastewaters.
   Van Nostrand  and Reinhold Co., New York.

Harvey, H.T. and M.N. Josselyn.   1986.   Wetlands
   restoration  and  mitigation  policies:    comment.
   Environ. Manag. 10:567-569.

Hoffman, G.R.  1978.  Shore Vegetation of Lakes Oahe
   and  Sakakawea,  Mainstem  Missouri  River
   Reservoirs.   Tech.  Report U.S. Army  Engineer,
   Waterways  Experiment   Station,  Vicksburg,
   Mississippi.

Hardisky, M.  1978.  Marsh  restoration on dredged
   material, Buttermilk Sound, Georgia, p. 136-151. In
   D.P. Cole (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual
                                                  82

-------
     Conference of the  Restoration  and  Creation of
     Wetlands,  Hillsborough  Community  College,
     Tampa, Florida.

Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz.  1984.  Marsh Restoration
     in San Francisco Bay:   A  Guide to Design  and
     Planning.   Tech, Report  #3, Tiburon Center for
     Environmental  Studies,  San  Francisco  State
     University.

Keddy, P.A. and T.H. Ellis. 1985.  Seedling recruitment
     of 11  wetland plants along a water level gradient:
     shared  or distinct responses?    Can.  J.  Bot.
     63:1876-1879.

Kruczynski, W.L. and R.T. Huffman.  1978.  Use of
     selected marsh  and  dune  plants  in stabilizing
     dredged materials  at Panacea  and Apalachicola
     Bay,  Florida,  p. 99-135.   In  D.P.  Cole (Ed.),
     Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on the
     Restoration   and   Creation   of  Wetlands,
     Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

Kunz,  K.,  M.  Rylko, and  E.  Somers.   1988.   An
     assessment  of wetland mitigation  practices  in
     Washington state.   National Wetlands Newsletter
     10:2-4.

Landin,  M.C.  and J.W. Webb.    1988.   Wetland
     development and restoration as part of Corps of
     Engineer programs:  case studies, p. 388-391. In J.
     Kusler,  M.L.  Quammen,  and  G. Brooks (Eds.),
     Proceedings of the National Wetlands  Symposium:
     Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Assoc.  of State
     Wetland Mgrs.  Berne, New York.

Larson, J.S. and O.L. Loucks. 1978.  Research Priorities
     for  Wetlands  Ecosystem  Analysis.    Workshop
     report by the National Wetlands Technical Council
     to the National Science Foundation.

Larson, J.S. and C. Neill. 1987. Mitigating Freshwater
     Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeast:
     An Assessment of the Science Base. Publ. No. 87-1,
     The  Environmental  Institute,  University  of
     Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lewis,  R.R. and C.S. Lewis.  1978.  Colonial Bird Use  and
     Plant  Succession  on Dredged Material  Islands in
     Florida: Patterns of Plant Succession.  Tech. Report
     D-78-14.    U.S.  Army  Engineer  Waterways
     Experiment Station,  CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Lindau,  C.W. and  L.R.  Hossner.   1981.   Substrate
     characterization of an  experimental marsh  and
     three  natural  marshes.  Soil  Sci.  Soc.  Am. J.
     45:1171-1176.

Mitsch, W.J. 1988.  Wetland modelling, p. 1-10.  In W.J.
     Mitsch, M. Straskraba,  and S.E. Jrgensen (Eds.),
     Wetland Modelling.  Elsevier. New York.

Morris, J.H., C.L. Newcombe, R.T. Huffman, and J.S.
     Wilson.    1978.    Habitat  Development  Field
     Investigations, Salt Pond No. 3 Marsh Development
     Site, South San Francisco Bay, California. Tech.
     Report D-78-57.   U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
     Experiment Station,  CE,  Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Niering, W.A. 1987.  Wetlands hydrology and  vegetation
     dynamics. National Wetlands  Newsletter 9:9-11.
Newling, C.J.,  M.C. Landin, and S.D.  Parris.  1983.
   Long-term  monitoring  of  the Apalachicola  Bay
   wetland habitat development site, p. 164-186. In F J.
   Webb  (Ed.),  Proceedings  of the Tenth Annual
   Conference  of Wetland  Restoration and  Creation,
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,  Florida.

Newling, C.J. and  M.C. Landin.   1985.   Long-Term
   Monitoring of Habitat Development  at Upland and
   Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites, 1974-1982.
   Tech.  Report  D-85-5.    U.S.   Army   Engineer
   Waterways  Experiment  Station, CE, Vicksburg,
   Mississippi.

Odum, W.E.  1988.  Predicting ecosystem  development
   following  creation and restoration of  wetlands, p.
   67-70.  In J. Zelazny and  J.S. Feierabend (Eds.),
   Increasing   our  Wetland   Resources,   National
   Wildlife  Federation   Conference  Proceedings.
   Washington, D.C., October 4-7.

Race, M.S.  and  D.R. Christie.  1982.   Coastal zone
   development:   mitigation,  marsh  creation,  and
   decision making. Environ. Manaff. 6317-328.

Race. M.S.   1985.   Critique of present  wetlands
   mitigation policies in the United States based on an
   analysis  of  past  restoration  projects  in  San
   Francisco.  Envir.  Manag. 9:71-82.

Race, M.S.  1986. Wetlands restoration and mitigation
   policies: reply. Environ. Manag. 10:571-572.

Reimold, R.J., M.A.  Hardisky, and P.C.  Adams.  1978.
   Habitat  Development  Field  Investigations,
   Buttermilk Sound  Marsh Development Site, Atlantic
   Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.   Technical Report
   D-78-26, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Exp. Station,
   Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Reimold, R.J.  and S.A.  Cobler.   1986.    Wetlands
   Mitigation  Effectiveness.    A  Report to  the
   Environmental   Protection  Agency  Region I,
   Contract No. 68-04-0015.

Sacco, J.N.,  S.L. Booker,  and  E.D.  Seneca.  1988.
   Comparison of the  macrofaunal  communities of a
   human-initiated  salt marsh at two and fifteen years
   of age, abstract.    In  Benthic Ecology  Meeting,
   Portland, Maine.

Savage, T.   1978.  The 1972 experimental mangrove
   planting—an update with comments on  continued
   research  needs, p. 43-71.    In D.P. Cole  (Ed.),
   Proceedings  of  the Fifth Annual Conference  on
   Restoration  of  Coastal Vegetation  in  Florida,
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,  Florida.

Schneider, R.L. and R.R.  Sharitz.  1986.  Seed bank
   dynamics in a southeastern riverine swamp. Amer.
   001,73:1022-1030.

Seneca,  E.D.,  S.W. Broome, W.W. Woodhouse,  L.M.
   Cammen, and J.T. Lyon.    1976.   Establishing
   Spartina  alterniflora  marsh in  North  Carolina.
   Environ. Conservation 3185-188.

Shisler,  J.K. and D.J. Charette.  1984.  Evaluation of
   Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey.  New Jersey
   Agri. Exp. Station Publ. No. P-40502-01-84.
                                                    83

-------
Thorhaug,  A.   1979.  The flowering  and fruiting of   Valiela,  I.   1984.   Marine Ecological Processes.
     restored  Thalassia  beds,  a preliminary  note.      Springer-Verlag, New York.
     Aouat. Bot. 6:189-192.
                                                      Zedler, J., M. Josselyn and C. Onuf. 1982. Restoration
Thorhaug, A.  1980.  Environmental management of a      techniques, research and monitoring  vegetation, p.
     highly impacted,  urbanized tropical  estuary:      63-74.  In M. Josselyn (Ed.), Wetland Restoration
     rehabilitation   and  restoration.   Helgolander      and  Enhancement,  Report  No.  T-CSGCP-007,
     Meeresunters 33:614-623.                               Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Tiburon,
                                                         California.
                                                   84

-------
                   REGIONAL ASPECTS OF WETLANDS
            RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN THE
                 URBAN WATERFRONT ENVIRONMENT
                                       John R. Clark
                   Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
                                    University of Miami
    ABSTRACT.  In urban settings, wetland resources are typically degraded and often seriously
    dysfunctional.  Loss of wetland function in this manner reduces the productivity of the larger
    aquatic ecosystems of which the wetlands are a component. Therefore, in urban settings a
    high priority must be  given to restoration and enhancement of aquatic ecosystems and to their
    component wetlands.  Success in system-wide restoration requires formulation  of a regional
    strategy with goals,  objectives,  methodologies, and predesignated restoration sites.  Such
    strategies must be locally generated and  cannot  be substituted by existing one-agency
    programs. All levels  of government and private interests  must be involved.  Moreover, the
    existing system of site-by-site permit review must be altered to ensure that permit decisions
    are  oriented toward the regional restoration strategy. It is particularly important to recognize
    that the developers' resources will be the main source of  restoration project funds through
    voluntary or mitigative restoration and enhancement. Therefore, mitigation has  to be given a
    role at the front end of the review process and not held until the end as a "last resort".
                                    INTRODUCTION
    The  urban  setting presents  distinctive
problems for waterfront development as well as
special  opportunities  for  restoration   and
enhancement.  For several reasons mitigation
has the potential to become a positive tool for
restoration and enhancement rather than just an
obstacle to developers (Wessel and Hershman, in
press). Currently, the limited waterfront property
that  exists  in  most  urban  areas  is  being
aggressively  sought  for residential   and
commercial development.  The  pressures  are
great, front-foot  prices  are  astronomical,
investment funds are abundant, and profits are
assured, providing that permits can be obtained
with reasonable effort. This pressure has resulted
in  renewal  projects  for  much  of  the  old,
degraded,  urban  waterfront  area in coastal cities
(Figure 1).  For example, the buildout cost of
renewal projects now underway or proposed for
the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite
New York  City is estimated at $10 to $12 billion.

    In urban waterfront settings, there  are
virtually  no original or unaltered wetlands or
intertidal  flats left.  Wilderness is not found
here.  Most of the urban shoreline edge has been
"hardened" and  dredged or otherwise altered,
changing   its  ecological  character  to  ths
detriment of fish and wildlife.  The result is an
overall reduction  in biological  diversity  and
carrying capacity for desirable species within the
adjacent  estuary, river, or  lake.  This habitat
needs to be repaired as much as to be protected.
Much of the urban wetland we try to protect is so
damaged that to be worth saving it should be
repaired.  Therefore,   in   urban   settings,
restoration and  rehabilitation should be given
maximum attention.

    It  was predicted  in 1980 that restoration
would reach the top of the wetland agenda during
the decade of the 1980's (Clark and  McCreary
1980).   This has certainly  occurred for urban
aquatic ecosystems but in most regions it has
happened de facto , not as the result of policy
decisions  or  program  commitments  (one
exception is  the California State  Coastal
Program). Because funding  possibilities are so
limited in the  urban  setting, rehabilitation
should be  primarily focused on biological needs,
such  as restoring habitat  for endangered or
commercially  valuable species or  enhancing
critical processes of the wider wetland ecosystem
(Clark 1979).  As put by Batha and Pendleton
(1987): "Lack of suitable enhancement sites at
reasonable cost and conflicts among agencies as
to what type of habitats are of greatest importance
to the Bay system  greatly  concern  all people
interested in the future  of San Francisco Bay....
Rapid urbanization will make the  possibility of
adding  wetlands  to  the  Bay   increasingly
difficult in the future".

    One example of the multiobjective approach
                                             85

-------
                -IT
Figure 1.  Typical  waterfront scene  on the Hudson River in Manhattan.  Original wetlands and
          tideflats were replaced  with piers and channels  which  are now  deteriorated  and
          dysfunctional.  Some interests want to retain these piers, others want them removed, and
          still others want ecological rehabilitation in combination with  residential development.
that can be used in an urban situation is the Pt.
Liberte canal  side residential project  in Jersey
City, N.J.  (see following section: "Case  Study
Port Liberte").  Here the development  site itself
was small,  but peripheral areas and edges were
used in  a voluntary  program of  multiple
enhancements (Figure  2)  to:  rehabilitate and
reroute a seriously degraded stream,  rehabilitate
a degraded tideflat/ slough system, enhance the
beach-dune system, create a least tern nesting
site, build  an artificial  reef, enhance a  small
peninsula owned by  Liberty State Park,  and
protect the  state-designated Caven Point Natural
Area (tideflats  and shallow waters) adjacent  to
the site from boater damage.

    It  is unfortunate  that aquatic  habitat
restoration has not been  given the same priority
as water quality restoration  which has received
great attention  and lavish budgets in the past 15
years. Direct appropriations for physical habitat
repair  and   ecosystem  restoration  by either
Federal  or  state  governments  have   been
minuscule, regardless of how  compelling the
need may have been (Clark  1985).  Progress  in
habitat restoration has for the most part,  been left
                                              86

-------
                                         "*» _  WOO    JOQO    4000    MM    (000    7000 FEET

                                            *          0                      I KILOMCTE*
Figure 2.   Jersey  City,  N.J.,  waterfront  now  in  active  redevelopment  from  industrial  to
           residential/commercial.  Shaded section is the site of the new Port Liberte project which is
           occupying an abandoned military site.
                                                87

-------
to casual and secondary mechanisms. The most
promising of these mechanisms is mitigation in
exchange  for development  permits,  whereby
physical habitat restoration is,  in effect, exacted
from developers  by regulators as a quid pro quo
for obtaining waterfront development permits.
But this approach has been less than successful
because the mitigation process under most  permit
programs has been poorly organized and ad hoc.
Since long  term future goals have not been
established for particular ecosystems or regions,
nor guidelines  formulated  for  developers,
mitigation   has been   a  case-by-case,  un-
coordinated    activity. Often this seems to have
been deliberate, because regulatory agencies may
want to relegate mitigation to a  "last resort"
basis. This may be  commendable in rural areas
where more  natural  conditions exist,  but in
urban settings mitigation may often have to be
the "first resort" where no other mechanisms are
available for  repair of damaged aquatic habitats.

    A mitigation goal of "no net loss of habitat
value",  often advocated for rural settings is not
sufficient for highly  damaged urban aquatic
ecosystems.   Here the goal should be "a net gain
in habitat value" if we are to regain the losses of
the past,  reach  higher levels of biological
productivity,  and accomplish  recovery of depleted
populations  of  economically  valuable  or
endangered species.  This goal could be stated in
another way, specifically as  a policy "to achieve
net positive cumulative impacts". This approach
to ecosystem recovery through  strategic,  rather
than reactive mitigation has promise for certain
urban aquatic  ecosystems  where a  basis for
cooperation   among  regulators,  developers,
scientists, and environmentalists can be found
(Clark 1985).

     It is far  too easy to  drift into an attitude, or
approach, where only potential negative impacts
are addressed.  I believe  we should  try  hard to
prevent future losses  of wetland, but we also
should Work to regain lost functions.   To be
workable, the restoration approach must address
the total individual wetlands ecosystem (lake,
river, estuary,  marsh, etc.); that is, the whole
aquatic system of which the  wetland is a part.
We should recognize that certain functions are
being lost in an aquatic system, see which are
dependent upon wetlands, establish priorities for
the functions of greatest value (e.g., bird habitat,
flood  storage, productivity) and  enhance these
functions. This  would reverse the serious decline
of productivity  and diversity in aquatic habitats
in the urban setting.

    It is  fair  to  say that most  mitigation
consultants find the  typical permit-by-permit
approach of regulatory agencies ineffective in
advancing long-term goals for aquatic ecosystem
conservation and a deterrent to strategic system
restoration. Further, individual  permit reviews
should be evaluated  wherever  and whenever
possible  through a   regional   strategy  for
restoration. I recommend that goals and targets
should be determined in advance according to a
regional  strategy and  used  to guide subsequent
permit   actions  involving  restoration  and
enhancement.  For example, Sorensen  (1982)
concludes  that "...the  relative  scarcity  and
abundance of the resource needs to be determined
on a region-wide basis in order to set priorities
on the types and locations of habitats that should
be provided in a restoration  site plan".

    The  ideas  expressed in this chapter are
particularly applicable to the urban settings of
coastal  cities and  their surroundings. But the
principal recommendations involving regional
strategies,  goal-setting, ecosystem focus, and
predetermination of restoration needs and sites
could apply to less  urbanized  seacoast  and
freshwater areas.
                       THE NEED FOR ADVANCED CRITERIA
     If urban developers (whether public agencies
or  private  corporations)  are to cooperate  in
restoration  of aquatic habitats  through either
mitigation or voluntary enhancement, they must
have some guidance.  They should know what is
expected of them in the context of the regional
ecosystem in  which the  project is  located. If
voluntary enhancement is to  be encouraged, they
should know what specific opportunities exist and
what  public  interests they can  best serve.
Moreover,they should know  this information at
the time  they are planning  their projects, not
after the application has been submitted and the
Section  10  or  404 Public  Notice  has been
circulated by the  Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
    In the mitigation process,  the  COE usually
 defers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) to
 assess mitigation requirements and expects to
 receive FWS advice after the developer's permit
 is submitted (COE  1985)  and the developer is
 already committed to a certain  plan.  If the COE
 does not agree with FWS or other commentators,
 including  EPA  and   the  National  Marine
 Fisheries  Service  (NMFS), a prolonged  and
 expensive delay will often result (months or even
 years).  For example, Zagata (1985) states, "The
 mitigation  requirement in  404  of the Clean
 Water  Act has  been a source  of controversy
 between  the  regulating agencies  and  permit
 applicants. The need to mitigate is  considered at
 the end, rather than the beginning, of the permit
                                              88

-------
process, after other  alternatives  have  been
examined.  Thus, industry frequently perceives
mitigation  as  an additional source of delay and
money...an add-on-cost  since  it  is considered
after completion of the proposed project's normal
budgeting  and planning process".  All of which
may be welcome if you're  only trying to stop a
project but  not if you're trying  to  promote
restoration of urban aquatic ecosystems.

     In  order  to succeed,  effective  restorative
mitigation must be a cooperative venture between
developer  and  agencies.   As  of now, the
developers' opinion of mitigation is typically one
of frustration (Wilmar  1986):
    "The Corps usually recommends that the
    applicant  embark  upon  a  series  of
    negotiations   with   the  various
    commenting agencies.  This  is  gen-
    erally a frustrating exercise because
    there are few  rules, and commenting
    agencies  have  broad  discretion   to
    interpret those standards that do exist.
    Moreover,  the applicant  has usually
    already obtained approvals  from the
    local and  state agencies, each of which
    has extracted concessions as the price of
    project  approval. Thus, the  unsophis-
    ticated,  generous,  or  inexperienced
    applicant often  has no more to give, and
    the federal agencies have little other
    incentive to reach an agreement."

    By the  time  the  application  has  been
submitted, positions have hardened and options
have been closed for both the developer and the
regulator. Aware of this situation, EPA and other
principal agencies including state agencies will
often meet with the developer in "pre-application"
conferences  that  FWS  mitigation   policy
presumably encourages (FWS 1981). This can be
beneficial if various  agency staff can come to
agreement   among  themselves  and  give
unambiguous advice to  the  developer  (Is  high
marsh lower priority than low marsh? Are bird
breeding islands a beneficial substitute for open
water surface,  water column, and bottom? Are
piers over bare bottom beneficial or detrimental?
Should mudflats be converted to marshland? Are
ducks more important than  fish?).  However, all
too often an agency's staff has not had a chance
to come to consensus in advance on the issues of
habitat option preferences.   The developer is too
often left to gamble on which mitigation approach
might be best  to  get  him  through the  permit
process.   It is  a major problem for the permit
process that a formal method for prior consensus
on regional mitigation priorities does not exist. It
is also a major problem that current mitigation
manuals or guidebooks on  mitigation methods
and preferences are not available to development
planners  to consult throughout the  siting and
design process.

    What can an individual EPA or other agency
permit reviewer do to improve this situation in a
region where  no organized  mitigation policies
and programs  are  in  place? The answer  is to
work to  clarify and  reach consensus  among
agency colleagues on mitigation procedures and
priorities, and to assist in conveying the results
to the applicant at the earliest possible time. An
appreciation of the urgent necessity for restoring
urban  wetland-related   ecosystems  using
mitigation  is,  of  course,   the  precursor  to
agreement on mitigation targets.  While  FWS
and COE are the main  Federal agency actors in
early  permit  skirmishes,  EPA has  a strong
influence because of the agency's ultimate "veto"
power.

    The  advantages of advance  criteria and
early coordination in project planning are stated
by  Dial et al. (1985):  "To be most effective in
preserving habitat, mitigation  activities should
begin during the planning phase of a project. It
is usually only at this phase that the avoidance or
minimization  of the  impacts is  possible,  and
mitigation in  the  literal   sense  of the word
occurs".
               THE ADVANTAGE OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGY
    A major challenge  to  EPA  and  other
agencies is to make the fundamental shift from
a site-by-site focus  to a regional focus for urban
areas. Because permit actions are typically
confined to a project site, often there may be little
knowledge or concern  about the  relationship
between  that site  and the regional  ecosystem
incorporating  the  project  site.   Ecosystem
thinking is engendered by the regional approach.
One can't think of each individual wetland as a
unit of landscape  in  isolation,  but rather in
terms of the whole system.
   A major advantage of taking the regional
ecosystem  view  by  thinking  beyond  the
immediate project  site to  consider the whole,  is
that most wetland functions  that  we  value
involve  a related aquatic  system that is larger
than the affected wetland itself. The wetland unit
often depends on  the larger aquatic system  to
actually realize the  potential of a  particular
wetland function. For example, detrital output  is
a value only  if there  is  a living  community
beyond  the wetland to utilize it.  Likewise, if a
wetland is to serve as a nursery for fish it  must

-------
be accessible to an adjacent healthy, functioning,
major aquatic system which depends upon many
components other than wetlands. For example, a
snook  nursery  area needs  to  have a  shallow
intertidal area with  mangrove  edge  and an
admixture of  fresh  water and,   outside,  a
productive  feeding  and  cryptic  habitat  of
seagrass beds.  After this period (1/2 year or so)
the snook move into deeper waters and utilize a
variety of habitats in enclosed waters of estuaries
and around channels, where good water quality
becomes important. Obviously, we need  to be
concerned about  more than acres  of  wetlands
(mangrove) if we want  to improve the snook's lot
(now greatly depleted). We want  to reverse the
degradation of the  whole  aquatic  system  and
achieve a positive  direction in various permit
review and mitigation  activities.  Consequently,
in restoring  or  creating  wetland units  in
mitigation,  we have  to decide what  is  the
optimum  balance of,  say, high  wetlands,  low
wetlands, flats,  channels,  and  open  shallow
waters (Clark 1986b).

    When the potential   for  mitigation  or
voluntary enhancement arises,  the  question
follows of what specific  restoration  projects
should  be  recommended.  With   private
developers, the  question is most often fielded by a
consultant;  with   public  projects,  a  staff
professional usually provides advice. Interaction
of these professionals with regulatory  agency
personnel is most often the key to  efficiency in
subsequent review of the permit and in approval
of the mitigation/restoration program.  This  is
all that would  be necessary in a perfect world
characterized  by mutuality, omniscience,  and
altruism.  However,  in the  real  world  of
permitting,  the  process  is  typically   an
adversarial  one,   each  permit   is   handled
de nouveau. advance goals  are  absent, and
agency  reviewers  are often unsympathetic to
development and reluctant to commit to specifics
and foreclose their post-submittal options. Thus,
the  official  pre-application  conference  (as
advocated, for example, by PWS  mitigation
guidelines, Fed. Reg., Jan. 23, 1981, Vol. 46, No.
15, p. 7644 et seq.) may fall short of developer
needs   and   may  discourage  restoration
initiatives. This confirms the  strong  need for
directive  guidelines  to make  the   process
predictable to developers and to make  available
to  their   environmental   experts  advance
mitigation criteria for use  at  early  planning
stages. This can only be accomplished effectively
in a regional context.

   The shift from the reactive to the strategic
approach would bring a shift from "supply-side"
to "demand-side" thinking about wetlands.  That
is, assessing the condition of a wetlands system
begs the strategic question "What are the societal
demands  for natural goods  and services from
this system and how well are they being  met?".
This  replaces  the  reactive question  "What
natural goods and services  does  this  wetland
supply?".

   Effectiveness in aquatic  habitat restoration
requires understanding the  regional ecosystem,
its present  condition  (how  far degraded), and
what values are most important and should be
given   priority   for   rehabilitation  (plant
productivity? bird habitat? nursery area?). Given
this,  one can formulate  goals  and  advance
criteria for  permit review and mitigation and
even reverse the trend of negative  cumulative
impacts and  bring about a  positive cumulative
impact sequence.
                             REGIONAL ORGANIZATION
    It is within the purview of the EPA or other
agency reviewers to consider each wetland unit
as part of a greater ecological and  hydrologic
system  when  dealing  with restoration  and
reversal  of cumulative  impacts.  Thinking
discriminately   is   important,  including
considering  the  variety  of configurations,
functions,  and  social  needs that restoration
projects  can  meet.  From  the  ecological
engineering point of view, given the money, one
can do almost anything to a wetland. It can be
regraded, reshaped, rewatered or replanted.  The
substrate  can  be  changed, the  elevation,
topography, or the supply of water (Clark 1986a).

    But beyond the technical issues, there are
judgmental questions  to  be answered: What
wetland  design  would  yield  the  highest
socioeconomic  benefit,  considering  regional
needs for  natural  goods  and  services?  If
waterfowl habitat is critical, then a relatively
shallow  open  water  area  would  be  most
appropriate  (Figure 3), If  shorebird  habitat,
shoreline  stabilization,  or   run-off  water
purification are the priority needs, then different
designs are indicated. The strategic approach  to
mitigative restoration  requires that  someone
other  than  the  project  developer or permit
reviewer—preferably a regional entity—select the
regional priorities for aquatic ecosystem outputs
of natural goods and  services.  Once that  is
accomplished,  an  environmental  professional
can convert these priorities to functional criteria
and engineers can convert the criteria to  design
specifications and construction (Clark 1986a).
                                              90

-------
 jk. 1L v?. • w*l«*sw*t s,, *
 Figure 3. Degraded streambed on the Port Liberte  site scheduled for rehabilitation to enhance its
          value to waterfowl, shorebirds, and nursery size fishes and to remove high concentrations
          of toxics in the streambed.
    Because  of the variety of public  interest
questions involved  in  mitigative restoration,
individual  agency  permit reviewers would
benefit  from advance formulation of regional
goals and restoration priorities by a recognized
entity charged  with balancing the variety of
private  and  public  interests.  Where  regional
entities  have been established to deal  with
aquatic  habitats   and  permits and  have
formulated guidelines and  criteria, the results
seem to have been helpful.

    Federal/state programs  that can be used to
explore  regional  possibilities  include  the
following:

1.   EPA's    authority    for    "advance
    identification"  or  "predesignation"  of
    wetlands (under Sect. 404{c) or Sect. 230.80 of
    the  Guidelines)  which  enables EPA to list
    those that are off limits to dredging and
    filling  in  a particular region  (e.g.  the
    Hackensack Meadows).  The procedures for
   advance identification provide for input from
   a variety of interests, scientific evaluation of
   wetlands  values, and  a plan  for  priority
   protection of critical habitats. But the program
   may or may not deal effectively with whole
   ecosystems or with restoration needs (Studt
   1987).

2.  The COE's  long-term management  strategy
   (LTMS) for  dredging activities on a regional
   basis  strongly  encourages  and  assists
   Districts in  developing  LTMS's within their
   boundaries   (Klesh 1987).  Districts  with
   LTMS's in place or in  planning include  St.
   Paul, Rock Island, Seattle, and Portland.

3.  States'  authority   under    the   Federal
   Coastal Zone  Management  Act  (1980
   Amendments) to do regional Special Area
   Management  Plans (SAMP's), whereby  all
   aspects can be  considered in  a regional
   planning  context.  SAMP's  can effectively
   establish  regional strategies for  aquatic
                                              91

-------
    habitat restoration, including restoration
    criteria, identification of mitigation  sites,
    preparation  of guidelines, and mechanisms
    for  incorporating   mitigation  into   a
    restoration master plan.  Federal agencies
    must be  consistent with approved  state
    SAMP's (Studt 1987).  A major example of a
    successful SAMP is that for Rhode Island's
    salt  pond region  (Olsen  and Lee   1985)
    whereby strong  guidelines for development
    and  aquatic system restoration in the salt
    ponds were formulated with the participation
    of a  wide  spectrum   of  agencies  and
    environmental and  private interests.  The
    main example of the difficulty of the SAMP
    approach is Gray's Harbor, Washington,  in
    which  Federal and  state agencies and the
    local planning entity and port authority have
    spent more than 8 years trying to agree to a
    plan.

4.   "Area   wide"   advance  Environmental
    Impact Statements developed by the COE, and
    often advocated  by   FWS,  provide   an
    opportunity  to  review  the  condition and
    restoration needs for regional  ecosystems.
    These need to be set up for wide consensus,
    public  interest  balancing,  formulation  of
    policy,  and  implementation  of  positive
    programs.

5.   Use  of the Estuarine  Reserves  program,
    authorized by  the Federal  Coastal Zone
    Management Act  to  organize  regional
    aquatic ecosystem  conservation programs.
    Examples of strong local estuarine reserve
    programs  which have enhanced restoration
    and  provided an  advance  framework  for
    permit  decisions include Apalachicola Bay
    (Florida) and Tijuana Estuary and Elkhorn
    Slough (California)  National  Estuarine
    Reserves (Clark and McCreary 1987).

6.   State-organized  advance designation  of
    mitigation sites.  This  approach, currently
    operating  in California and proposed by New
    Jersey, is  especially applicable to  the urban
    setting where on-site mitigation opportunities
    are limited (however, they do imply advance
    acceptance of the idea of offsite mitigation,
    which  is  not viewed favorably by some
    agencies).   Such programs are  an excellent
    way to pinpoint the need for restoration and
    to take definitive steps to establish priorities
    for restorative mitigation.

    To the  extent possible,  regional needs and
opportunities for restoration  should be included
in any initiatives under the above programs.

    Locally organized programs designed for
specific regional  aquatic ecosystems have been
successful  in  many  coastal  urban   areas.
Although not  usually  designed specifically for
restorations,  these locally organized programs
can be most  helpful in generating a consensus
on  restoration needs  and  guiding regulatory
agencies  toward restoration  priorities in permit
decisions involving  mitigation  and  voluntary
enhancement.  Examples of such programs in
urban coastal areas are:

1.   The  Bay  Conservation  and  Development
    Commission  (BCDC),  the original  regional
    organization for aquatic  ecosystem conserva-
    tion,  was founded in 1965. All development
    around the shoreline of San  Francisco  Bay
    must  be permitted by BCDC which has worked
    to find broad consensus on aquatic ecosystem
    conservation  and  to  formulate mitigation
    guidelines. A major restoration  mitigation
    goal is to require opening of diked wetlands
    in compensation  for any filling allowed.

2.   The Environmental Enhancement Plan for
    Baltimore Harbor  (1982) by  the Regional
    Planning   Council  for  the  Baltimore
    Metropolitan Area  (a  Maryland  state body)
    broke a 10-year deadlock over fill, dredging,
    and dredge spoil (dredged material)  disposal
    when it was modified to be  acceptable to
    Federal  agencies  (by  eliminating  a
    mitigation  bank).  The  Plan includes
    rehabilitation  of   aquatic   habitats  and
    creation of wetlands. Five sites were selected
    in  advance  for  mitigation  activity. This
    approach  made mitigation more rational  and
    expedited the permit process.

3.   The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
    initiated  aquatic  habitat   management
    planning action that resulted in a cooperative
    agreement with FWS to,  among other things,
    identify  mitigation  options  and  select
    mitigation sites.  This action has resulted in
    enhanced  cooperation  among  various
    interests and has expedited permit approvals.

4   The  Ports of  San  Pedro and Los  Angeles
    jointly developed the "2020  Plan"  for  port
    expansion which includes specific mitigation
    commitments according to a  Memorandum
    of Understanding signed by  the interested
    agencies.  Mitigation requirements will be
    met  by  off-site restoration  (there  being
    extreme  limits on available mitigation sites
    in   the   Los   Angeles  harbor   area).
    Specifically,  as a first goal  the  entire
    Bataquitos Estuary ecosystem will be restored
    to a prescribed level of function.

5.   The Bataquitos Lagoon restoration project is
    a regional effort,  organized cooperatively
    with  several Federal and state agencies  and
    local  institutions with a goal to restore the
    entire aquatic ecosystem of the lagoon  (ca.
    1,000 acres) by off-site,  out-of-kind (mostly)
    mitigation. Included  is  sediment removal,
                                             92

-------
    building of least  tern nesting sites, beach
    nourishment,  inlet  stability, creation  of
    freshwater marsh, etc.  This project, funded
    as mitigation for dredge-and-fill by the Port
    of Los Angeles, is  seen as the first in a
    series  of restorations under  a long-term
    cooperative  integrated   regional  plan
    (Marcus 1987).

6.   Fraser  River   Estuary  Management
    Programs  (British  Columbia,   Canada)
    initiated in 1977, resulted in a plan in 1982
    and  1985 for  the joint management  and
    restoration  of the estuary by a network of
    national  and  provincial   government
    authorities.  The plan was preceded  by a
    thorough  inventory, consensual ng,  goal
    setting, and criteria formulation  process.
    The  management  plan  makes  decision
    making predictable.  Under the coordinated
   Project Review System, developers get a 30-
   day response  (the  interagency committee
   meets bi-weekly). The North Fraser Harbour
   component  has  a  mitigation  bank  with
   preselected littoral sites for restoration and a
   system to intercalibrate  relative values of
   different  wetland types and  other  shallow
   aquatic habitats (Williams and Colquhoun
   1987).

7.  The  Biscayne  Bay  Management  Project
   (Florida)  has  integrated  a  variety  of
   authorities and actions toward a master plan
   approach to water quality and aquatic habitat
   restoration and conservation. While manage-
     ment is  less  centralized than  examples
   above, the integrated consensus formation
   and networking  have  enhanced restoration
   and  made  development  constraints  more
   predictable.
                REGIONAL GOALS AND MITIGATION TARGETS
    Any  regional strategy for aquatic  habitat
restoration requires formulation of goals, often
followed  by objectives, guidelines, and  criteria
for project  evaluation.   The process  of goal
setting should incorporate the policies of agencies
and the views of the full spectrum of private and
public interests involved.  Even when completed,
the strategy will most likely be advisory  and not
a substitute for  existing agency authorities and
prerogatives.

    The   following  is  recommended  as  a
conceptual approach to the goal  setting  process
(Josselyn  and  Buchholz  1984,  quoted  in
Quamman 1986):

    "The government agencies involved in
    managing   and  regulating  natural
    resources need to identify restoration
    goals which state the  habitats  and
    functions deemed to be important within
    each  ecoregion.  This will  result  in
    improved project coordination within an
    ecoregion,  and   also  allow   for
    identification of the cumulative  effects
    of  piecemeal alterations in the region.
    The   initial   step   in  identifying
    restoration goals  involves determining
    the types and area  of the different
    habitats present, as well as their rates of
    losses  and gains.  This determination,
    coupled  with  knowledge about  the
    importance  of each  habitat  to  the
    ecoregion's key species, will provide  the
    information  needed  to  decide  which
    habitat types  should  be restored   or
    replaced."
   An example of Regional  Restoration  Goals
generated by the California Coastal Commission
is the following for the  South Region  of the
California Coast (Calif.  Coastal Comm. 1987):

   "The predominant  restoration  goal  for
   this region should emphasize the creation
   of open circulation,  low intertidal habitat
   interspersed with salt marsh patches to
   enhance  shorebird,  diving duck,  and
   marsh and wading bird populations.  The
   open circulation pattern  will  enhance
   local fish and  invertebrate populations
   and keep mosquitos  and flood control
   activities relatively  easy. The salt marsh
   areas  should  be sufficient in  size  to
   maintain    endangered    species
   populations."

   Such goals provide  a good starting point for
the  technical  realization of  restoration  but
obviously need  to be  extended with detailed
criteria.

   If you are fortunate enough  to be reviewing
permits for an aquatic ecosystem that is covered
by a regional strategy with goals and criteria for
restorative mitigation  where  previous analytic
steps have been taken, you have only to match the
development project with identified-in-advance
restoration targets and procedures.  If not,  you
may  nevertheless be able to analyze the regional
ecosystem  involved  and identify  targets  that
would  be  acceptable to your colleagues  in  the
other  agencies,  environmentalists, and  the
developer.  One major issue  is to evaluate the
mitigation or voluntary  restoration in the context
                                             93

-------
of the  needs  of  the wider  ecosystem.  Most
wetlands  do not  exist in  isolation;  they are
coupled to wider aquatic ecosystems (Figure 4).
Another major issue is to recommend mitigation
targets that have high priority in terms of your
perception of regional ecosystem needs.

    This approach is different from the familiar
acre-for-acre compensation requirements because
of its urban orientation.  Urban aquatic systems
are always in need of repair. These needs can be
diagnosed and specific treatments prescribed that
will be of much greater value than formula acre-
for-acre  replacement of a particular  marsh,
mudflat, or beach habitat type.  For example,
ducks may be more in need of protected  shallow
water area than of emergent marsh, or  terns
more in  need  of  sandy nesting islands  than
mudflats. Critical  habitat  needs such as  these
can  be   identified   in  most  urban  aquatic
ecosystems. In another chapter of this volume,
Erwin  suggests  giving  priority  to  defining
mitigation goals  specifically  in terms  of fish
and wildlife  targets and in fulfilling  those
goals, allowing the  maximum  flexibility and
creativity.

    Trying to restore an existing wetland  to its
original,  pristine  condition  may  not  always
produce the most appropriate result in terms of
meeting the region's critical  need for wetland
output. For  example, creating  a coastal high
marsh area of sea daisy and saltwort, although a
close replication of the original wetland, may be
of far less value than a replacement low  marsh
of mixed cordgrass and  mangrove with open
channels, which would both provide  a nursery
area for  fishes and an export of detritus  to the
estuary.  Often there  is  a  current regional
demand   caused  by  shortages   of particular
types of wetland function that are recognized for
a particular region (Clark  1986b). Whether the
shortage  has  occurred because  of  wetlands
conversion or wetland  dysfunction, the demand
can be at least partially provided through  repair
of  dysfunctional  ecosystem  units  in  many
circumstances (Figure 5).

    Any regional strategy  can be organized to
respond to "cumulative impacts"  and to provide
"offsets" for  any  environmental  damage in
degraded ecosystems (as  for air quality "non-
attainment" areas). Under  a regional strategy,
a  priority  goal  would   be  to reverse  the
accumulation  of negative  impacts,  and begin a
trend  of positive cumulative impacts for the
regional  ecosystem.  The  regional  authority
would  determine  a  baseline  condition, or
threshold level,  for attainment by  examining
historical  trends of resource losses  for the
ecosystem.  Future restorative mitigation would
have  an  overall target to return  the system, via
positive  cumulative  impacts,  to  an  earlier
designated  level of productivity (e.g., for the
Chesapeake Bay, return to the status of the year
1950 seems to be favored).
                            MULTIPLE IMPACT PROJECTS
    In  urban  waterfront  projects,   several
different impact types can often be identified;
some  positive  and  some  negative.  In  this
situation, the balance of net benefits and losses
must be determined  in some fashion based on
qualitative  and  quantitative  factors.  If no
predetermined scheme is available  to  convert
"apples to  oranges", the process may have to be
more  judgmental  than  analytical.   In  the
previously cited  official FWS mitigation policy
(p. 765f2) it is stated that: "... the net biological
impact  of a project proposal  is the difference in
predicted habitat value between the future with the
action and the future without the action".  In
effect this encourages  the developer to present an
actual  "balance sheet"  in  support  of  his
application (including voluntary enhancements)
which shows for each  of the important functional
categories  the extent to which  the  project will
benefit or  harm  the  ecosystem in the  "without
project" and  "with project"  scenarios.  Table 1
illustrates a  very  simplified  example  of a
summary sheet.
    Sophistications that can easily be introduced
into such  comparisons include FWS "resource
categories", HEP analysis, and relative value
calibrations.

    This approach encourages the developer (with
his consultant's advice) to incorporate a variety
of  voluntary  restorative  enhancements  into
project design  in  the early planning stages.
However, ambiguity is introduced by the FWS
interest in holding to itself the determination of
"...whether these positive effects can be applied
towards mitigation" (FWS mitigation policy, p.
7652).  If such interpretation is  actually delayed
until permit application is submitted, no improve-
ment in predictability is achieved and developer-
supported  restorative mitigation is  frustrated.
Where  restorative mitigation  will  be in  the
offing,  it  behooves   EPA and  other agency
reviewers to provide secure advice to developers
as  early  in  the  pre-application  process  as
possible.
                                              94

-------
 Figure 4. This Spartina patens  marsh on the Port Liberte site appears isolated but it is strongly
          linked to the lower Hudson Estuary through runoff drainage, tide action, detrital outflow,
          animal movements, and other factors
Figure 5. Repair of this shallow, polluted,  marsh/tideflat/slough is part  of the Port  Liberte
         enhancement program.
                                             95

-------
  Table 1.  A very simplified example of a summary sheet that could be used to review the possible
            impacts of a proposed project.
Gate o
Without
Project
With
Project
Net
Impact
Comments
Channel

circulation
Restricted,

stagnation,

eutrophic
Free flow

non-stagnant,

non-eutrophic,

improved access,

fewer mosquitos
Highly

positive
Depth of 4'

specified;

range of 3-5'

would be acceptable
Macrophytes     Unimpeded

               insolation
                  Piers.

                  boardwalks

                  will shadow

                  3-1/2 acres
                    Moderately

                    negative
               Plank spacing

               of 1-1/4"

               will reduce

               shading effect
                     MITIGATION BANKS AND ALTERNATIVES
     In the  urban setting it is  most difficult to
 avoid going off site with mitigation where it is
 required  of a  development. Waterfront is  so
 scarce and valuable that land parcels for develop-
 ment are small and use is  intensive. Therefore,
 land available for mitigation is at a premium.
 On the other  hand, waterfront redevelopment
 creates extensive benefits through value added to
 the land, taxes, jobs,  and particularly, through
 ridding the waterfront of the blight of decaying
 warehouses, collapsing docks,  and health and
 security  nuisances.  Most communities will
 vigorously  support waterfront renewal.  This
 must be strongly considered by COE in its public
 interest review.

     These two factors, motivation for intensive
 use of waterfront parcels and the limited  options
 for onsite mitigation,  create strong pressure to
 find offsite solutions  for mitigation demands,
 often through  some type of "mitigation  bank".
 One solu- tion is a mitigation bank whereby
 developers  are  "taxed"  for impacts  and  the
 proceeds   "deposited"   in   a   habitat
 creation/restoration  account  similar   to the
 "impact  fees" for infrastructure  often charged to
                                    dryland developers.   A  second solution is a
                                    different kind of bank whereby areas in need of
                                    habitat restoration or suitable for habitat creation
                                    are  "banked" so as to be available in the future
                                    for  mitigation  requirements  levied  against
                                    developers.

                                       A  third  solution is a regional  cooperative
                                    restoration plan, whereby mitigation for various
                                    projects is done at predesignated sites.  It would
                                    be as though, at Bataquitos Lagoon for example,
                                    several developers had participated sequentially
                                    in  the  restoration  project.    The  major
                                    requirement is advance designation of sites for
                                    restoration as the COE does now for dredge spoil
                                    (dredged material) disposal areas.  Designation
                                    can be done by  a regional body  (e.g., North
                                    Fraser River),  a state (e.g., California coast, or
                                    New Jersey's proposed advance site program), a
                                    Federal agency, or a  special  agency  like  the
                                    California Conservancy (McCreary  and  Zentner
                                    1983). This approach avoids the appearance of a
                                    developer  "buying" a  permit, as  in the first
                                    solution (which is not  looked on favorably by
                                    most agencies; e.g., the Baltimore  Harbor plan
                                    was rejected by the COE for this reason).
                                                96

-------
                             CASE STUDY PORT LffiERTE
    This  case  study describes aspects  of  an
innovative residential project in Jersey City,
N.J. along the shores of the Hudson River. A 125-
acre parcel of previously filled land (by the U.S.
Army  in  the early 1940's)  was  excavated to
provide 2 linear miles of canals for waterside
housing (Figure  6).  The developer engaged a
panel  of  experts  to  prepare  a  series  of
enhancements (to be paid for by the developer) in
advance of formal permit review.

    Port Liberte, bounded by the Caven Point
Natural Area and Liberty State Park is a canal
side residential  marine  community currently
under  construction  with 1690  condominium
units,  commercial  space and marina. Caven
Point Natural Area represents one of the  few
remaining remnants of the natural estuary with
a Spartina salt marsh and tidal mudflat (Burger
and Clark 1987).  The genesis of the Port Liberte
project was and  continues to be one  of sound
environmental  planning  whereby  appropriate
geological  and  biological  expertise  guided  the
development,   architectural   design,  and
construction  schedule of the project and  the
monitoring programs. With the acquisition of
the permits, major construction began in 1986 but
careful monitoring of  water  quality,  fish
populations (Figure 7) and avian use (the three
critical resources on the site) continues and will
continue during the project.  This is one of a few
projects to involve a year  of monitoring prior to
permitting, with continued monitoring  during
buildout.   Monitoring  data  obtained  before
construction  was used to  physically design  the
marina, channels,  canals, and  boardwalks  as
well as the  timing of particular construction
schedules.  One notable and unusual aspect of the
Port Liberte project  was the cooperative nature of
the  interactions between  project  personnel,
government   personnel,   scientists,   and
environmentalists, rather than the  usual more
adversarial approach (Burger and Clark 1987).

    That the complex project received its New
Jersey  permit in less than 1 1/2 years is owed to
the collaborative  spirit  in which the  project
evolved. Another important factor was that, due
to confidence  in the process, the state permitting
authority  was willing to  extensively "condition"
the permit rather than wait until the multitude of
details were settled and the COE was agreeable.
By  this means, the project could get underway
and  the  issues   could  be   worked  out
simultaneously,  requiring  an  extended  in-
process dialogue with state and federal agencies
(still   ongoing)  and continuing  ecological
baseline and  monitoring studies.  Also,  full use
was made of  the  opportunity for pre-application
conferences  and  informal  dialogue with state
and Federal  agency  personnel (Burger and
Clark 1987).

    The Port Liberte Restoration Design Panel,
an  interdisciplinary group of ecological  experts,
(academics  and  consultants)  was  formed  to
review Port Liberte development plans and to
provide advice on ecological enhancement.   At
this point  no specific  mitigation requirements
had been mandated, but permit review authorities
did expect a good and sufficient enhancement
effort  which  was  strongly supported  by the
developer,   the   Port  Liberte   Partners.
Consequently,  the Panel  was  encouraged  to
brainstorm freely and to formulate an optimum
variety of  ecological   enhancements  for  the
project.

    The panel  was concerned  with using the
opportunity to fulfill current ecological demands.
That is, rather than simply planning to supply so
many acres of habitat,  the panel wanted to meet
responsible  local demand for ecological goods
and services.   For example, it  was recognized
that the endangered  Least Tern needed safe
nesting sites and that the profusion of aquatic
birds using the littoral zone of the  project area
needed both  an adjacent  source of  fresh  to
slightly brackish water and continued access to
low cover on the beach berms at high tide, as well
as protection from disturbance. A second priority
goal was to see that adversely impacted aquatic
areas were rehabilitated. While accomplishing
the  above,  the panel recognized  that  many
constraints were operating and attempted to stay
within the  limits  of  practicality  imposed  by
permit conditions and project requirements.

    The Port Liberte Restoration Design Panel
met in September,  1985 to develop criteria for
ecosystem enhancements, including restoration,
rehabilitation,  and   creation  of  aquatic
subsystems. The enhancement concepts had been
reviewed in advance by the  State of New Jersey
(Department  of  Environmental  Protection,
Division  of Coastal Resources)  and conditions
had been imposed. Consequently,  the  Design
Panel  was  simultaneously  considering the
developer's proposals, the state's reactions and
requests,  and  the individual  ideas of  panel
members.

    The mandate was specifically to advise  the
developer on  restoration and enhancement of
natural systems within and adjacent  to the
project area, particularly  in  regard  to the
following:

1.   Rehabilitation and rerouting of Caven Creek,
    a   drainage  channel  that  transects   the
                                             97

-------
Figure 6.  General plan for the Port Liberte  waterfront community.  The artificial canal system is
          open to tidal flow on the north, south, and at the main boat entrance at the southeast. The
          canals  shallow from the central trunk to the laterals.   Deadends have been virtually
          eliminated.
                                             98

-------
                                                       I
                                    -,,..
Figure 7.  Biological baseline and monitoring activities include seining in the shallow waters of the
          east beach at Port Liberte along with offshore trawls, benthic and water quality samples,
          and intensive  bird censusing.
                                              99

-------
2.
      property near its northern  boundary along
      with ecological  improvements of the Caven
      Point Peninsula.

      Rehabilitation  of the  North Slough, a tidal
      embayment lying west  of Caven Peninsula
      that has been adversely affected by pollution.
  3.   Enhancement  and  maintenance  of  the
      Spartina -beach-dune system that fronts the
      east side of the project  along  Caven Cove
      on the Hudson Estuary (Figure 8).

  4.   Creation of a special nesting habitat for the
      endangered  (New Jersey  state list) Least
      Tern.
5.   General  ecological  enhancement of Caven
    Point Peninsula  with  considerations for
    public access and education.

    The  Panel's  charge  was  to  generate
recommendations with sufficient detail to enable
project planners to draw detailed plans and write
specifications  for  the  work  (Figure 9).  After
receiving its  mandate,  the  six-person  panel
worked with full independence, generating some
recommendations that neither the state nor the
developer might have  favored, but which the
panel  was  obliged to  offer  by virture  of  its
knowledge or the principles involved.  While it
is still too early to determine the panel's success,
all  recommendations were  accepted and acted
upon by developers and regulators.
                                            SUMMARY
      In  dense urban settings, restoration is  a
  priority  goal  for  mitigation  or  voluntary
  enhancement  of aquatic habitats.  Therefore the
  needs of regional ecosystems must be considered,
  not just project sites or single  wetland units.  In
  expanding  urban  areas  a  combination  of
  protection,  set-aside, and restoration may be
  required.   Because  strategies  for  aquatic
  ecosystem  restoration  are  planning  programs,
                                                   they conflict strongly with the ad hoc  nature of
                                                   regulatory programs.  Adjustments are  necessary
                                                   to enable permit evaluations to respond to  the
                                                   goals of regional restoration  strategies. Effective
                                                   restorative mitigation depends  upon  coopera-
                                                   tion  from  private   and  public  development
                                                   entities; this means  that unambiguous  advice
                                                   can be given to developers in project planning
                                                   phases.
                                        LITERATURE CITED
Batha, R. and A. Pendleton.  1987. Mitigation: A good tool
     that  needs sharpening.   Calif.  Waterfront  Age
     3(2):15-17.

Burger, J. and J. Clark.  1987. Port Liberte. An example
     of collaborative planning for a coastal development
     on  the  lower Hudson River.  Paper presented  at
     Conference on  the Impacts of New York Harbor
     Development on Aquatic Resources, Hudson River
     Foundation.

California Coastal Commission.  1987.  Draft working
     paper on wetland restoration goals.

Clark, J. 1979. Mitigation and grassroots conservation
     of  wetlands  urban issues, p.  141-151.   In  The
     Mitigation Symposium: A National  Workshop  on
     Mitigating Losses  of Fish and Wildlife Habitats.
     Genl. Tech. Rept.  RM65, U.S.  Forest Service, Fort
     Collins, Colorado.

Clark, J. 1985. A perspective on wetland  rehabilitation,
     p.   342-349.   In  J.  Kusler, R. Hamaan  (Eds.),
     Wetland Protection: Strengthening the Role of the
     States.  Center for Government Responsibility, U. of
     Florida, Gainesville.

Clark, J.  1986a (in press).  Assessment for wetlands
     restoration, p.  250-253.   In  J. Kusler  and  P.
                                                     Riexinger (Eds.), Proceedings: National Wetlands
                                                     Assessment Symposium.  (Portland, Maine). Assoc.
                                                     of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

                                                  Clark, J.  1986b. Setting the agenda for new research,
                                                     regulations, and policy, p. 309-318. In E.D. Estevez,
                                                     J. Miller, J. Morris  and  J.  Hatnman  (Eds.),
                                                     Managing Cumulative Effects in Florida Wetlands
                                                     Conference Proceedings.  Mote Marine Lab., E.S.P.
                                                     Publ. 38.

                                                  Clark, J. and S. McCreary.  1980.  Prospects for coastal
                                                     conservation in the 1980's.  Oceanus 23(4): 22-31.

                                                  Clark, J.  and  S.  McCreary.   1987.   Special  area
                                                     management at estuarine reserves, p.  49-93.  In D J.
                                                     Brower and D.S.  Carol (Eds.),  Managing Land-Use
                                                     Conflicts. Duke Univ. Press.

                                                  COE.  1985.  Regulatory Guidance Letter, Nov. 8, 1985.
                                                     U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Chief of
                                                     Engineers.

                                                  Dial, S., M. Quamman, D. Deis and J. Johnston.  1985.
                                                     Estuary-wide mitigation options for port development
                                                     in Tampa Bay, Florida, p. 1332-1344.  In O. T.
                                                     Magoon and H. Converse (Eds.), Coastal Zone  '85,
                                                     Vol.  2, American Society of Civil Engineers.
                                                  100

-------
                                                                                        •Jf.
Figure 8.  Restoration of the east beach is a major enhancement activity at Port Liberte.  The beach is
          screened and protected from landside disturbance by a buffer zone of Phragmites.
                                             101

-------
                                                                   BLACK TOM CHANNEL
Figure 9. General  enhancement plan for the natural areas lying east and north of the Port Liberte
         project site.
                                            102

-------
     Vol.  2, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Josselyn,  M.N.   and  J.W.  Buchholz.   1984.   Marsh
     Restoration  in San  Francisco Bay:  A Guide to
     Design  and  Planning.   Technical  Report  #3.
     Tiburon Center for  Environmental Studies,  San
     Francisco State University.

Klesh, W.L. 1987.  Long-term management strategy for
     the  disposal  of dredged material: Corps-wide
     implementation.   In Proc. North Atlantic Regional
     Conf. on the  Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material,
     12-14 May 1987, Baltimore, Md. p.  185-192.

Marcus,  L.   1987.   Wetland restoration  and port
     development:  the Bataquitos Lagoon  case.   p.
     4152-4165.  In O. T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner,
     L.  T. Tobin, D.  Clark,  and G. Domurat  (Eds.),
     Coastal Zone '87, Vol. 4, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng.

McCreary, S.   and T.  Zentner.  1983.   Innovative
     estuarine restoration and management, p. 2527-2551.
     In  O. T. Magoon and H. Converse (Eds.),  Coastal
     Zone '83, Vol.  3. Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng.

Olsen, Stephen  and V. Lee.  1985.  Rhode  Island's  Salt
     Pond Region:   a special  area management plan.
     Coastal   Resources   Management  Council,
     Providence, Rhode Island.

Quamman, M.L.   1986.   Measuring  the success of
     wetlands   mitigation.     National  Wetlands
     Newsletter. Sept.-Oct.: 6-8.
Sorensen, J.   1982.  Towards an overall strategy  in
   designing  wetland restoration, p. 85-96.   In  M.
   Josselyn  (Ed.),  Wetland  Restoration  and
   Enhancement in California.  California Sea  Grant,
   U. of California, La Jolla.

Studt, J.F.  1987. Special area management plans in the
   Army Corps of Engineers regulatory  program.
   National Wetlands Newsletter. May-June: 8-10.

United States  Fish  and Wildlife Service.  1981.  United
   States Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation  Policy.
   Federal Register 46(15):7644-7655.

Wessel,  A.E.  and M.J.  Hershman.    (In   press).
   Mitigation:  Compensating the  Environment  for
   Unavoidable Harm.   In  M.J.   Hershman (Ed.),
   Urban Ports  and Harbor Management:  Changing
   Environments Along the U.S.  Waterfront.  Taylor
   and Francis, N.Y.

Williams, G.L. and G.W.  Colquhoun.  1987.   North
   Fraser Harbour environmental plan, p. 4179-4192. In
   Coastal Zone '87, Vol. 4, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng.

Wilmar,  M.  1986.    Mitigation:  the  applicant's
   perspective.  National Wetlands  Newsletter. Sept.-
   Oct.: 16-17.

Zagata, M.D.  1985. Mitigation by  "banking" credits a
   Louisiana  pilot project.   National   Wetlands
   Newsletter. 7(3):9-ll.
                                                   103

-------
         WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION AND CREATION
                USEFUL IN MITIGATION PROCEDURES
                                    Milton W. Weller
                      Caesar KLeberg Professor in Wildlife Ecology
                      Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences
                                 Texas A & M University
    ABSTRACT. Waterfowl and other wetland wildlife managers have long been  involved in
    wetland restoration and enhancement,  and have  developed functional techniques for
    management of certain wetland types in various geographic regions.  These procedures can
    serve other wetland managers  in many useful ways, and are worthy of experimentation for
    other purposes.  Most use natural processes to tap natural seed banks, modify cover-water
    ratios,  or  control  weeds via water level control and herbivores.  Wetland types where
    procedures have been  standardized include those dominated by palustrine persistent
    emergents, moist-soil nonpersistent emergents, estuarine emergents, and forested palustrine
    communities.

       This chapter presents some general concepts based on a selection of the extensive literature
    designed to facilitate adaptation of these strategies to  the special situations of restoring,
    enhancing  or creating wetlands to meet mitigation requirements.  The procedures described
    also can be used to enhance various  wetland functions such as water quality, shoreline
    protection,  and esthetic values.

        Major information gaps include:  long-term ecological effects of management processes;
    methods for speeding natural events that aid in wetland restoration; and lack of  quantitative
    information on other groups of wildlife such as fish, herptiles, and even nongame birds and
    mammals.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    Mitigation efforts requiring enhancement of
established  wetlands,  restoration  of  former
wetlands, or the creation of new wetlands where
none existed, often are viewed as new efforts that
are untested and uncertain.  In fact, wildlife
managers and some fisheries managers  have
been involved in  such  efforts for  many years.
Local wildlife or fisheries managers often are
the best source of wetland restoration techniques
that have been tried and work in that region.
Most of the habitat management techniques are
based on natural processes in wetland systems,
and thus also influence other wetland values and
functions.  However, few of these practices  have
been subjected to long-term experimental testing
and evaluation. Much of this material has  been
published but it  is not available in a single
document that covers all wetland types and  their
regional variations.
    This  chapter  brings  together  some
generalizations,  a selection of the extensive
literature, and a few examples of wetland types
and procedures that have been standardized in
certain  areas.  Such efforts have  emphasized
waterfowl and muskrats and occasionally other
furbearers; very little work has dealt with other
groups  although some work indicates  that
successful efforts for  game species also may
favor nongame species.  These procedures can be
used equally  well to enhance  other  wetland
functions, such as reducing turbidity, protecting
shorelines from  erosion, and esthetic  values.
Thus, a review of the  backgrounds  of this
management  for  waterfowl  will facilitate
consideration of  all available  strategies to the
special  situations of restoring,  enhancing or
creating  wetlands   to   meet   mitigation
requirements.
                                           105

-------
 DEFINITIONS OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND MANIPULATIONS
    Although a  fairly complex  and somewhat
inconsistent  terminology has evolved among
wetland  managers  and  consultants, wildlife
managers  generally  include  a  variety  of
situations and problems under the terms "habitat
development"   and  "management"  (e.g.,
Sanderson  and Bellrose  1969, Atlantic Flyway
Council 1972). However, there have been several
typical patterns:  Restoration  of drained wetlands
has been  common where there was an opportunity
to reclaim a major wetland of high wildlife
value  that has  been degraded.   The usual
situation involves  a failed  drainage project
where land values have declined, so that federal
or state  agencies can purchase  the  land and
attempt  restoration.    Numerous  National
Wildlife  Refuges (NWR)  such as  Tule  Lake
NWR in  California and  Aggasiz Lake NWR in
Minnesota fall into this category  (Laycock 1965).
Still  older examples  are  available  in  the
European literature (Fog 1980).

    Enhancement of  wetlands involves an
attempt  to improve  the wildlife values of a
wetland that has not been drastically perturbed,
but one that managers believe could be producing
wildlife  at a higher level  more  of  the  time.
Periodic  manipulations  of  water  levels  to
enhance  nesting conditions  or  modify plant
succession rates would be typical examples.
    If  we  define  creation   of  wetlands  as
establishment  of wetland communities  and
functions  where none existed, this has been a
less common practice  among wildlife managers.
However,  this is partly a matter of terminology
as procedures  have  not  been  categorized  in
relation to the nature  and status of the wetland.
The typical  pattern has been the conversion of
terrestrial  communities  to  wetlands  via
identification of a natural drainage or basin that
has had some  history of moist-soil vegetation
resulting  from  periodically wetter years.   This
conversion  is  usually  done  by  creating an
impoundment or diverting water to provide more
regular flooding and  encourage  wetland plants
and   associated   game   species.     Large
impoundments created for other purposes such as
water supply or flood  control also may result in
wetland development  at  the  margins  or upper
reaches  of  the pool.   Additionally,  mining
operations such as gravel removal may result in
suitable  wildlife  habitats and  considerable
information is  available  (Svedarsky  and
Crawford 1982).   The  reverse  of this, the
conversion of aquatic areas  to wetland,  has been
less  common  but has  been  accomplished  by
diking to  keep  out water and reduce continual
deep flooding—as has been common at refuges
and  other  wildlife management  areas along
coastlines of large lakes or oceans.
                              GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
    Most conservation agencies have long-range
planing processes for management  areas  that
involve 3-to  10-year  plans, often with annual
updates.  By their legal charge  (e.g., migratory
bird treaty or Federal-Aid funding) or by policies
of guiding groups such as commissions, wetland
managers in  charge of specific areas or regions
usually attempt to maximize wildlife attractive-
ness and  wildlife production. This target could
be  in  conflict  with other  wetland values and
functions, but this is not always the case.

    Philosophically,  many  of  the  goals  of
wildlife managers overlap with those of other
wetland managers: There is a desire to preserve
natural landscape units and functional values.
Managers differ, however, in whether they prefer
to use artificial methods that may give more
immediate results,  versus the use  of more
natural processes that tend to take longer but are
less expensive and longer lasting (Weller 1978).
Benefit-cost ratio strongly influences the choice
of strategy as some functional but very expensive
techniques such as hand transplants can be more
easily justified in mitigation procedures than in
conservation efforts for wildlife.  Short-term
goals often have been the driving force in habitat
management   of  wetlands  for  wildlife:  1)
increased production  of game  for hunting via
creation  of more  and  better nesting  sites,
increased food supplies,  resting and roosting
condition, or reduced  predation;  2) improved
conditions for hunters  in pursuit of game, such
as cover patches  or blind sites; or 3) improved
access to wetland areas for hunting by means of
roads and boat  channels.

    Many wetland wildlife managers  cherish
the rich natural values and aesthetic aspects of
the  natural system. They expound a natural
management philosophy  as  a code of  ethics
(Errington 1957), and are dedicated to preserving
a naturally  functioning ecosytem in perpetuity
(Weller 1978, 1987) and maintaining or adding
diversity  (Sanderson  1974,  Mathisen  1985).
Others  place  first  priority  on  maximal
production of the  targeted game species, but not
intentionally  in  opposition  to other  natural
values  and functions.   Ideally, these  approaches
should both be incorporated into a unified plan
                                             106

-------
that involves other wetland functions as well.
The  consideration  of   multiple interests and
approaches has been  enhanced  by the  use  of
public hearings for local residents, laypersons
and experts so that greater  unity  of goals is
possible.
                    REVIEW OF PRODUCTION, SUCCESSION
                         AND VEGETATION STRUCTURE
    Research biologists working with marsh and
other wetland  wildlife have long recognized the
importance of  natural ecological processes  such
as  seed  germination,   plant   growth  and
production,  succession,  flooding, and water
quality in regulating the plant community that
ultimately dictates the diversity and populations
of wildlife.    As a  result, there have been
numerous vegetation studies  oriented  toward
understanding  habitats for waterfowl, including:
vegetation community, structure  and dynamics
(Dane 1959, Kadlec 1962, Weller  and Spatcher
1965,  Weller   and  Fredrickson   1974);
germination and plant  growth  (Weller 1975,
Beule 1979); effects of drawdowns or dewatering
(Kadlec 1962, and others); hydroperiod and other
water-driven vegetation  patterns  (Meeks 1969,
Knighton  1985); wetland  wildlife responses  to
changes   in   structure   and  availability  of
vegetation (Weller and Fredrickson 1974, Ortega
et al. 1976);  influence of vegetation on predation
rates  (Keith  1961, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976);
and   competition  between  wildlife   species
(Weller and Spatcher 1965).

    Much of this work has been done on inland
freshwater  marshes,  but there has been some
excellent work  on  interior saline (Bolen 1964,
Christiansen  and Low  1970)  or  alkaline
wetlands (Stewart and Kantrud 1972).  Tidal
regime, turbidity  and  salinity  influences  on
plant growth and  survival  in coastal marshes
have  been  the   subject  of   numerous
wildlife-oriented  plant  succession  studies
(Chabreck 1972, Palmisano  1972,  and others),
and  have  provided   a  basis  for  sound
management.  Some studies by botanists and
plant ecologists have preceded and supplemented
these studies by wildlife biologists, but their
research questions often were directed toward
different goals.  There are many opportunities to
improve upon this foundation with management
applications in  mind, but the effectiveness of
such  studies will  depend upon the questions
asked.
                    PRECONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
GEOMORPHOLOGY, LANDSCAPE,
PATCH SIZE AND PATTERNS

    It has become increasingly  apparent that
waterfowl and other  migratory birds, and some
wetland  fish,   amphibians,   reptiles  and
mammals, do not satisfy  all their needs in  one
wetland.   This  is  particularly true of  the
breeding period when very specific requirements
for foods or nest sites may exist in comparison to
post-breeding  activities such as migration or
wintering.  Thus, wetland diversity and density
may figure prominently in satisfying  these
needs, a consideration that may not be met with
the restoration or creation of only one wetland
when a complex  may be necessary.  Wetland
complexes have been  recognized as important by
many workers (Swanson et al. 1979, Weller 1981)
and  data presented  by Brown and Dinsmore
(1986) suggest that complexes increase species
richness over solitary wetlands  of similar size.
General studies  of wetland  density in Prairie
Pothole  habitats, where water cycles  influence
wetland numbers from  year to  year,  show
general   correlations between   wetlands and
waterfowl  abundance,  as  one  would  expect
(Sugden 1978, Leitch and Kaminski 1985). The
diversity of wetland types also is deemed vital as
the loss of small wetlands in drought years has a
particularly great impact  on certain species
(Evans and Black 1956).  Patterns of vegetation
(cover-water ratios or cover-cover interspersion
patterns)  also influence  bird  use  and  are
important designs for management of wetlands
intended  to  enhance  bird use  (Weller and
Spatcher 1965, Patterson 1976,  Kaminski and
Prince 1984).

    Larger wetlands are known to provide greater
numbers of habitats, and  therefore  are more
likely to attract greater number of species (i.e.,
species  richness) (Brown & Dinsmore  1986).
There is a tendency to acquire and restore large
units for these reasons, but  it is also  recognized
that small areas  also may provide specialized
habitats for certain species, and management for
those may require size considerations (Evans
and Black 1956).

    Configuration (e.g.,  length of shoreline  in
                                            107

-------
relation to area of the wetland) seems  to be an
important  influence on numbers of territorial
species that an area can support, but there are
little substantiating data (Mack and Flake 1980,
Kaminski  and Prince 1984).  Some workers have
suggested  that other vegetation patterns are more
influential than  shoreline length (Patterson
1976).  Managers  often  successfully  create
artificial wetlands with complex configurations
to  provide  isolation  for  breeding   pairs.
Contiguity  between  wetlands is  especially
important to fish (e.g., Herke 1978) and some
other  vertebrates, and  one obvious  conclusion is
that it  provides  habitat  diversity that meets
various needs throughout life.
PKECONSTRUCTION DESIGNING
FOR WATER DEPTH

    Preconstruction planning involving detailed
contour mapping of prospective sites is essential
(Verry 1985).  Site observations during natural
flooding periods also are useful because contour
maps may not provide the precision essential in
water level regulation.   For example, large-scale
contour intervals  are unusual on construction
maps,  when the ultimate precision required for
water  level control  may  be  a matter of
centimeters.

    Contouring with  earth-moving equipment is
commonplace, and should be used to create water
depths associated  with  the  desired  plant
community.   Islands, bays  and other  structural
features can be created during construction if
soil  character and  shoreline  protection  are
considered.  Where such work is done on areas
with a rich  seed  bank, soil should  be  moved
off-site and returned as topsoil both for the merits
of its organic content and as a seed bank.  This
will reduce invasions by exotics where they are
an issue  and  the necessity  of seeding  with
cultivated varieties  that result in low natural
diversity.
or enhancement projects, water control structures
must be carefully engineered to handle these
added burdens. Additionally, up-slope protection
can  be  achieved  through  water diversions  to
streams, grass plantings to  absorb more rainfall,
or smaller impoundments  that  serve as catch
basins for both water and silt.

    These  solutions  also  are relevant  where
wetlands are created from  terrestrial sites,  in
which case site selection  is extremely  crucial
and  requires knowledge of the slope, area, and
rainfall data  of  the watershed (Verry 1985).
Storm  events always seem to exceed  runoff
projections and are particularly damaging in the
early stages of wetland development.  In  coastal
areas, tidal action and wind fetch are important
influences  that  must  be considered,  and
considerable work has been done  on shoreline
protection.
CONTROLLING EROSION AND
TURBIDITY

       In  any wetland management program,
modified  water  levels,  exposed  banks  and
unvegetated bottom are vulnerable to wave and
current action.  Decreased wetland productivity
may  result  from  erosion  of  shorelines,
elimination  of vegetation,  and increased water
turbidity.  Most  wildlife  managers  have dealt
less successfully with these problems than have
other wetland designers, due in  part to factors of
need  and cost.  Importing firmer soil, gravel or
rock may be necessary, and prepared rip-rap can
be used in extreme  cases of erosion.   Several
steps can be taken to prevent erosion:  1) exposing
the shoreline by dewatering until vegetation has
become established,  and 2) delaying flooding
until the  bottom  has  been  stabilized with
emergent  and preferably submergent vegetation.
These measures will  reduce turbidity that may
prevent vegetation establishment when reflood-
ing occurs.
REGULATING RUNOFF-EVAPORATION
RATIO AND FLOW-THROUGH RATES

    Rainfall-evaporation   patterns   and
watershed-wetland size ratios  are  of special
importance  in  impoundment  site  selection
(Verry  1985).   Special  considerations  are
necessary where uplands have been modified by
land-use practices.   Farming may increase the
mean annual silt load and eutrophication,  and
intensive  grazing on the waterway  slopes  can
increase  peak surges  of  water entering  the
wetland  during  storm  events, washing  out
vegetation and water control structures.  Urban
development  may increase runoff due to parking
lots, roadways and roofs.  In wetland restoration
CONSIDERING SPECIAL WILDLIFE
NEEDS

      Waterfowl and other wildlife are highly
selective in their choice of habitat: it must supply
vegetation cover, nesting sites,  protection  from
predators, reduced disturbance and food supplies.
On  a worldwide  basis, systems  have  been
developed to manage for these needs (e.g.,  Scott
1982). In recent years, it has become clear that
habitat quality is very important, and providing
a place to live must also include nutritional food
at the  proper time of the reproductive  cycle
(Fredrickson 1985).  Work  on invertebrates of
wetlands still  is inadequate but  several  workers
have  demonstrated  how patterns vary and how
                                             108

-------
wildlife seem to respond (Voigts 1976, Swanson et
al.  1979), which  managers more and more take
into account in their management strategies
(Whitman 1976, Reid 1985).
          PROCEDURES BY PROCESS AND PROXIMATE OBJECTIVE
MANAGING THE SEED BANK

    Although  the longevity and abundance of
seeds of wetland plants has been known at least
since the 1930's (Billington 1938),  and early
marsh managers advised location and utiliza-
tion of sites with a natural seed bank (Addy and
MacNamara 1948, Grail 1955, Singleton 1951),
managers have varied in their utilization of this
general principle. Seeding of Japanese millet or
use  of native millets  (Echinochloa  crus-galli)
and smartweeds (Polygonum spp.) for seed
sources  were widespread  among National
Wildlife  Refuges  in the  1940's  and  1950's
(Linduska 1964).  Planting of  millets,  smart-
weeds, and agricultural crops was used to feed
large  numbers  of  migrant  and   wintering
waterfowl in preference to less predictable
processes that capitalized on natural  sources
(Givens  and  Atkeson 1957).  More recently,
moist-soil management  and other types  of
strategies that use natural seed banks have been
viewed more positively  by a generation  of
managers who  favor natural diversity and
minimal  expenditures  on machinery  and
manpower.  Management of both water depth and
hydroperiod is the major strategy employed (see
for example  studies by Fredrickson  and Taylor
1982) and the techniques  are now more widely
recognized and appreciated.

    Another  aspect  of seed banks generally
recognized by wetland ecologists but unknown to
many others is the importance of preserving the
seed bank in  a newly  created wetland.   Dams
and levees often are built with borrowed soil
taken  from   the  water  side  to  create  some
deep-water sites or to facilitate installation of
water control  structures.   When basin shape is
modified by scraping, a barren substrate may be
created (Kelting and Penfound 1950) that must be
reseeded  or await the natural processes of seed
transport, germination and local seed  produc
tion.  Marsh hay cut  at seeding  times (as occurs
with  seeding of  wildflowers  on highway
right-of-ways)  may be a good seed source, but I
know  of no experiments  in  wetlands  to
demonstrate this.

    Despite their common longevity, seed banks
may be limited in diversity or even non-existent
in situations   of long inundation where  wetland
emergents  have not  existed for many years;
aquatic plants or long-lived terrestrial plant
seeds may  survive, but species of value to the
wetland restoration may not occur (Pederson and
van der Valk 1984). Where available, use of soil
from local wetlands may be useful in resolving
this problem.
MANAGING PLANT SUCCESSION
THROUGH WATER LEVEL
MANIPULATION

    Because it  has long been recognized that
hydroperiod and water depth dictate plant species
composition,  density, and growth,  waterfowl
managers have studied the availability and
germination characteristics of seed banks (Crail
1955),  the  physical  and  physiological  re-
quirements  of the  seed  for   germination,
germination rates and rates of growth, tuber
production,  plant productivity, and  plant
life-history strategies (Weller 1975, Beule 1979)
that influence wetland succession (Dane 1959).

    To provide the water conditions that induce
germination  seed  and  plant  growth, most
wetlands created  or modified for  wildlife make
provisions for complete  dewatering via control
structures (Atlantic Flyway Council 1972). The
latter is a vital consideration if  any influence
over  plant  community  is  desired, and  the
engineer should be alerted to the  need for total
dewatering.   Subsequent modifications of dike
height must  consider water control  structures
and  the potential of dam failure or  erosion.
Strategies for achieving the desired goals will be
discussed under  examples of several  wetland
types that have been commonly and successfully
managed.

    Although the terminology of succession may
not be very useful in many wetlands (Weller
and  Spatcher  1965,  van  der  Valk  1981),
manipulations involve dewatering to  return the
plant  community to  mudflat   annuals and
seeding  perennials that are characteristic  of
more shallow marsh (Bednarik 1963, Linde 1969,
and others).  Plant growth rates or germination
also  can be influenced by extreme flooding  or
drying,  by enhancing nutrients  with  fire  or
fertilizers, and by weed control.
                                            109

-------
MODIFYING WATER DEPTH AFTER
WETLAND FORMATION

    The most common method of deepening a
natural or created wetland for waterfowl has
been to install  a dam or dike  to impound more
water,  and  to incorporate  a  water-control
structure that limits the pressure on the dam and
allows dewatering.  Increasing water depths in
basins that do not have an adequate supply can
best  be accomplished most  economically by
gravity flow systems such as stream diversions
and  up-slope  reservoirs.  A more reliable but
expensive alternative is  a well  and pump, but
this is a perpetual  expense, and may be a source
of disagreement among different  user groups.

     Modifying shallow wetlands to create open
pools  and  deeper  water  can be  done  by
dewatering  and  a  bulldozer,  by  drag-line
removal of basin substrate, or by blasting with
dynamite (Strohmeyer and Fredrickson 1967) or
ammonium  nitrate fertilizer  charged  with a
more volatile explosive  (Mathiak 1965).
REGULATING VEGETATION VIA
HERBIVORES AND FIRE

    Wetlands,  especially those  dominated  by
persistent,  perennial  emergent plants, are
renowned  for  their  attractiveness  to  native
muskrats (Ondatra  zibethicus) and the intro-
duced nutria (Mvocaster covou).  Overpopulations
resulting in "eat-outs"  are well documented in
northern and midwestern marshes (Errington et
al. 1963), and dramatic population changes also
exist in eastern brackish marshes (Dozier 1947),
and southern  deltaic  and chenier  marshes
(Lynch et al. 1947, O'Neil 1949, Palmisano 1972).
Muskrat  populations  in  particular  expand
rapidly  because  of  their  high  reproductive
potential and adaptability to new food resources.
Ultimately, the area is denuded and populations
of  other wildlife are drastically  impacted
(Weller and Spatcher  1965).  Managers often are
unprepared for  this event and may lack methods
for control because of harvest regulations.  In
large  areas, control may be impossible  due to
size and logistics of trapping.  The resultant open
water  may  persist  for many years  unless
dewatering is used to induce  revegetation.

     Beavers (Castor canadensis) likewise can
impact on  willows  (Salix spp.), cottonwood
(Populus deltoides) and other highly palatable
plants, whether the plant are used only for food or
for lodges and dams as well (Beard 1953). Flood-
ing by beavers of other terrestrial or wetland veg-
etation often is regarded as serious by managers
not only because of plant mortality but because
water level stability within a wetland may not be
conducive to  maximal community diversity and
productivity of many wetland species.
    Another group  of herbivorous animals  are
fish such  as  the introduced common carp
(Cvprinus  carpio). and more recently, white
amur or grass  carp (Ctenopharvngodon  idella).
Whereas sterile hybrids of grass carp are being
used to reduce the chances of reproduction in the
wild, the common carp reproduces readily and is
spread by fishermen.  It also  moves upstream
into shallow wetlands.   Invading carp  can be
extremely  serious  because  of  their  direct
consumption of submergent  plants and inverte-
brates, and indirectly  because of  the  turbid
waters  they   induce  which  reduces  light
penetration and therefore plant production (Robel
1961).

    Livestock such as cattle,  sheep and goats can
be useful management tools, but  such grazing
may be difficult  to regulate because of public
pressure for grazing rights or due to our  lack of
understanding of  the  carrying  capacity  of
wetlands under variable  and  often uncontrol-
lable  conditions.  Grazing exposes  tubers then
utilized by grubbing geese such as snow geese
(Anser  caerulescens)  in both southern  and
eastern coastal marshes (Glazener 1946), but can
also can eliminate favored duck  food  plants
(Whyte and Silvy 1981).  Grazing in northern
areas is generally regarded as detrimental to
nesting waterfowl (Kirsch 1969), but obviously
can  be  beneficial  to  species  like   upland
sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda) that prefer
short vegetation.  Fencing is  the simple tool used
by managers all  over the world to  change the
character of overgrazed wetlands (Fog 1980), but
better management may require regulation of the
grazing level and not merely total exclusion.

    Fire has been used by farmers and ranchers
for years to increase forage and hay crops, but it
can be devastating to nesting  ducks and other
birds  (Cartwright  1942).   The  response  of
wintering geese to fire has resulted in a policy of
periodic burning on refuges to reduce vegetation
and expose tubers for  grubbing geese  (Lynch
1941). Fire also has been  used in  northern
marshes with peat bottoms to create deep water
openings; however, control  of  the fire is often
difficult  (Linde 1985).  Considerable work  has
been done recently to explore the role of fire in
marsh succession (Smith 1985a,  1985b), and
clearly much more of this type of work is needed
in all vegetation types (Kantrud 1986).
SEEDING AND TRANSPLANTING

    Both seeding and transplanting were  used
extensively in the 1940's for marsh edge plants,
and sometimes  for emergent plants along the
shallow water's edge (Linduska 1964).  Planting
Japanese millet and other seeds available from
farm suppliers  and  wildlife  nurseries  is still
widely  done  on small  areas,  especially  by
                                             110

-------
private landowners, but is less widespread as an
operational procedure on refuges and waterfowl
management areas  because of cost.   Upland
farming is more common  because equipment is
available or sharecropping is a cost-effective way
to produce wildlife foods  while appeasing local
farmers  over local land lost  to  agriculture
(Givens and Akeson  1957). Planting in wetland
areas used  for waterfowl hunting may involve
legal issues because  of "baiting" laws, and must
be done in counsel with local wildlife officers.

    Planting natural rootstocks or runners and
other plant parts has been used with cattail
(Bedish  1967) and other  perennials, but is
labor-intensive and of questionable success—not
just because of plant growth potential but because
of losses due to their attractiveness to muskrats
and  other  herbivores.  Erosion on  wave-swept
shores  is  an  equally  serious  problem, and
floating boards have been used to protect as well
as facilitate wetland establishment and survival.
CONTROLLING WEEDS

    Part of  maintaining  a wetland that  is
attractive to  wildlife requires a balance of open
water and vegetation.  Because nesting birds and
migratory waterfowl  are especially influenced
by these conditions, considerable effort goes into
creating suitable habitat.   In addition  to  the
control  of  succession and cover-water  ratios
through  water-level management (Weller 1978)
or fire (Kantrud 1986), more direct (artificial)
and immediate methods have been utilized such
as chemical sprays (Martin et al.  1957,  Beule
1979); mechanical destruction by roller or cutting
(in or out of water) (Nelson and Dietz 1966, Linde
1969); and grazing (Kirsch 1969).
              EXAMPLES OF COMMONLY MANAGED WETLAND
                                TYPES BY OBJECTIVE
PALUSTRINE PERSISTENT EMERGENT
WETLANDS

      For nesting waterfowl and other marsh
wildlife, most managers prefer sturdy water
level control  structures and a reliable source of
water  for  use in modifying  water depths  to
control plants for nest  sites (birds) and  food
sources (muskrats as well as birds).  A diversity
of plants of  various life  forms  is preferred to
serve various animals. Marginal nonpersistent
emergent plants produce large seed crops; deeper
water persistent emergents are excellent for nest
sites  and  provide tuberous  bases useful  to
herbivores; and submergent plants often provide
food  directly or  serve  as  substrates  for
invertebrates.

    Water  depths dictate dynamic  vegetation
patterns in wetlands  subject to seasonal and
annual variation  in water supply.  These  may
vary  from  lake-like  aquatic  conditions  to
near-terrestrial vegetation due  to  hydrologic
perturbations. Wildlife  respond  directly and
vary greatly in species richness  and population
abundance (Weller and  Spatcher 1965).

    Examples  of plant   succession following
drawdowns to re-establish vegetation  were
provided by Kadlec (1962), Harris and Marshall
(1963), and Weller and  Fredrickson (1974).  Sub-
sequent changes in  vegetation  due  to the
influence  of water  level  and  muskrats
(Errington  et  al. 1963, Weller and Fredrickson
1974) and common carp (Robel 1961) demonstrate
that: 1) the natural short-term water dymamics of
midwestern wetlands  must  be dealt with  in
restoration projects,  and  2) the  inherent
adaptability of wetland plants provides them with
great powers of recovery and repair.

    A well-established  technique to reestablish
vegetation after it has been eliminated by high
water  or  muskrat  "eat-out"  is to  dewater
("drawdown") the  area by use of a water control
structure or pumping. Germination  from the
natural seed  bank (van  der  Valk and Davis
1978) provides most of the source of plants but
enhanced production  of persistent plants via
tubers and rhizomes also results (Weller 1975).
Re-establishment may result  in  excessively
dense vegetation  not suitable for the intended
wildlife, whereupon the natural herbivores may
move in and create suitable openings.

      Modification of  this  pattern occurs with
various methods  of creating artificial openings
described elsewhere, and these may be useful in
intensive  management or  restoration projects
where time is  vital. The drawdown-revegetation
cycle is  commonly practiced  by  conservation
agencies in many  midwestern states (Linde
1969), and  in situations  where time is less
important relative to costs. This method seems to
simulate natural  processes and events without
lasting damage.   Even  fish populations of those
areas seem responsive and pioneering.
                                             Ill

-------
MOIST-SOIL IMPOUNDMENTS FOR
NONPERSISTENT EMERGENTS

    Migratory  waterfowl  feed  less on  high
protein animal  foods in  fall  and  winter  and
instead use seeds or foliage. Seed production is
especially enhanced  by creating  or  maintaining
shallow  water  areas  where  nonpersistent
emergents  such  as   millets,  smartweeds,
spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.) and other marsh
edge  plants  germinate   and  produce  seed
(Fredrickson  and Taylor  1982). This requires
mud  flat conditions,  typical  of  any  marsh
drawdown,  except  that   such  wetlands  are
normally not breeding  marshes for waterfowl
(although they  may be  suitable for some rails
and songbirds).   Drawdowns are  performed
early  in  the year to allow sufficient drying so
that annual seeds will be produced. Because  of
the climatic  regime in southerly  areas, both
spring and late summer crops  may  be produced
where water is  available and  levels  can be
controlled.  The usual procedure is  to construct
low dams or dikes  to impound water equipped
with a simple structure for water level  control.
In rice areas, low-level terraces that are opened
and closed by machinery work quite well, but the
intended crop of annuals  must determine the
structure design and water depth.

    Areas  flooded  in spring  and  dewatered
gradually create mudflat conditions  attractive to
migrant  shorebirds and  ducks (e.g., green-
winged teal,  Anas crecca).  but also  induce
germination from the  seed bank (Fredrickson
and Taylor 1982, Rundel and Fredrickson 1981).
Too rapid drying  produces  more  terrestrial
species (Harris and Marshall  1963),  so soil
conditions and  water level regulation  are
extremely important.   The retention  of  some
moisture on the flat is  essential to  ensure full
maturity of seeds and the germination of late
maturing plants like smartweeds.   Here,  as  in
any drawdown, a  thunderstorm can  produce
flooding  and   the loss  of  a year's   crop.
Typically, such  areas are  reflooded in the fall
prior  to the arrival of waterfowl  and other
migrants. Flooding  to make food  available  to
migrant  waterfowl  involves  regulation of the
water control structure (except in cases of high
rainfall  and flow-through rates)  to maintain
depths of 6 to 18 inches so that birds can swim but
still dabble and tip  up for food. Dabbling ducks
like green-winged  and blue-winged teal  (A.
discors). mallards  (Anas platyrhynchos)  and
pintails  (A. acuta)  find ideal food  and water
conditions in such situations.  Deeper areas may
be  utilized by  shallow divers  like the  ring-
necked duck (Avthya collaris)  (Fredrickson and
Taylor 1982),

    Undesirable plants,  particularly willow and
cattail can be  extremely  troublesome  as they
outcompete annuals and  eliminate openings
favored by ducks.  The capability to dry out the
area, or to flood it to excessive depths, may allow
control of some nuisance species (Fredrickson
and Taylor 1982).
TIDAL ESTUARINE (BRACKISH AND
SALT) WETLANDS

    Many of the  processes that occur in fresh
marshes also occur  in brackish marshes, and
can  be  influenced by  muskrats  or  nutria
populations. However, sites under a tidal regime
usually cannot be dewatered for  revegetation,
and serious marsh loss can occur (as considered
elsewhere  by other authors  in this  volume).
Herbivore control is one of the most important
and effective methods of preventing this loss as it
is in freshwater wetlands lacking  water source
and level control. Such marshes also may serve
as nesting and feeding  areas for waterbirds,
although no long-term studies seem available.

    The  usual  management  strategy for
attracting  breeding,  migrant  and wintering
waterfowl  has  been  to  build  freshwater
impoundments as catch basins that exclude salt
water.  This approach developed in part from the
adaptation of rice impoundments for use by
waterfowl   along  the  eastern  U.S.  coast
(MacNamara 1949).  It is still commonplace on
many  coastal  refuges, but  is now  strongly
discouraged by the National  Marine Fisheries
Services  to  ensure  free  access of  marine
organisms  such  as finfish  and shellfish  to
brackish and fresh tidal marshes that are vital
for feeding, breeding and nursery areas.  Hence,
weirs are often used in place of dikes, and these
semi-impoundments reduce turbidity but may not
affect   salinity  markedly  (Chabreck  and
Hoffpauir 1962, Chabreck et al. 1979).   In this
way,   submergent vegetation  attractive   to
waterfowl  and also to marine  organisms that
frequent these shallow areas is enhanced.  There
has  been  intensive   study  of this  type  of
impoundment on fish and  shrimp populations in
Louisiana (Herke 1978).  Undoubtedly there are
changes in the  species composition and diversity
of benthic invertebrate populations caused by this
more continuous flooding of areas that once were
periodic mudflats.  Impounding areas for private
waterfowl  hunting areas  has been  legally
challenged  by federal agencies on the east coast,
and this  practice may  demand  extensive
evaluation before it is allowed  to continue.
Nevertheless, it is widely regarded as the best
way to enhance waterfowl  habitat  in saline
coastal  areas.  In  South  Carolina  coastal
impoundments, brackish rather than fresh water
has been used in the management  of such areas
(DeVoe  and   Baughman  1986).  Waterfowl
capitalize   on  brackish  food  species  like
widgeongrass or musk grass.  Dewatering by the
use of dikes and  water-control  structures can
                                             112

-------
also be  used to produce the mudflat plant,
Sesuvisum (Swiderek  et  al. 1988)  which has
small but highly palatable seeds.  Waterfowl
response in these situations has been impressive,
but  the  species   composition  may  shift.
Additionally, such areas  may  be attractive  to
shorebirds at low water stages.

    Burning has previously been mentioned as a
tool  for  seasonally opening up vegetation for
geese, but this more  commonly  occurs in higher
marshes that are only periodically flooded.
GREEN-TREE IMPOUNDMENTS
(FORESTED PALUSTRINE WETLANDS)

    The natural winter flooding  of flood plain
oxbows, sloughs and backwaters, especially  in
the southeastern United States, provides  superb
wintering habitat for mallards and other ducks
that eat acorns  and other large tree seeds and
fruits (Allen  1980).  Additionally, beaver ponds
have  been important to waterfowl, but  tree
mortality  results from such water stabilization
(Beard 1953).  Flooding is erratic  and dependent
on the timing and the rate of rainfall.  Moreover,
flooding that occurs during  the growing  season
may kill trees that are not tolerant to prolonged
inundation  at  that time.  To  enhance the
reliability of water  and  food   supplies  for
migrants, low level impoundments have been
used   with   water  control   structures  to flood
mast-producing trees during the dormant season
(Cowardin 1965, Schnick et al. 1982, Mitchell and
Newling 1986).  Typically, a stream is diverted to
fill  the  area,  and some flood prevention plan
often  is necessary.  Some areas use low level
dikes  that will withstand overflowing water but,
as in  any wetland impoundment,  the potential
for  complete drawdown is essential.  If a water
control structure is  not used, the impounding
dam may be cut with a front-end scoop, and then
repaired after the drying has occurred.

    To take advantage of natural seed crops, site
selection for impoundments is crucial and must
include  those  mast  producing species  such  as
willow oak (Quercus  Phellos ) and water oak (Q.
nigra) that tolerate prolonged flooding, but also
produce  acorns of a size suitable for ducks (Allen
1980). Depending  upon  the  forest  species
composition  and  flood  duration,  some  tree
mortality may occur due to the reduced drainage
capacity of the area. However,  these openings
are attractive  to  waterfowl and  will produce
moist-soil  annual  seed  crops if the areas are
naturally  or artificially  exposed during  late
summer and early  fall.   Some  managers are
creating openings by clear-cutting small patches
of less  desirable species  with  the intent  of
combining the moist-soil  management technique
with  the  mast production  of  the  green-tree
impoundment strategy (Harrison  and Chabreck
1988).
                                     CONCLUSION
    Waterfowl  and  other  wetland  wildlife
managers  have been involved  in  wetland
enhancement and modification for many years,
and have developed a  series of techniques that
are fairly standard for management of various
wetland types  and geographic regions. These can
serve other wetland managers in many useful
ways,  and are  worthy  of  exploration  and
experimentation. Some of these techniques could
result in highly  significant  cost reduction where
time is available for the use of natural processes.
However, because  of the Gleasonian nature of
succession in many  wetlands (van der Valk
1981), plant communities are difficult to predict
and the  desired or  original  ecotype may  not
develop; therefore some range in specifications is
essential.

   Understanding natural patterns and processes
of wetlands is a vital  first  step to proper and
lasting  restoration,  enhancement  or creation.
Additionally, one must tap the expertise of the
many disciplines that can  contribute to such
wetland  preservation processes. As  long-term
evolutionary products  of extremely  dynamic
systems,  wetland  plants  and animals  are
quickly  responsive  to  the  availability  of
resources in newly created and enhanced areas.
But we must not become over-confident that we
can  "create"  a normally  functioning  and
naturally diverse system.  In most situations, we
can provide the environmental  needs to  allow
dominant  wetland  plants  and  animals  to
succeed, and the product will  satisfy many if not
most viewers. We cannot, however,  expect to
replace the complex and diverse natural systems
that are a product of many centuries of evolution
and randomness, and we should not let the ease
of creating the structure and simple features of a
wetland  for  mitigation  lead  us  to accept
unnecessary  and  perhaps  unsatisfactory
substitutes.
                                             113

-------
                                         LITERATURE CITED
Addy, C.E.  and L.G. MacNamara.  1948.  Waterfowl
    Management on Small Areas.  Wildl. Manage. Inst.
    Washington, D.C.
Allen, C.E.  1980.
    reservoir  in
    44:232-236.
Feeding habits of ducks in a green-tree
eastern Texas.   J.  Wildl.  Manage.
Atlantic Flyway Council.  1972.   Techniques Handbook
    of the  Waterfowl  Habitat  Development  and
    Management Committee, 2nd ed.  Atlantic Flyway
    Council, Boston, Massachusetts.

Beard, E.B.  1953.  The importance of beaver  ponds in
    waterfowl  management at  the  Seney  National
    Wildlife Refuge. J. Wildl. Manage. 17:398-436.

Bedish, J.W. 1967.  Cattail moisture requirements and
    their  significance to marsh management.   Am.
    Midi. Natur. 78:288-300.

Bednarik, K.E.   1963.  Marsh management techniques,
    1960.   Ohio  Dept. Nat. Resour. Game Res. Ohio
    2:132-144.

Beule, J.D. 1979. Control and Management of Cattails in
    Southeastern Wisconsin Wetlands.  Wise. Dept. Nat.
    Resour. Tech. Publ. No. 112.

Billington,  C.  1938.  The vegetation of the Cranbrook
    Lake bottom. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. No. 11.

Bolen, E.G.  1964.   Plant ecology of spring-fed salt
    marshes in  western Utah. Ecol. Monogr. 34:143-166.

Brown, M. and J.D. Dinsmore.  1986.   Implications of
    marsh size  and isolation for marsh  management,  i
    Wildl. Manage. 50:392-397.

Cartwright, B.W. 1942.  Regulated  burning as a marsh
    management  technique.  Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
    Nat. Resour. Conf. 7:257-263.

Chabreck,  R.H.  1972.   Vegetation,  Water  and Soil
    Characteristics of the Louisiana  Coastal Region.  La.
    St. Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 644.

Chabreck, RJL, R.J. Hoar, and W.D. Larrick, Jr.  1979.
    Soil  and water characteristics  of  coastal  marshes
    influenced  by weirs,  p. 129-146.   In J.W. Day Jr.,
    D.D. Culley Jr., R.E. Turner, and A.J. Mumphrey Jr.
    (Eds.),  Proc. Third  Coastal Marsh and  Estuary
    Management Symposium.  Louisiana  State Univ.
    Div. of Continuing Ed., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Chabreck, R.H. and C.M. Hoffpauir.  1962.  The use of
    weirs in  coastal marsh management  in Louisiana,
    p. 103-112. In Proc. 16th Ann. Conf. Southeastern
    Assoc.  of Game and Fish Comm. Charleston, South
    Carolina.

Christiansen,  J.E.  and  J.B.  Low.    1970.    Water
    Requirements  of  Waterfowl  Marshlands  in
    Northern Utah. Utah Div. Fish Game Publ. No. 69-12.
    Salt Lake City.

Cowardin,   LM.  1965.  Flooded  Timber as Waterfowl
    Habitat  at  the Montezuma  National  Wildlife
    Refuge.   New York Coop. Wildl. Research Unit,
    Cornell University, Ithaca.

Crail, L.R. 1955. Viability of Smartweed and Millet
    Seeds  in Relation to  Marsh  management in
    Missouri. Mo. Conserv. Comm.  PR Project Rep.
    13-R-5.

Dane, C.W.   1959.  Succession  of aquatic plants in
    small artificial marshes in New York state.  N.Y.
    Fish & Game J. 6:57-76.

DeVoe, M.R. and D.S. Baughman (Eds.). 1986.  South
    Carolina  Coastal  Impoundments:   Ecological
    Characterization, Management,  Status and Use.
    Vol. II.  Public. No. SC-SG-TR-82-2. So. Car. Sea
    Grant Consortium, Charleston, South Carolina.

Dozier, H.L.  1947.  Salinity, as a factor in  Atlantic
    Coast tidewater  muskrat production.  Trans. No.
    Amer. Wild. Conf. 12:398420.

Duebbert, H.F. and J.T. Lokemoen.  1976. Duck nesting
    in fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover,   i
    Wildl. Manage. 40:39-49.

Errington,  P.L.    1957.    Of  Men  and  Marshes.
    Macmillan Co., New York.

Errington, P.L., R. Siglin, and R.  Clark.  1963.   The
    decline  of a  muskrat population.   J.  Wildl.
    Manage. 27:1-8.

Evans, C.D. and K.E. Black.  1956.  Duck production
    studies  on  the  prairie potholes  of South Dakota.
    Fish & Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rept (Wildl.) No. 32.

Fog,  J.  1980.  Methods  and  results  of  wetland
    management for waterfowl. Acta Ornithologica
    XVH(12):147-160.

Fredrickson, L.H. 1985. Managed wetland  habitats for
    wildlife: why are they important?, p. 1-8.  In M.D.
    Knighton (Ed.), Water Impoundments for Wildlife:
    A Habitat Management Workshop. North Central
    Forest Exper.  Sta. Tech. Rep. NC-100.  St.  Paul,
    Minnesota.

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management
    of Seasonally Flooded Impoundments for Wildlife.
    U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Resour. Pub.148.

Givens, L.S. and T.Z. Atkeson.   1957.   The use of
    dewatered  land  in  southeastern   waterfowl
    management. J. Wildl. Manage.  21:465-467.

Glazener, W.C.  1946. Food habits  of wild geese on the
    Gulf Coast of Texas.  J. Wildl. Manage. 10:322-329.

Harris,  S.W. and W.H.  Marshall.  1963.   Ecology of
    water-level manipulations on  a  northern marsh.
    Ecology 44:331-343.

Harrison, A.J.  and R.H. Chabreck.  1988.  Duck  food
    production in openings in forested wetlands,  p.
    339-351.  In  M.W.  Weller  (Ed.),  Waterfowl  in
                                                    114

-------
    Winter.  Univ.   Minn.  Press,   Minneapolis,
    Minnesota.

Herke, W.H. 1978.  Some effects of semi-impoundment
    on coastal  Louisana fish  and crustracean  nursery
    usage, p. 325-346. In J.W. Day (Ed.), Proc. Third
    Coastal  Marsh   and   Estuary  Management
    Symposium.  La. St. Univ. Cont. Ed. Div.,  Baton
    Rouge, Louisiana.

Kadlec, J.A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a waterfowl
    impoundment. Ecology 43:267-281.

Kaminski, R.M. and H.H. Prince. 1984.  Dabbling duck--
    habitat associations  during spring in  the Delta
    Marsh, Manitoba. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:37-50.

Kantrud, H. 1986. Effects of Vegetation Manipulation on
    Breeding  Waterfowl  in  Prairie   Wetland--A
    Literature Review.  U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Tech.
    Rep. 3.

Keith, L.B.  1961.  A study of waterfowl ecology on small
    impoundments in  southeastern  Alberta.  Wildl.
    Mongr. 6.

Kelting, R.W. and W.T. Penfound. 1950.  The vegetation
    of stock pond  dams  in  Central  Oklahoma.  Am.
    Midi. Nat. 44:69-75.

Kirsch, L.M. 1969. Waterfowl production in  relation to
    grazing.  J. Wildl. Manage. 33:821-828.

Knighton, M.D. 1985.  Vegetation management in water
    impoundments:  water level control, p. 39-50.  In M.D.
    Knighton (Ed.), Water Impoundments  for Wildlife:
    A Habitat Management Workshop.  North  Central
    Forest Exper. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rept. NC-100. St. Paul,
    Minnesota.

Laycock, G. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose.  Natural
    History Press, Garden City, New York.

Leitch,  W.G. and R.M. Kaminski.  1985.   Long-term
    wetland-waterfowl   trends   in  Saskatchewan
    grassland. J.  Wildl. Manage. 49:212-222.

Linde, A.F.  1969.  Techniques for Wetland Management.
    Wise. Dept. Nat. Resour. Rep. No. 45.

Linde, A.F.  1985.  Vegetation management in water
    impoundments:  alternatives and supplements to
    water-level control, p. 51-60.  In M.D. Knighton (Ed.),
    Water  Impoundments  for  Wildlife;  A  Habitat
    Management Workshop.   North  Central  Forest
    Exper. Sta. Tech. Rep. NC-100, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Linduska, JP. (Ed.).  1964.  Waterfowl Tomorrow.  Fish
    and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Lynch,  J.J. 1941.   The place  of  burning  in  the
    management  of Gulf Coast wildlife  refuges,  i
    Wildl. Manage. 5:454-459.

Lynch,  J.J.,  T.O.   O'Neil,  and  D.W.  Lay.  1947.
    Management  significance  of damage by  geese and
    muskrats to Gulf Coast marshes. J. Wildl. Manage.
    11:50-76.

Mack, G.D. and L.D. Flake. 1980.  Habitat  relationships
    of waterfowl broods in South Dakota stock ponds, i
    Wildl. Manage. 44:695-700.
MacNamara,  L.G.  1949.  Salt-marsh development at
    Tuckahoe, New Jersey.  Trans. No. Amer. Wildl.
    Conf. 14:100-117.

Martin, A.C., R.C. Erickson,  and J.H. Steenis.  1957.
    Improving Duck  Marshes by Weed Control.   Fish
    and Wildl. Serv.  Circ. 19-rev. Washington D.C.

Mathisen, J.E.   1985.  Wildlife  impoundments in the
    North-Central states:  why  do we need them?,  p.
    23-30.   In  M.D.  Knighton  (Ed.),  Water
    Impoundments    for   Wildlife;   A   Habitat
    Management Workshop.  North Central Forest
    Exper. Sta.Tech. Rep. NC-100, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mathiak, H.  1965.   Pothole  Blasting for Wildlife.
    Public. 352,  Wise. Cons. Dept. Madison, Wisconsin.

Meeks, R.L.  1969.  The effect  of  drawdown date on
    wetland  plant succession.   J. Wildl.  Manage.
    33:817-821.

Mitchell, W.A.  and C.J. Newling.  1986.   Greentree
    Reservoirs.  TR  EL-86-9.  U.S. Army Engineers,
    Waterways Exp.  Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Nelson, N.F. and R.F. Dietz.  1966.  Cattail Control
    Methods  in Utah.  Utah State Dept. Fish & Game
    Publ. No. 66-2.

O'Neil, T.  1949. The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal
    Marshes.  La. Dept. Wildl.  & Fish., New Orleans,
    Louisiana.

Ortega, B., R.B. Hamilton, and R.E.  Noble.  1976.  Bird
    usage by habitat types in a  large freshwater lake.
    Proc. S.E. Fish & Game Conf. 13*27-633.

Palmisano, A.W.  1972. Habitat preference  of waterfowl
    and  fur animals  in the  northern  Gulf Coast
    marshes, p. 163-190.  In R.H. Chabreck (Ed.), Proc.
    Coastal   Marsh  and  Estuary   Management
    Symposium.  La. St. Univ. Cont. Ed.  Div., Baton
    Rouge,  Louisiana.

Patterson,  J.H.   1976.   The  role of environmental
    heterogeneity in the regulation of duck populations.
    J. Wildl. Mange. 40:22-32.

Pederson,  R.L.  and A.G. van  der Valk.  1984.
    Vegetation change and  seed  banks  in  marshes:
    ecological and management implications. Trans.
    N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 49:271-280.

Reid, F.A. 1985.  Wetland invertebrates in relation to
    hydrology and water chemistry, p.  72-79. In M.D.
    Knighton (Ed.), Water Impoundments  for Wildlife;
    A Habitat Management Workshop.  North Central
    Forest  Exper. Sta.Tech. Rep.  NC-100, St. Paul,
    Minnesota.

Robel, R.J.  1961. Water depth and turbidity in relation
    to  growth of sago  pondweed.  J.  Wildl.  Manage.
    25:436438.

Rundel, W.D. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1981.  Managing
    seasonally flooded impoundments for  migrant
    rails and shorebirds. Wildl.  Soc. Bull. 9:80-87.

Sanderson,  G.C.  1974.   Habitat-key  to  wildlife
    perpetuation; aquatic areas, p. 21-40. In How Do We
    Achieve  and  Maintain  Variety  and   Optimum
                                                   115

-------
    Numbers  of Wildlife?
    Fed., Washington, D.C.
Symposium, Nat.  Wildl.
Sanderson,  G.C.  and F.C.  Bellrose.
    habitat  management of wetlands.
    Cienc.. 41:153-204 (supplement).
         1969.  Wildlife
        An. Acad. Brasil.
Schnick,  R.A., J.M.  Morton, J.C.  Mochalski,  and J.T.
    Beall.  1982.   Mitigation   and  Enhancement
    Techniques for the Upper Mississippi River System
    and  Other  Large River  Systems. Fish & Wildl.
    Serv. Resour. Publ. 149. Washington, D.C.

Scott, D.A. (Ed.). 1982. Managing Wetlands and Their
    Birds.  Int.  Waterfowl  Res. Bur.,  Slimbridge,
    England.

Singleton, J.R.   1951.   Production and utilization of
    waterfowl food plants on the East Texas Gulf Coast.
    J. Wildl. Manage. 15:46-56.

Smith, LM.  1985a.  Fire and herbivory in  a Great Salt
    Lake marsh.  Ecology 66359-265.

Smith, L.M.  1985b.  Predictions  of vegetation change
    following fire in  a Great Salt Lake marsh.  Aquatic
    Botany 21-.43-51.

Stewart,  R.E.  and H.A. Kantrud.  1972. Vegetation of
    Prairie  Potholes,  North  Dakota,  in  Relation  to
    Quality  of Water and Other Environmental Factors.
    Geol. Surv. Prof.  Paper  585-D.  Washington, D.C.

Strohmeyer, D.S. and  L.H.  Fredrickson.   1967.  An
    evaluation of dynamited potholes in northwest Iowa.
    J. Wildl. Manage. 31:525-532.

Sugden,  L.G.    1978.    Canvasback  habitat  use and
    production  in   Saskatchewan parklands.   Can.
    Wildl. Serv. No.  34.

Svedarsky, D. and R.D. Crawford (Eds.). 1982.  Wildlife
    Values of  Gravel Pits.  Miscellaneous Publ. 17-1982,
    University of Minnesota  Agricultural  Experiment
    Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Swanson, G.A., G.L. Krapu, and J.R. Serie.  1979.  Foods
    of laying  female dabbling ducks  on the  breeding
    grounds, p. 47-55. In T.A. Bookhout (Ed.), Waterfowl
    and  Wetlands--An Integrated  Review.  NC Section
    Wildl. Soc.,  Madison, Wisconsin.

Swiderek, P.K.,  A.S.  Johnson, P.E.  Hale, and R.L.
    Joyner.  1987.  Production,   management  and
    waterfowl  use   of sea   purslane,   Gulf  Coast
    muskgrass, and  widgeongrass  in brackish impound-
    ments,  p. 441-457.    In  M.W.  Weller (Ed.),
    Waterfowl  in  Winter.  Univ.  Minn.   Press,
    Minneapolis, Minnesota.

van der Valk, A.G.  1981.  Succession  in wetlands: a
    Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62:68&696.

van der Valk, A.G. and C.B. Davis.  1978. The role of
    seed banks in the vegetation dynamics  of prairie
    glacial marshes.  Ecology 59322-335.

Verry, E.S. 1985.  Selection of water impoundment sites
    in the Lake States, p. 31-38. In M.D. Knighton (Ed.),
    Water Impoundments  for  Wildlife; A Habitat
    Management  Workshop.  North  Central Forest
    Exper. Sta. Tech. Rpt. NC-100, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Voigts, D.K. 1976.  Aquatic invertebrate abundance in
    relation to changing marsh vegetation.   Amer.
    Midi. Nat. 95:312-322.

Weller, M.W.  1975.  Studies  of cattail in relation to
    management  for marsh wildlife.   Iowa  State J. of
    Res. 49:383-412.

Weller,  M.W. 1978. Management  of  freshwater
    marshes for wildlife, p. 267-284. In R.E.  Good, D.F.
    Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater
    Wetlands, Ecological Processes and  Management
    Potential.  Academic Press, New York.

Weller, M.W.  1981.  Estimating wildlife and  wetland
    losses due to  drainage  and other perturbations, p.
    337-346.  In  B.  Richardson  (Ed.),  Selected
    Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland
    Values and Functions.  Minn. Water Planning Bd.,
    St. Paul, Minnesota.

Weller, M.W. 1987.  Freshwater  Marshes, Ecology and
    Wildlife  Management.   2nd  ed., Univ. Minn.
    Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Weller, M.W. and  L.H.  Fredrickson.  1974. Avian
    ecology of a managed  glacial marsh. Living Bird
    12:269-291.

Weller,  M.W.  and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. The Role of
    Habitat in the Distribution  and Abundance of
    Marsh Birds. Iowa St.  Univ. Agric. & Home Econ.
    Experiment Sta. Spec. Sci. Rep. NO. 43.

Whitman, W.R.  1976.  Impoundments for Waterfowl.
    Canadian Wildl. Serv. Occas. Paper No.22.

Whyte, R.J. and NJ. Silvy. 1981. Effects of cattle on
    duck  food plants in southern  Texas.  J. Wildl.
    Manage. 45:512-515.
                                                    116

-------
             WETLAND AND WATERBODY RESTORATION AND
                CREATION ASSOCIATED WITH MINING
                                      Robert P. Brooks
                                 School of Forest Resources
                                Forest Resources Laboratory
                              Pennsylvania State University
   ABSTRACT.  A review of published and unpublished reports was combined with personal
   experience to produce a summary of the strategies and  techniques used  to facilitate  the
   establishment of wetlands and waterbodies during mine reclamation. Although the emphasis
   is on coal, phosphate, and sand and gravel operations, the methods are relevant to other types
   of mining and  mitigation activities. Practical suggestions are emphasized  in lieu  of either
   extensive justification or historical review of wetlands mitigation on mined lands.

    The following key points should receive attention during planning and mitigation processes:

    *  Develop site specific objectives that are related to regional wetland trends.  Check for
       potential conflicts among the proposed objectives.

    *  Wetland mitigation plans should be integrated with mining operations and reclamation at
       the beginning of any project.

    *  Designs for wetlands should mimic natural systems and provide flexibility for unforeseen
       events.

    *  Ensure  that  basin morphometry and control of the hydrologic regime are  properly
       addressed before considering other aspects of a project.

    *  Mandatory  monitoring (a minimum of three years is recommended) should be identified
       as a known cost. Rely on standard methods whenever possible.

       Well-designed studies that use comparative approaches (e.g., pre- vs.  post-mining, natural
   vs. restored systems) are needed to increase the database on wetland restoration technology.
   Meanwhile, regional success criteria for different classes of wetlands need to be developed by
   consensus agreement among professionals. The rationale for a particular mitigation strategy
   must have  a sound, scientific basis if the needs of mining industries are to be  balanced
   against the necessity of wetland protection.
                                       OVERVIEW
    The  protection of wetlands is an issue of
national concern.  Of primary concern is how to
mitigate  for wetland losses.  Few cost-effective
opportunities exist to restore and create wetlands,
thereby helping to reverse the trend in wetlands
loss and perhaps create an increase.  Surface
mining, which historically has had substantial
negative  impacts upon the landscape, may offer
some  realistic  and   inexpensive  mitigation
options, if mitigation  plans are integrated into
mine reclamation plans at an early  stage.  To
help guide those who make day-to-day decisions
about wetland mitigation, this review provides a
summary of the methods used to create and
restore wetlands and  waterbodies  during mine
reclamation.  The recommendations presented at
the end of this review can serve as a checklist to
help ensure that constructed wetland systems
function properly.

   This review  focuses on  surface mining for
coal, phosphate, and sand and gravel.  It must be
recognized  that  mining of these materials will
continue in the U.S.  into the foreseeable future.
Coal is an essential  component  of  electrical
energy production, the fertilizer  and chemical
industries depend heavily on  phosphate rock, and
the construction industry  requires continued
access  to sand and gravel reserves.  Therefore,
mitigation  decisions   should be based  on
consensus  agreement  among knowledgeable
individuals  who are  familiar with both mining
                                            117

-------
operations and wetland trends in the particular
physiographic region in question.

    The  principles  pertaining  to  these three
extractable  materials will, of course, have  a
bearing on  other  types of mining and severe
landscape  disturbances  (e.g.,  placer  mining;
hydraulic   mining  and  in-stream   dredge
mining; open  pit mining and sand mining for
metal  ores, limestone  and other rocks;  peat
extraction).   Important literature on  wetland
mitigation from other types of  mining is cited
where  it is relevant to  the  discussion.  The
extraction  of peat differs markedly from
mineral mining, and is  beyond the scope of this
review.  Readers are referred to  the  following
publications regarding peatland  values, impacts
and  mitigation (Carpenter and Farmer 1981,
Minnesota Department of Natural  Resources
1981, Damman  and French 1987).

    The impacts of surface mining activities on
wetlands   and   waterbodies   have  been
well-documented (Darnell 1976, Cardamone et al.
1984).   They differ depending on the  material
extracted,  the methods  used,  and  regional
differences  in  topography, geology,  soils,  and
climate.  Even  if it is assumed that reclamation
is performed according to current regulations,
mining will have significant effects upon  the
environment.   In addition to the direct removal
and  filling of wetlands, the removal of soil  and
overburden  severely alters local topography.
This in  turn  disrupts  local  and   regional
groundwater and  surface water flow  patterns.
Mining activities typically result  in a  decrease
in groundwater tables  and an  increase  in
surface water runoff, both of which significantly
affect  the restoration and creation of aquatic
systems.  The  removal  of vegetation  and
disturbance   of   land   surfaces   increases
sedimentation rates, with resultant increases in
water  turbidity.  Access roads cause erosion in
steep terrain, and can block the  flow of water in
areas of low relief,  resulting in the formation of
ponds.  Exposed coal mine spoils readily oxidize,
causing pollution problems such as acidic mine
drainage.  There are increases in  the formation
and  deposition  of materials,  such  as iron,
manganese, aluminum,  and sulfur, sometimes
in amounts  toxic to biota.  Tailings from metal
mines  also  can  produce biologically-toxic
discharges.   Sedimentation rather than metal
toxicity is  a   major problem  associated  with
phosphate and  sand and gravel mining.

     In   summary,  habitat   loss,   chronic
environmental stress,  and toxic  levels of
pollution can  occur during the  mining process,
especially if reclamation practices are poorly
implemented  (Darnell  1976).   Any  efforts to
encourage wetland  and waterbody creation on
mined lands,  whether  to mitigate  for losses
attributable directly to mining, or as a means of
increasing wetland area, should be cognizant of
mining impacts on  surficial  and groundwater
hydrology as outlined above.

   Ten years  have passed  since  the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA, P.L. 95-87) was enacted.  This federal
act, coupled with the appropriate state statutes, has
halted many of the  past  environmental abuses
associated  with  surface mining,  particularly
with respect to the mining of coal.   Although
viewed as  among the most  encompassing  and
detailed pieces of environmental legislation, the
Act  often  relies on vague  notions, such  as
"higher  and  better  uses"  to guide decision-
makers about reclamation strategies  (Wyngaard
1985).  Thus, the overall success of this law must
be tempered by an examination of the relatively
sterile landscapes that  are often created under
the  guise  of  reclamation.  Wetlands and
waterbodies   are   allowed  under  existing
regulations,  but  provisions are  strict, and
anything  but  encouraging.   Decades  of
pre-SMCRA experience with polluted waters have
resulted in cautious approaches to managing
water   on    mined   lands.    Permanent
impoundments are  allowed under  SMCRA
guidelines,  but "are prohibited unless authorized
by the regulatory authority" (Sec. 816.49a). Thus,
unless variances are sought, it is often viewed as
less expensive to remove an impoundment or wet
depression rather than to develop plans to leave it
in place (Grandt 1981).

   The  Experimental  Practices  section  of
SMCRA (Sec.  711)  produces the same  result.
Virtually any innovative  reclamation technique
can be tried if the  operator is willing to  justify
the  practice  to  state  and federal  regulatory
authorities (Thompson  1984).   This additional
effort is often perceived as adding expense  to a
project, but overall costs may actually be reduced
if permanent wetlands or  waterbodies are left in
place (Fowler  and Turner 1981).  The net result
of these regulatory stumbling blocks  has been to
discourage  the intentional creation  of wetlands
on surface mined lands (e.g., Gleich 1985) unless
they  are either  demanded  by  an  informed
landowner, or based on  in-kind replacement of a
wetland that  has been  lost or degraded  during
mining.   The vast majority of wetlands  and
waterbodies on mined lands exist not because of
astute planning, but by accident.

    Mining and related activities have disturbed
less than 0.2% of the  land  mass of the U.S.
(Schaller and Button  1978),  yet  in  mining
regions, disturbances can exceed 20% of a given
land   area  (e.g., coal  mining  in  Clearfield
County, Pennsylvania; phosphate  mining in
Polk  County,  Florida).   Coal reserves  occupy
large areas in selected  regions of the U.S. (Fig.
1).  Phosphate deposits, although large in area,
occur only in a few regions. Wetland mitigation
                                              118

-------
               MAJOR COAL RESERVES  OF  THE UNITED  STATES
                                           Amhrecto
                                           Bhumirtoui Coal

                                           Subbtauninou* Cod
                                           Ugnitt
                                   0
                                   I-
                                   0
  500 US
_____ I

 1000 AK
                                       km
Figure 1.  Major coal reserves of the continental United States and Alaska (modified from Energy
          Information Service 1984).
issues related  to  phosphate  mining  occur
primarily in Florida (Fig. 2).   Sand and gravel
deposits are dispersed throughout the U.S.

    Mining activity has not always resulted in a
net  decrease  in  wetlands.  The  gain   in
open-water, palustrine wetlands   nationwide
during the 1950's to the 1970's (Frayer et al. 1983)
is apparent in  land use surveys of mined lands.
Brooks and Hill (1987) reported that mined lands
in  Pennsylvania supported 18% more palustrine
wetlands  than  unmined  lands,   primarily
because of a 270% gain in permanent,  open
water  wetlands  in the glaciated coal region of
the state. Conversely, Hayes et al. (1984) observed
a reduction in the number of impoundments,
particularly shallow,  vegetated  waterbodies,
following passage of SMCRA in  1977.  Palustrine
vegetated  wetlands are  often converted  to
open-water wetlands, which may  result in  a
significant  change in regional wetland  types
(Tiner and Finn 1986, Brooks and Hill 1987).
                                            119

-------
                                                                  N
  PHOSPHATE RESERVES  |

      OF  FLORIDA
Figure 2.  Major phosphate  reserves of Florida (modified  from  Florida Defenders  of the
         Environment 1984).
                                       120

-------
    Before examining specifically how wetlands
and  waterbodies have been restored and created
on mined  lands,  it is useful  to  discuss  the
characteristics  and  functions  of  volunteer
wetlands,  which are much more abundant than
those purposefully designed. As mining practices
differ, so do the types of aquatic environments
left  behind. The following  will  profile  the
inadvertent creation  of aquatic environments by
past mining and reclamation practices.
                            SURFACE MINING FOR COAL
    Based on a  survey of the literature,  the
following types of wetlands (listed approximately
in order of declining numerical abundance) are
commonly found  on  coal-mined  lands:  1)
sediment basins; 2) shallow wet depressions and
emergent marshes;  3) moss-dominated springs
and seeps; 4)  final-cut and other deep lakes; 5)
intermittent streams;  and 6)  slurry ponds  and
other coal refuse disposal areas.

    During surface  mine reclamation for coal,
wetlands  and   waterbodies  are  created
intentionally  for  erosion and sedimentation
control  as sediment basins.  Basin  size is
determined by the anticipated runoff for a mine
site and thus, is a function of the area of land
disturbed.  Sediment basins are usually <0.5 ha
in size (Brooks and Hill 1987);  often only 0.1 ha
(Fowler   and  Turner   1981).  They   are
geometrically  shaped  (i.e.,  circular,  oval,
rectangular),  and  have steep  slopes (usually
>30°), and flat bottoms.   Volunteer  palustrine
wetlands  also occur  as  a  function of local
changes in hydrology following  reclamation.
These  include  moss-dominated  springs  and
seeps, persistent  and non-persistent emergent
marshes,  and  shallow wet depressions (similar
to  the  prairie  potholes   of  the  northcentral
U.S. (Cole 1986).

    Before the advent of reclamation legislation,
final-cut lakes were left inadvertently when the
final  excavation was not back-filled.    Char-
acteristics of these lacustrine waterbodies vary
considerably, but they are often linear in shape,
large  (1-50 ha),  deep (2-30 m), and have poorly
developed littoral zones (Jones et al 1985a,  Hill
1986). Other deep water bodies are formed after
pits are excavated in regions with water  tables
near  the surface.  Lakes  of varying shape  and
size have  formed  in this  manner in glaciated
regions of Pennsylvania (Brooks and Hill  1987),
and several midwestern states (Jones et al. 1985b,
Klimstra and  Nawrot  1982); 6,000 ha of these
lakes  exist in Illinois (Coss  et al. 1985) and 3,600
ha in Ohio (Glesne and Suprenant 1979) (Fig. 1).

    After  coal  is  processed,  coal  fines  and
associated   particles    are   discharged   into
basins known as  slurry ponds.   The   usual
reclamation procedure for these typically  acidic
disposal areas is to cover them with at least 1.3 m
of  topsoil. However, a  variety of vascular
hydrophytes  will  colonize slurry ponds,  thus
establishing emergent wetlands (Nawrot 1985)
(Fig. 3).

    Although a discussion of streams and rivers
is beyond the scope of this review, intermittent
streams containing emergent  vegetation are also
fairly common, and therefore, constitute another
wetland  type.  Relocation and restoration  of
major streams is discussed in another chapter of
this document (see  Jensen and Platts).

   A  variety  of ecological  functions and
economic  uses  have been  documented for the
types of wetlands listed above, including wildlife
and   fisheries   habitat,    agricultural  and
recreational  activities,  sediment   retention,
treatment of acidic mine drainage,  and public
water supplies.

     Sediment basins  provide for uses beyond
their intended purpose.  They provide habitat for
a variety of vertebrate taxa,  including birds
(Burley and Hopkins 1984, Sponsler  et al. 1984,
Brooks et al.  1985a), mammals  (Brooks et  al
1985a), and herpetofauna  (Fowler and Turner
1981,  Brooks  et  al.  1985a).  A  diverse
macroinvertebrate community also  has  been
identified with sediment basins (Hepp 1987).

   Mine lakes  are known  to produce excellent
fisheries (Jones et al. 1985b, Mannz 1985), in part
due to adequate primary production (Brenner et
al.  1985) and macroinvertebrate  production
(Jones et al. 1985a).  They can serve as foci for
recreational activities  such as fishing,  boating,
and  waterfowl  hunting (Klimstra et al. 1985).
Other uses, particularly in the Midwest, include
lake-side housing  and community open spaces,
crop  irrigation  and  livestock watering, and
water  supplies  for homes, fire protection, and
industrial purposes (Glazier et al. 1981).

   Vegetated  wetlands dominated  by either
vascular or non-vascular species can  effectively
sequester some  of the constituent of mine
drainage. Observations on the removal of metals
by naturally occurring  Sphagnum moss (e.g.,
Wieder and Lang 1986) has led to further investi-
gations of how mosses, algae and macrophytes
with their associated bacteria, can be  used  to
ameliorate the effects of mine drainage (see
Girts and Kleinmann 1986 for a review).
                                             121

-------
Figure 3.   Seasonally inundated zone of a wetland created on coal  slurry in Indiana showing four
           years 01 growth.  (Courtesy  of Jack  Nawrot, Cooperative Wildlife "      "  *  "
           Southern Illinois TT  '
                                             122

-------
                       SURFACE MINING FOR PHOSPHATE
    Primary phosphate deposits in the U.S. occur
in Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, and the
Phosphoria  Formation  of  Montana, Wyoming,
Idaho  and  Utah.  However, surface  mining
activities  affecting  wetlands  occur  almost
exclusively in  Florida, where wetlands typically
comprise 8-17% of the landscape area (Florida
Defenders  of  the Environment  1984)  (Fig. 2).
The  principal focus of reclamation in  Florida
has  been  on  mitigating  for  wetland  losses.
Substantial progress  in  developing restoration
and creation technology has been made through
the combined  efforts  of the phosphate industry
and state regulatory agencies. Florida provides
an example of how  regulatory pressures can
accelerate a desired technology if the pressures
are firmly and reasonably applied.

     Reclamation of phosphate mines in Florida
was voluntary  until 1975, when the Department of
Natural  Resources   developed   regulations
(Florida Administrative Code  Section  16C-16,
16C-17) in response to legislation (Florida Statute
211.32, 370.021). Due to extraordinary residential
and  commercial development, there have been
increasing   efforts   to  push  reclamation
technology  toward  the  goal  of  replicating
original  wetland conditions as  a  provision of
mining.  Public pressure combined with a flat
topography  suitable for  wetland establishment
and awareness of wetland  functions and values
has led to sophisticated efforts  to restore and
create complex wetland systems.

    Historically, the removal of phosphate ore by
draglines produced mounds  of sand  tailings
interspersed  among  waterbodies and  clay
settling ponds. Many of these waterbodies were
used by wintering waterfowl that were attracted
by volunteering  hydrophytes  (e.g., Naias spp.).
Gradual filling of these waterbodies with clay
produced a successional trend from submergent
species, to emergents (e.g., cattail,  Typha spp.),
and finally  to shrubs (e.g., willow, Salix spp.)
(Clewell 1981).  Wildlife use diminished during
this  process (King et al.  1980).   After  1975,
reclamation required regrading  of the sand
tailings, and  planting  them to pasture.  De-
pressions left from the removal of phosphate ore
fill with water, producing  a mosaic of pastures
and lakes. Marion  and O'Meara  (1983) reported
that  the  reclamation laws had produced both
positive and negative effects on wildlife.   One of
the positive impacts, was an increase in  wetland
edge following reclamation.
   Boody (1983) studied 12 reclaimed lakes, 6
classified as deep,  and six that were considered
shallow.  Deep lakes had a mean area or 59 ± 113
ha (range  =  2-287 ha) with  depths  of  3-5 m.
Shallow lakes had a mean area of 9 ± 17 ha
(range = 2-30 ha) with depths of 2-3 m. The pH
was typically  5-7, but ranged from 4.2-9.3. Most
reclaimed lakes  supported fewer species  of fish
(mean = 10 i 6 species, range = 4-22) than the 4
natural lakes that  were studied (mean  =  18 +. 2
species,  range = 16-20).  Of the 29 fish  species
collected, 27  were  native and 2 were introduced
(Brice and Boody 1983).

   Recent reclamation  plans have  included
littoral zones and  periodically flooded areas as
part of the lake ecosystem. Freshwater emergent
marshes have been successfully established, and
to a lesser extent, forested wetlands have been
created (Haynes 1984).

   The   clay settling  ponds, which usually
occupy >50% of a mine site,  continue to pose
problems  and are perceived negatively  by  the
public. Waste clays from the mining process are
suspended in a slurry and pumped into settling
ponds. Attention has  been focused on de-watering
these ponds  as rapidly as possible;  typically
within 10 years.  Although the ponds support
fewer plant species than natural  wetlands,  site
management in  conjunction  with  planned
species introductions can create a heterogeneous
mix  of  wetland vegetation  and  open  water
(Robertson 1983).   Montalbano  et al.  (1978)
discussed the value  of clay settling ponds as
wintering  habitat  for  waterfowl (7  species
reported),  and  suggested  that  water level
manipulation would help  create  high inter-
spersion of emergents and open water.  Haynes
(1984) believes that these settling ponds may have
substantial positive values, and thus  should be
manipulated and  managed as  productive
wetlands.  The settling ponds are large (81-405
ha) and  are  currently increasing at a rate of
1,000  ha/yr beyond the 30,000-f ha already present.
Several  authors  advocate  a  drainage basin
approach for  mitigating  wetland losses  in  the
phosphate  region,  so  that  areas  beyond   the
individual mining  unit are considered in   the
planning  process  (Breedlove and Dennis 1983),
although Fletcher (1986) believes that the current
knowledge is only suitable for restoration  of
small  drainage basins.
                                             123

-------
                  SURFACE MINING FOR SAND AND GRAVEL
    Sand   and   gravel   is   defined   as
unconsolidated  mineral  and  rock particles.
Generally the particles have been transported by
water, and therefore, many deposits still occur in
and  around waterbodies.   Inland deposits are
typically classified  as  fluvial,  glacial  or
alluvial  depending on their origin.

    Sand and gravel is vital to the construction
industry.  Excavation is  the  chief method of
removal, and  18%  of the  lands disturbed by
mining  are  for  sand and  gravel.  Sand  and
gravel  operations  are  regulated  primarily
through state  laws.    Demand  continues to
increase, with  deposits near  urban  areas in
highest  demand.   More  excavation  can  be
expected in  nearly every  state  in  the U.S.
(National Research Council 1980).  Concurrently,
opportunities for restoration  and  creation of
wetlands on reclaimed sand  and gravel sites
will also increase.

    Although waterbodies that remain following
sand and gravel mining have  been used for a
variety of purposes, reclamation plans have often
lacked  advanced  planning  and  imagination
(McRae 1986).   Fishing, boating, and wildlife
observation commonly take place in water-filled
sand and gravel pits in both the U.S.  and Great
Britain  (Koopman 1982, McRae  1986, respec-
tively).

    Lomax (1982)  found that reclaimed lakes in
the southern coastal plain of New Jersey were
colonized first by emergents (e.g., Tvpha spp.,
Cvperus spp., Juncus spp., Scirpus spp.), and then
by woody vegetation such as black willow (Salix
nigra).  red  maple (Acer rubrum). and black
tupelo (Nvssa svlvatica).  Occasionally, bog-like
communities developed in pits <1 ha in area.
Lomax recorded use by 194 species of vertebrates
over a 16-year  period.  Gallagher (1982) found
that the Delta Ponds of Eugene, Oregon  became
completely  revegetated through  volunteer
colonization.  Species found  included  cattail,
pondweed (Potamageton spp.),  willow,  and alder
(Alnus spp.). Birds (78 species), mammals, and
fish were observed using the 65-ha area.

    Street (1982) reported on  the gravel-pits of
Great Britain.  Pits ranged in size from 1-100 ha,
and were 3-30 m deep. Most had steep sides and
flat bottoms. A restoration  project was initiated
at the gravel-pit complex of the A.R.C. Wildfowl
Centre  in   Great Britain  in 1972,  and  has
developed into a highly productive 37-ha wetland
system.  Waterfowl density  within the managed
site  ranged between 2.4 to 38.7 birds/ha, whereas
avian density on unmanaged gravel pits  did not
exceed  2.8  birds/ha. By manipulating basin
morphometry,  plant  communities,  and  the
availability  of organic matter, both vertebrate
and  invertebrate numbers  and diversity were
increased.
         RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORATION AND CREATION
              WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES ON MINED LANDS
    There have been recent efforts to stimulate
the restoration  and  creation of wetlands on
mined lands (e.g., Klimstra and Nawrot 1982,
Brooks 1984, Brenner 1986, Brooks 1986, Haynes
1986, McRae 1986). Sufficient recommendations
exist to provide guidance for wetland mitigation
on mined lands.  Due to procedural and regional
differences in mining coal, phosphate, and sand
and gravel,  the recommendations  will  be
discussed under separate headings below.

    One  cannot  incorporate  all  possible
mitigation  into a  single wetland  project.   It is
best to work within clearly stated objectives that
are tied to specific wetland functions. Only then
can  the wetland  be  designed optimally  with
respect  to the desired  objectives.  There may be
conflicts  among  objectives  which  should be
resolved in the  planning  process  (e.g., public
water   supply  vs.  ecological  productivity,
recreational  fishery  vs.  habitat  for diverse
amphibian community).   Whenever possible,
pre-mining conditions and regional  reference
wetlands  should  be used  as guides to how  a
wetland ought to be created or restored.
WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES ON
COAL MINED LANDS

Basin Morphomfitrv

Area-

    The  area covered by a wetland or waterbody
is constrained both by objective and site location.
Peltz and Maughan (1978) suggested that several
ponds of small size (0.25-1.0 ha) were preferred to
a few large ones with regard to fish production;
0.1  ha being the minimum recommended size.
Sandusky (1978) found that some species  of
                                            124

-------
waterfowl (e.g., blue-winged teal, Anas discors)
nested on ponds as small as 0.04-0.2 ha. Hudson
(1983) recommended pond areas  >0.5 ha for
waterfowl  production in  stock ponds,  as did
Allaire (1979) for wildlife  in general.   Based on
an inventory of 35 existing wetlands  on mined
lands   in   Pennsylvania,   Hill   (1986)
recommended areas of  1-3  ha to  maximize
wildlife  diversity.   For natural habitats, bird
species richness has  been  found to increase with
wetland  area, but to level off for areas >4 ha
(Williams   1985).   As  sediment  ponds  are
typically less than  0.5  ha  in area, a slight
increase  in  pond  size, while still maintaining  a
diversity of sizes, would seem to meet multiple
objectives.

    Mine  lakes  can  be  as  large  as   the
remaining  mined pit  or depression.  Lakes
exceeding 10 ha are  not uncommon  (Jones et al.
1985a),  Glazier et al. (1981), Nelson (1982), and
Doxtater (1985) provide scenarios for planning
multiple-uses of large, deep-water lakes.

Depth-

    The   need  for   water  permanence  will
determine  the appropriate  depth of a  given
wetland  or waterbody.  Again, project  objectives
coupled  with mining operations will  influence
the eventual depth characteristics of the wetland.
It is important to remember that deep water  lakes
will tend to be either mesotrophic or oligotrophic,
whereas  shallow waterbodies  and  vegetated
wetlands   usually  have  higher  primary
productivity,   tending   toward   eutrophic
conditions.

    To enhance  year round survival for  fish,
Peltz  and Maughan  (1978) recommended depths
of 2-3 m  for ponds with groundwater sources, and
>5 m  for ponds supplied by surface runoff alone.
Although water depth in  excess of  3 m may be
desirable for fish survival,  retention of  flood
waters, as a water supply  reservoir, and for  some
recreational activities, most  investigators  have
stressed the need for construction of an extensive
littoral zone.  Many  species of sport fish require
depths of  0.5-2.0 m for  spawning (Peltz  and
Maughan 1978, Leedy 1981).  Some submergent
hydrophytes grow better in depths >0.5 m  (e.g.,
Potomageton spp., Chara  spp.).  The regulatory
guidelines  of SMCRA require stability of water
levels in impoundments,  but this  may not be
feasible  or  desirable   for  many   wetlands.
Colonization by emergent hydrophytes requires
fluctuating water levels.   Cole (1986) found that
water volume, and hence  depth, varied by >40%
in five ponds  on  mined land in Illinois. These
changes in water level exposed the  littoral zone
much like  the wetlands of the  Prairie Pothole
region further west.  Fluctuating water depths of
<0.5 m are recommended to promote the growth of
emergent hydrophytes, which in turn encourage
macroinvertebrate production in the littoral zone.

Slope-

   Whereas a shelf 1 m  in depth may benefit
aquatic species such as fish, other species benefit
from slopes that grade gently from  upland to
wetland,  A wetland basin that has a variety of
slopes, ranging from <5° to  almost 90°  will
benefit a diversity of wildlife species and provide
visual  variety.   The  majority  of  the  shoreline
should have gentle slopes.  Amphibians, reptiles,
and some fishes require gentle slopes, typically
<15°.   Sand and mud flats used by foraging
shorebirds should  have slopes of <5°.  Access
areas for swimming  and boating also require
gently  sloping terrain.  Some species  will benefit
from   steeply  sloped or overhung banks,
including burrow-dwelling muskrats  (Ondatra
zibethicus. Brooks and  Dodge 1986),  belted
kingfisher (Cerle  alcyon. Brooks and  Davis
1987),  swallows, cliff-nesting raptors, and some
fishes.

Shape-

   The shorelines of wetlands  and waterbodies
should be  convoluted to  produce an  irregular
shape  (Brooks  1984).   Basins  with a high
shoreline development index  (i.e.,  length of
shoreline divided  by  the circumference of  a
circle of  equal area, Wetzel 1975) provide more
edge for wildlife,  and reduce  wind  and wave
action  on larger waterbodies (Coss et al. 1985).
Coves,  peninsulas,  and islands  contribute
substantially to shoreline development (Leedy
and Franklin 1981, Brooks 1984).  Islands ( >3 m
in diameter, Emerick 1985) and even large rocks
(0.5-1.5  m in diameter,  O'Leary et  al.  1984)
provide  nesting and resting  places for  many
species  of waterfowl   and   shorebirds.  Ir-
regularities in basin shape tend to disperse water
flows thus helping to maximize  retention time in
the basin if flood control or water  treatment are
desirable characteristics of the wetland.

Soils-

    It is important to consider both hydric soils
within a wetland  and  the  soils of adjacent
uplands.   Proper management of upland soils
will  protect aquatic systems from unnecessary
sediment,  chemical,  and  thermal   pollution
(Rogowski 1978, Leedy 1981).

Upland  Soils--

   During reclamation   of mined  land it is
preferable to have topsoil cover the overburden to
protect and conserve  the available water  and
provide  a better  medium for  plant growth.
Vegetated topsoil will reduce evaporation, allow
more infiltration  into groundwater  supplies,
produce  temporary ponds in  depressions,  and
                                             125

-------
reduce  peak  infiltration  rates that  lead to
abnormal fluctuations in the  water table  and
droughty surface  conditions  (Rogowski  1978).
The ability of a soil to retain water is dependent
on its texture (i.e., sand is more droughty than
clay), depth, the content of organic matter, and
the distribution of pore size (Schaller and Sutton
1978).  Thus, a careful  study  of soil conditions
will  enhance  the  probability of  successful
restoration and creation of wetlands,  and the
reclamation of upland areas.

    Sediment yields from exposed soils  are
typically  highest  in  the first  6 months after
regrading,  and   are halved  in  subsequent
6-month  periods  as the  site progressively
revegetates (Schaller and Sutton 1978). Silts and
sediments that enter  waterbodies tend to  reduce
light transmission (and  hence,  photosynthesis),
raise water temperature, and cover sensitive
organisms (Leedy 1981).  Thus, it is important to
revegetate exposed soils as rapidly as possible to
avoid interfering with wetland establishment.

    Based on  the reclamation literature  for
upland  portions  of  mined  sites,  several
recommendations can be  made to protect aquatic
systems from upland  runoff.  Exposed soils must
be seeded, fertilized, and mulched as soon as
possible.  Rafaill and Vogel  (1978) recommended
60  Ibs/acre (67  kg/ha) of nitrogen and  100
Ibs/acre  (112  kg/ha) of phosphorus, but no
potassium  for  reclaiming   mined  land in
Appalachia.   In  acidic areas, soil  should be
limed to  a pH of at least  5.5.  Use of high quality
seeds  is  advised  (i.e.,  high  germination  and
purity percentages, McGee and Harper 1986).
Seeds  and  fertilizer should  be applied first,
followed  by an  appropriate  mulch to avoid
perching seeds  above  the  ground's  surface
(Schaller and Sutton 1978).  Straw and hay were
suggested as the best  mulch to use, particularly if
applied by a mulch blower that cuts, shreds, and
evenly spreads the material.  Estimated costs for
purchase  and   application   of straw  were
$100-200/ton (909  kg) with an application rate of
1-2 tons/acre (2,245-4,490 kg/ha), whereas  nets
and mats may cost  >  $l,500/acre ($3,700/ha),
especially  on  steep   slopes  (Mining  and
Reclamation  Council  of  America and Hess and
Fisher Engineers 1985).  Advice for selecting the
appropriate  plant  species,  and  seeding,
fertilizing, and liming rates for a given soil type
are  generally available from mining  agencies
(e.g., Office of Surface  Mining, U.S. Bureau of
Mines,  state  mining   agencies)  and   county
offices of the Soil Conservation Service.

    Vegetative  buffers  should  be  installed
around  wetland  basins.  Although  recom-
mendations  for   buffer  widths  range  from
1-300 m, vegetated strips as narrow as 15-20 m
can  remove 50-75% of the  sediments (Barfield
and Albrecht 1982). Whenever appropriate for a
given region, buffers should include  shrub and
forested zones.  Gilliam (1985) studied unmined
agricultural areas in North Carolina  and found
that wooded buffers  about 100 m wide removed
>50% of the sediment, including much  of the
nitrogen and phosphorus.  In addition to serving
a water quality function,  vegetative buffers can
act as travel corridors and refugia for wildlife,
thereby reducing the isolation of the wetland.  If
desired, wetland edges can be shaded by planting
properly oriented  tree species that will grow to a
height of twice  the distance to the water (Leedy
1981).

    In  severe cases of upland runoff, structural
diversions  may  be  necessary  to   divert
sediment-laden  waters.  Diversion ditches,
concave  depressions,  and sediment traps are
some  of  the  techniques  available.  Mining
agencies, the  Soil  Conservation Service,  or
experienced consultants can provide the expertise
needed to design these systems.

Hydric Soils--

    Hydric  soils,  or  those  previously saturated,
usually must  be constructed, unless  soil  is
available from a wetland scheduled to be altered
or  removed.   Routine   cleaning  of roadside
ditches or other wet depressions can also act as a
source of hydric soil, although pollutants such as
road salt,  oil,  or  lead  may be present  in
substantial  quantities.   Hydric soils should be
stockpiled, preferably for less than one  month,
and then spread to the  desired thickness  in
newly constructed basins.  These soils typically
have a relatively high organic matter content,
and often  act  as a seed source or seed  bank.
Longer storage periods will result in  desiccation
of plant  materials, and possibly re-oxidation of
metals  and  other  potentially   damaging
materials.

    When existing hydric  soils are not available,
they can  be constructed by  using a relatively
fertile topsoil.  Good plant survivorship and seed
germination rates have been obtained by  mixing
about 30% (by  volume) livestock manure in with
the  topsoil to act as a source or organic matter
and nitrogen  (Brooks,  unpublished).   Small
quantities of superphosphate  were added to the
soil around each planted propagule.   Chemical
fertilizers  have  been  recommended  as  an
additive to ponds and lakes  designed for fish
production; 12-12-12   or   8-8-2   (nitrogen-
phosphorous-potassium; Glesne and Surprenant
1979, Leedy 1981, respectively).  Leedy  (1981)
suggested that no more  than  200kg/ha of 8-8-2
fertilizer be   added  at  one time,  although
application rates  for  infertile waters  might
exceed 1,500 kg/ha/yr.

    Whenever possible, soil tests should be made
to provide more  accurate estimates of fertilizer
                                              126

-------
and lime additions for both hydric, and adjacent
upland soils  depending  on  the  plant  species
desired and the intended use of the wetland or
waterbody.  Basins constructed on mined lands
often contain acidic  soils.   Assuming  that a
circumneutral pH  is desired (although some
wetland  plants require acidic  or  alkaline
conditions), the pH of the bottom soils  should be
raised  to  about  6.5 using  lime  (Peltz  and
Maughan 1978).  If the pH of the soil is less than
5.5, then at least 1,000 kg/ha of lime is probably
needed (Leedy 1981).  Slurry ponds with acidic
soils require  more alkaline additions to promote
growth of  hydrophytes;  >20,000  kg/ha of
limestone (Nawrot 1985). Warburton et al. (1985)
reported improved  growth rates  for bulrushes
(Scirpus  spp.)  with addition  of slow-release
fertilizer tablets (22-8-2) to  each propagule.  If
acidophilic plants occur naturally on the site or
their  presence is  a  desired  objective of
reclamation,  then it  may not be  necessary to
adjust pH.   The presence of certain species  of
moss and algae in  springs and seeps  is a  good
indicator of waters with low pH and usually low
concentrations   of   nutrients  (Brooks,  un-
published).

    Basins constructed  below the water table
rarely  need  to be  sealed,  whereas  perched
wetlands  need  a  water-conserving  layer  of
material on  the bottom  and  sides of the basin.
Clay  is commonly used in  this  manner  and
should be compacted to a thickness of about 30 cm
(Soil Conservation Service 1979).  Bentonite, and
synthetic membranes  can also serve as sealants.
Specifications for a specific soil type and climate
are generally available from county  offices of
the  Soil   Conservation  Service  or  mining
agencies.

Vegetation

     Studies of existing wetlands have  shown
that a  diversity of hydrophytes will  volunteer
over time.  Cattail (Typha latifolia) is by far the
most  successful vascular hydrophyte  on mined
lands.  Cattail,  soft rush (Juncus  effusus). and
woolgrass  (Scirpus   cyperinus) were the first
invaders  of  four wetland  basins in  central
Pennsylvania; all were  present within 1-1.5
years of regrading (Hepp 1987). Twelve species of
vascular plants had volunteered on one site  after
6 years. Fowler et al. (1985) found that cattail,
soft rush, and spike  rush (Eleocharis  obtusa)
rapidly invaded sediment ponds  in Tennessee;
10 species were  eventually present. Coss et al.
(1985) found  14 species of vascular hydrophytes
growing in four  lake  complexes  in  Illinois.  The
lake with the greatest hydrophyte diversity had 7
species.

     After volunteer macrophytes were observed
on  slurry ponds in southern  Illinois (e.g.,
reedgrass (Phragmites  australis)f a planting
program  was  started  in  that has  led  to
revegetation of more than 200 ha of wetlands on
12 sites (Nawrot 1985).  Investigators found that
perennial  rootstocks  of  hardstem  bulrush
(Scirpus acutus). three-square (S.  americana).
and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) were
more  dependable  than seed because sub-surface
conditions  were  more  amenable  to  plant
establishment than surface conditions.   Root-
stocks  were  collected  at a  rate  of  75-100
propagules/man-hour,  and hand-planted with
bars and  shovels.  Collection  of propagules in
early  spring is preferred over autumn collection.
Spacing was  on  0.3-1.5  m centers, and each
propagule  was  planted  in 5-13  cm  of soil,
depending on the species.  They recommended a
water-level control structure to assure adequate
control  over seasonally variable water levels.
Plants collected locally under similar conditions
had  better survival  rates than commercially
available  stock.  Whenever  possible,  local
planting stock should be used.

     We have constructed  smaller wetlands,
designed  specifically for treating  acidic  mine
drainage  (Brooks,   unpublished).  Cattail
rhizomes were collected from existing sediment
basins at a rate of 50-100/man-hour, and planted
at a rate >100/man-hour.  Multi-stemmed clumps
of sedges (Carex gyandra) and soft rush (20-cm
dia. plugs) were also collected.  Both were planted
on 0.5-1.0 m centers. We had 75-80% survival of
these plants after one year. Costs  for constructing
wetlands  designed to  treat mine drainage are
slightly less  than $10/m2 ($l/ft2) (Girts and
Kleinmann  1986, Rightnour,  pers.  comm.),
including all  planting  and basin  construction
costs.

     There  are  several ways to enhance the
proliferation  of aquatic vegetation  if a decision
is made to  encourage  volunteer  colonization.
The  morphometry  of the basin, as previously
discussed, must be suitable with respect to depth
and slope.  The  desired zones  of vegetation can
be  controlled by manipulating morphometric
variables.  Emergent species  will  colonize the
littoral zone up to about 1 m in depth. Shrubs will
be  restricted to  very  shallow  or  seasonally
flooded  zones. By creating topographic diversity
within a site, there will  be more opportunities for
a  variety  of  species to  successfully colonize.
Mitigated  wetlands   that have  hydrologic
connections  with natural wetlands or  other
mitigated sites will be  more  likely to receive
plant propagules, either through  wind, water, or
animal  dispersal.

Fauna

      Diverse vertebrate  and  invertebrate
communities have been  found in wetlands and
waterbodies on coal surface mines.  Brooks et al.
(1985a)  reported that 125 vertebrate species were
                                             127

-------
observed  on 35  wetlands  studied  in western
Pennsylvania  (86  birds,  19  mammals,  11
reptiles, and 9  amphibians).  The mean number
of vertebrates per wetland was 23 ± 12 (1 SE), with
a range of 7-60  species/wetland (Hill 1986).  Hepp
(1987), in  a  more  intensive  study  on four
wetlands in the same region, reported  use by 90
vertebrate species (64 birds,  15 mammals, 3
reptiles,  and 8 amphibians) and more than 39
invertebrate taxa.  O'Leary et al. (1984) observed
76  avian species,  including  18  species  of
waterfowl, and 10 mammalian  species  on  47
wetlands  in southwestern  Illinois.   Also in
Illinois, Coss et al. (1985)  studied four  mined
lake complexes and found 89 vertebrate species.
In nine sediment ponds in Tennessee,  Fowler et
al. (1985) reported use by 61 invertebrate taxa, 6
fish species, and 12 amphibian species.  Jones et
al.  (1985a),  in a study  of 33 mine  lakes in
Illinois and Missouri, identified  almost  200
invertebrate taxa and 33 fish species.  Nineteen
species of fish  were  collected from one 86-ha
mine lake in Illinois (Jones et al. I985b).

    With  the exception of fish species  and some
invertebrate taxa (e.g., Mollusca),  most species
voluntarily  colonize  surface  mine  wetlands.
Some invertebrates can be introduced by water
birds as  larvae attached to feet and feathers.
Fish are  also  introduced by local  anglers.   If
wetlands  are hydrologically connected with other
reclaimed or natural  systems, the opportunities
for  rapid  colonization are greatly improved.  If
wetlands  are juxtaposed to a variety  of upland
habitats that provide shelter and travel corridors,
colonization rates  and numbers probably will be
greater. Hepp (1987)  reported rapid colonization
rates (within 3 years of final grading) for both
invertebrate  (e.g.,  dipterans,  coleopterans,
hemipterans) and vertebrate (e.g., amphibians,
some small mammals, and  many birds) species,
followed  by  a  period of stabilization in com-
munity structure. Pentecost and Stupka  (1979)
found  that  common amphibian  species invaded
sediment  ponds within one  month of formation;
founder populations were located 100 m away.

    Artificial structures and substrates can be
introduced to supplement existing  shelter, such
as nest boxes  for cavity nesters and artificial
reefs for fish and invertebrates.  As with flora,
wetlands  designed with specific objectives will
provide suitable habitat for the desired species,
whether fish, waterfowl, or a diversity of faunal
groups.
WETLANDS AND WATERBODDZS  ON
PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS

Basin Morphometrv

    The same parameters  discussed  for  coal
mined lands are equally important for phosphate
areas (e.g., area, depth, slope, shape).  A major
difference  exists  for the  Florida landscape,
however,  because  of  its  low  relief.  To
accommodate the sheet flow of water over flat
lands and to match the adaptions of plant species
to subtle changes in elevation, the slopes of basin
banks  and  bottoms  need  to  be  carefully
established.  In  addition, hydroperiod variations
between wet and dry seasons must be considered
in project  design.  Wetland systems must be
capable  of  storing large  quantities  of water
during the wet season. This can be accomplished
by designing wetlands of sufficient size.  During
the dry season, when the water table drops below
the land surface, there must  be  enough deep
depressions to harbor  aquatic organisms, such as
fish, amphibians, and invertebrates (King  et al.
1985). Depressions should be at least 2 m  below
the high water marks  to maintain aquatic habitat
during droughts (King et al. 1985).  Reduced
slopes (<3%) will allow the development of wide
soil moisture zones.  This will  provide a  wider
tolerance zone  for many  species of wetland
vegetation  and  compensate  for environmental
disturbances, such as drought, fluctuating water
tables, and fire.  Conversely, steeper slopes result
in narrow moisture zones that leave little room
for  error in predicting the eventual composition
of the floral community.

Soils

     Soils  of the  central  phosphate  region  in
Florida are typically circumneutral and  quite
fertile due  to the abundance of phosphorus and
calcium, although  potassium may be limiting
(Clewell 1981).  Phosphate deposits further north
may be more acidic and less fertile. Soils  being
prepared for the establishment  of wetlands  are
usually regraded  to  the  proper  elevation and
conformation   using  the    sand   tailings.
Additional  overburden, if available, can then be
added up  to a  depth of 30 cm  (Erwin 1985).
Numerous  studies have shown that the addition
of wetland topsoil (i.e., mulch, organic  muck)
from  natural wetlands scheduled for  mining
greatly enhances  the chances for  successful
reclamation (Clewell 1981, Dunn and Best 1983,
Erwin 1985).   "Topsoiling"  or  "mulching"  can
provide a variety of propagules (e.g., seeds, roots,
rhizomes) from native plant species that result in
a more natural vegetative community at  the
exclusion of weed species.

Vegetation

    Wetland  restoration efforts in the  Florida
phosphate   region   have  focused  on   the
establishment of three major types  of wetland
communities:   open  water, emergent marshes,
and forested wetlands.  Open  water  areas  are
primarily a function of water depth and need not
be discussed further.  The two types of vegetative
communities will be  discussed separately.  The
                                              128

-------
techniques developed have  been influenced by
regulations that  require  rapid  revegetation
(within  one  year) and  the  creation  of  a
self-sustaining community.

Emergent Marshes--

     Techniques used to establish  herbaceous
hydrophytes  include:   1)  transplanting from
natural wetlands; 2) application of hydric topsoil
from  natural  wetlands; and 3) reliance on
voluntary establishment. Florida allows licensed
individuals to  remove  native  species  from
natural wetlands for the  purpose  of mitigation.
In addition, plants  from wetlands  scheduled for
mining can be transplanted to newly prepared
sites.  However, the availability of plants from
natural wetlands  may not always  match  the
timing of mitigation projects.

    For the Agrico Swamp project in central
Florida (restoration  of 61 ha of wetland on a 148
ha project site) Erwin (1985) and Erwin and Best
(1985) reported  that the application of wetland
topsoils resulted in the establishment of 41 plant
species in a restored marsh, whereas overburden
alone resulted  in the establishment of only 26
species. The  common species  present included,
cattail (Tvpha   latifolia).   pickerelweed
(Pontederia    cordata).  rushes  (Scirpus
californicus).    dog   fennel   (Eupatorium
capillifolum).   and   arrowhead  (Sagittaria
lanceolata). The topsoil  areas  contained both
perennial  and  annual  species,  whereas  the
overburden areas contained primarily  annuals.
The rapid establishment  of late-successional
species, such as many perennials, either through
"topsoiling"  or transplanting may  help to
eliminate undesirable  species such as  cattail
(Erwin and Best 1985).

     Volunteer plants contribute substantially to
restoration efforts  in Florida.  Certain factors
can  increase  the  role of volunteers.   When
natural communities are proximal to restored
sites,  the likelihood of propagule dispersal is
enhanced.  Hydrologic  connections with streams
can also distribute  the seeds and  propagules of
desirable  species.   Self-sustaining seed banks
with   their  inherent  benefits  can  become
established within  3 years  if  artificial planting
is done (Erwin  1985), and  within 4-5 years if
based solely on volunteer species (Dunn and Best
1983).

     Restoration of  emergent marshes in Florida
is further enhanced  if  good  quality  planting
stock is used and if specific  site preparation and
planting methods are properly applied (Haynes
1984).   Several long-term monitoring studies of
wetland  mitigation projects  are  underway in
Florida   (e.g.,   Erwin   1985) which  should
help  determine  how  closely created  match
natural conditions.
Forested Wetiands--

   The slow growth of woody  species prevents
rapid  assessment of  the  success of creating
forested wetlands, but there are indications that
the  techniques  applied in  Florida will  be
successful.  As part of the 61  ha of wetlands
created on the Agrico Swamp project site, 66,000
tree seedlings were planted.  Twelve species were
represented.  The  most   abundant  species
included,   cypress  (Taxodium   distichum).
Florida red  maple (Acer  floridium). loblolly bay
(Gordonia  lasianthus), black gum (Nyss^
svlvatica). sweetgum (Liquidambar  stvraciflua).
and   Carolina  ash  (Fraxinus   carolinia).
Seedlings were planted on about 2-m centers by
hand  in  the  summer and  fall  of  1982.
Survivorship was  72% in 1982, 77% in 1983, 72%
in 1984,  and dropped to 58% in 1985 following a
drought (Erwin 1985).  Growth of some species
was  apparently  enhanced  when  water levels
during the wet season did not exceed 20 cm (Best
and Erwin 1984).

   Gilbert et al. (1980) reported on the success of
planting 10,400 seedlings representing 16 species.
After the first year, survival was 85% for cypress
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). 72%
for sweetgum, and  62% for  red  maple  (Acer
rubrum).

   Clewell  (1981, 1983) also had  tree seedling
survival  in excess  of 70% while  creating a
riverine  forested wetland  in  central Florida.
Mechanical  planting  of potted, nursery-grown
seedlings increased  efficiency and enhanced
survival,  but  may not be  feasible,  depending
upon  the substrate.  Direct  seeding may also be
possible,  but germination and survival rates are
lower. Clewell (1983) suggested that enclaves of
saplings  could  be  established  through
transplanting to provide shade for shade-tolerant
species.   A combination of seedlings, saplings,
topsoil,   and   natural  colonization   were
recommended.

Fauna

   Studies  of faunal communities on reclaimed
phosphate mines have been less common  than
studies of vegetation. Erwin (1985) reported that
56-62 taxa of macroinvertebrates were collected
seasonally  in  open  water, submergent, and
emergent wetland communities for an annual
total of 107  taxa.  A total of 83 bird species were
recorded  on the same 148 ha site.  Use of clay
settling ponds by waterfowl and shorebirds has
also been reported (Montalbano et al. 1978).  King
et al. (1985) provide extensive recommendations
for enhancing fish and wildlife habitat on both
wetland and upland mine sites in the phosphate
region. To maximize fish and  wildlife diversity,
they   suggest  the  creation  of  heterogeneous
                                             129

-------
physical  and  vegetative  habitats among a
diversity of aquatic systems.
WETLANDS AND
WATERBODEES ON SAND
AND GRAVEL MINES

     As many of the recommendations discussed
for coal and phosphate mining apply to sand and
gravel, only those techniques that differ will  be
included in this section.   Mining of mineral
sands for rare metals (e.g., rutile, zircon) is a
unique  type of sand mining.  Although most
prevalent  in  Australian  coastal zones, the
wetland restoration  techniques developed by this
industry also  warrant inclusion in this section
(e.g., Brooks 1987,1988).

Basin Morphometrv

    Most authors  recommend increasing the
area   of wetland  basins,  and having  a
heterogeneous shoreline. Slopes with a horizontal
to vertical ratio as gentle as 10:1 or  20:1 are
recommended to increase  the zone widths  of
plant communities  (Street  1982,  Crawford and
Rossiter 1982).  Water-level control devices are
encouraged to allow optimal  management  of
vegetation.

Soils

    The addition of topsoil to pit floors was
recommended where  plant  colonization  is
desired (Crawford and Rossiter 1982).  Leaving
some  areas  bare  will  meet  the  foraging
requirements  of  wading   birds and shorebirds
(Lomax 1982), and  the  spawning  needs  of fish
(Herricks 1982).  The bare zones should have a
variety of particle sizes as substrate to meet the
specific needs of various species.  Compaction of
bottom  material  is an  effective  means  to
discourage  volunteer plant species.  In newly
reclaimed sites, organic matter is often lacking,
so straw  or hay can be  added  as food and
substrate for both plants and invertebrates;  1
kg/m2 of straw was  suggested by Street (1982).
Nutrients   are   often  lacking  as  well,  so
fertilizing may be necessary.  Stabilization of
upland banks and surrounds  is also emphasized
to reduce erosion and sedimentation  (Branch
1985).

   Brooks  (1987,  1988) identified  three major
factors  that enhanced the  recovery  of  both
herbaceous and  woody vegetation after mining
for mineral sands.  First, basin morphometry
must be reclaimed properly to provide  suitable
drainage  patterns  and  water-level  control.
Second,  the use  of drains   before and   after
mining  under saturated conditions facilitated
the  establishment  of  seedlings  by  avoiding
excessive  drying or  flooding.  Drains   were
removed once the plants adapted to the variable
water regime.  Third, careful manipulation of
existing topsoil  enhanced  the  survival  of
propagules   of   native    species.    A
"double-stripping" method was used.  The upper
20-25 cm  was removed and  stockpiled  in large
lumps.  A second layer that was 10-15 cm  deep
was stockpiled  separately.  Topsoil layers  were
returned in their original order after mining.
Storage  time was  usually  1-3  months.  This
additional  care later reduced  planting   costs
during reclamation.  Other recommendations for
enhancing  restoration of vegetation and  fauna
were similar to  those  discussed for  coal  and
phosphate.
                      CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
    There are examples throughout the U.S. and
other  countries  of innovative approaches  to
successful restoration  and creation of wetlands
during mine reclamation,  however,  specific
guidance applicable to different physiographic
regions is  still needed.   The recommendations
presented in this chapter should provide the basis
on which to build a mitigation plan for a specific
project.  We are  still in a rapid learning phase
in restoration technology, and thus, must be open
to new ideas and  willing to experiment with
innovative methods.

    Managers need to move away from  easily
constructed geometric shapes and must attempt to
create landforms that  mimic natural systems.
Overly engineered designs with specifications
that are difficult  to meet are not appropriate
given the nature of biological systems and the
current level of understanding  in  restoration
technology.  Designs and plans must be flexible
to allow room for error and unpredictable events.
Regulatory reform may be necessary to  allow
this flexibility to occur.

    One  way  to  ensure  that the  proper
information is collected is to require mandatory
monitoring programs of all wetland mitigation
projects.  It is suggested that a 3-year monitoring
period be part of the known costs to a permittee
before a project gets underway (e.g., Brooks and
Hughes  1987).   Short-term  monitoring  of
individual  sites coupled with a  few long-term
research projects  will  enhance  our  ability to
                                             130

-------
predict  the  outcome of mitigation policies.  As
there  is  some  scientific  evidence  for  the
stabilization of emergent marsh systems after 3
years (e.g.,  Erwin 1985, Hepp 1987), a 3-year
period  will allow  evaluation of the  project's
success  after three growing seasons.  Also,  some
annual  variability  in climatic and  growing
conditions can  be  assessed  during this  time
period.   Finally, a modest  3-year  monitoring
plan does  not put an unbearable economic burden
on the permittee.

    Long-term studies should seek  to improve
our  predictive  capabilities regarding  the
seasonal,  annual,  and successional  variation
inherent  in  most wetland systems.   How do
fluctuating  water  levels  influence   the
composition and abundance of floral and faunal
communities?  What  is an  acceptable load  of
pollutants  for  a  wetland  to  absorb before
significant changes  are observed in food  webs
and the health of individual organisms?

    A number of studies have used comparative
approaches to gain  insight into how to replicate
the functions of natural wetlands.  Pre-mining
and  post-mining studies are  valuable, as are
comparisons  between natural  and  restored
systems,  the latter being quite scarce  (e.g.,
Brooks  and Hughes 1987, Brooks 1988).  Land
managers need to  establish  their mitigation
policies in  the context of what changes are
occurring  in wetland types throughout a given
physiographic region,  not just on  a particular
mine site.   In some regions (e.g., glaciated)
wetland restoration has  a greater  chance for
success because of inherent water  and  soil
characteristics.  Thus, what  may work well for
one area,  may fail in another.

    Based on this  survey of the literature,  it
appears  that  the   techniques  appropriate  to
restoration  and creation  of  simple  open water
and  emergent marsh  wetlands are fairly well
established.  The success  of shrub and forested
wetland projects, because of their slower rates  of
succession, has been more difficult to assess, and
therefore, needs  more  attention.   Questions
remain  with regard  to plant materials: Are the
proper propagules available?  What is the best
mix of native and exotic species to use? How do
we balance  the  variable  success  of different
planting  methods  against economic  realities?
How adept are we at predicting the successional
outcome of a newly restored wetland system?

    Success criteria  for wetland mitigation need
to be established. I do not believe, however, that
satisfactory  criteria can  be  developed on  a
national  scale.  Criteria  necessarily  vary with
the type of wetland being established (e.g., tidal
mud flats vs. freshwater emergent marshes vs.
evergreen  forested swamps). They also  vary with
the differential pressures placed  on  wetland
resources within a region.   For some wetland
types, we may not yet know how to characterize
their hydrology or  biotic diversity, let alone
satisfactorily replicate them.

   At  the  current  level  of knowledge,  it  is
ludicrous to demand 100% replication of species
richness  and abundance  for all projects, but what
are  the  minimum   standards  for  replacing
equivalent functions? Allowances must be  made
for variable  growth patterns among floral species
and  for  seasonally  and annually  fluctuating
hydrologic   regimes.   Naturally   occurring
changes  in   wetland  characteristics   are
commonplace.   How will these  changes  be
assessed, and then applied to  a mitigation
project?  As   with   many  environmental
regulations,  success  criteria  must  evolve
incrementally  as new information  becomes
available.   In  time,  a  broad criterion such  as
"establish locally-occurring plant species" will
be replaced by quantitative specifications  for
designated species arranged in suitable patterns
on the landscape.

   An interim solution is to establish regional
success  criteria  for  major wetland  classes
through   consensus    agreement    among
knowledgeable  individuals  (e.g.,  academics,
regulatory  scientists,  industrial  researchers,
professional consultants).  These  criteria should
be compatible with  regional mitigation  policies
that  are  established  by  even   broader
representation from  the  community  (i.e.,
planners, administrators, politicians,  citizen's
groups,  business and industry leaders).  Dames
and  Moore  (1983) used a questionnaire sent  to
phosphate mining companies to gather opinions
regarding  success  criteria   for  wetland
restoration projects.  Combined with information
from regulatory authorities, this  type  of survey
could form  the basis for establishing  success
criteria for any physiographic region.

   More  attention must be placed on  how  to
decide among  multiple objectives for a  given
mitigation project.   When are the utilitarian
functions of wetlands (e.g.,  water supply, water
treatment)   to  be   substituted  for  in-kind
replications of natural  systems? Numerous
authors  suggested  that   planning   and
decision-making by consensus among  scientific,
industrial, regulatory, and citizen's groups is the
appropriate  strategy for establishing mitigation
policy.

   It needs to  be mentioned that as wetland
restoration  technology  improves,  the  mining
industries will demand  access  to additional
reserves. Therefore, the  rationale for a particular
mitigation strategy must have a sound, scientific
basis if we are  to successfully balance the needs
of industry with the  necessity of  wetland
protection.
                                             131

-------
                                   RECOMMENDATIONS
  PLANNING

  1.   Develop site-specific objectives that  are
      related  to regional wetland  trends.  Check
      for  potential conflicts among the proposed
      objectives.

  2.   Wetland mitigation  should be integrated
      with  mining  operations  and  reclamation
      plans at the  beginning of any  project,
      especially with  regard to hydrologic  plans
      for the site.

  3.   Project  planning  and  evaluation should
      include  input  from  trained professionals
      and local constituencies.

  4.   Mitigation plans for single wetlands should
      be  related   directly  to  the  adjacent
      waterbodies and uplands. Be cognizant of
      regional trends and needs.
  IMPLEMENTATION

  1.   Designs for wetlands should mimic natural
      systems   and   provide   flexibility  for
      unforeseen events.

  2.   The  key  elements  to successful wetland
      restoration and creation are basin morph-
      ometry and hydrologic control.  Assess these
      parameters  first  before  specifying  re-
      quirements  for  soil  preparation   or
      establishment   of  floral  and  faunal
      communities.

  3.   Varying   the   areas   of   the    wetlands
      and  waterbodies  constructed between 0.5-10
    ha will meet the needs of many species, as
    well as human users.

 4.  Bank  slopes and  basin bottoms  should be
    varied with emphasis on gentle slopes and
    irregular bottoms  unless  dictated otherwise
    by project objectives.

 5.  A heterogeneous shoreline is recommended to
    increase habitat diversity.  Extensive littoral
    zones should be encouraged.

 6.  A capability to regulate the hydroperiod using
    water-level control  structures  is  highly
    recommended.

 7.  The addition  of upland  or hydric  topsoil
    provides a  good substrate for plant growth,
    serves as a source for seeds and propagules,
    and  reduces   moisture  loss  of exposed
    substrates.

 8.  An  integrated  approach  to   establishing
    vegetation  that incorporates direct seeding,
    transplanting, "topsoiling or mulching", and
    natural  colonization can  increase  plant
    diversity and  survivorship  at a reasonable
    cost.

 9.  Revegetate exposed  substrates rapidly,
    preferably  with native species.  Vegetative
    buffers around wetlands and waterbodies are
    essential.

 10. Diverse   vertebrate  and   invertebrate
    communities will colonize newly restored
    wetlands   if  basin   morphometry   and
    vegetative communities are suitable.
                                      LITERATURE CITED
Allaire,  P.N.   1979.   Coal mining  reclamation  in
   Appalachia: low cost recommendations to improve
   bird/wildlife habitat, p.   245-251. In G.A. Swanson
   (Tech.  Coord.),  The  Mitigation  Symposium:  A
   National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and
   Wildlife Habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-65, U.S. Dep.
   Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mt. For. Range  Exp. Stn.,
   Fort Collins, Colorado.

Barfield, B.J. and S.C. Albrecht. 1982. Use of a vegetative
   filter zone to control fine-grained  sediments from
   surface mines, p. 481-490. In D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc.
   Symp. on Surface Mining Hydrol.,  Sedimentol., and
   Reclam.  University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Best, G.R. and K.L. Erwin.  1984.  Effects of hydroperiod
   on survival  and growth  of  tree  seedlings in a
   phosphate   surface-mined    reclaimed    wetland,
   p. 221-225.  In D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc. Symp.  on
   Surface Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol., and Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Boody, O.C.,  IV.  1983.  Physico-chemical analysis of
   reclaimed and natural lakes in central Florida's
   phosphate region, p. 339-358. In D.J. Robertson (Ed.),
   Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry. Proc.
   Symp. of Florida Inst. of Phosphate Res., Bartow,
   Florida.

Branch, W.L.   1985.   Design and construction  of
   replacement wetlands on land mined for sand and
   gravel, p.  173-179.  In R.P.  Brooks, D.E. Samuel and
   J.B. Hill  (Eds.), Proc. Conf. Wetlands and Water
   Management on Mined Lands.  Pennsylvania State
   Univ. University Park, Pennsylvania.
                                                 132

-------
Breedlove,  B.W.  and W.M. Dennis.   1983.  Wetland
   reclamation: a drainage basin approach, p. 90-99.  In
   D.J. Robertson (Ed.), Reclamation and the Phosphate
   Industry.  Proc.  Symp. of Florida Inst. of Phosphate
   Res., Bartow, Florida.

Brenner, F.J., W. Snyder, J.F. Schalles, J.P. Miller and
   C. Miller.  1985.  Primary productivity of deep-water
   habitats on reclaimed mined lands, p. 199-209.  In
   R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proc.
   Conf. Wetlands  and  Water Management on  Mined
   Lands.  Pennsylvania State Univ.  University Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Brenner, F.J.   1986.    Evaluation  and  mitigation of
   wetland habitats on mined lands, p. 181-184. In DJI.
   Graves  (Ed.),  Proc. Symp.  on  Surface Mining
   Hydrol.,  Sedimentol., and Reclam. University of
   Kentucky, Lexington.

Brice, J.R.,  and O.C. Boody, IV. 1983. Fish populations in
   reclaimed and  natural  lakes  in  central Florida's
   phosphate region: a preliminary report, p. 359-372. In
   D.J. Robertson (Ed.), Reclamation and the Phosphate
   Industry.  Proc.  Symp. of Florida Inst. of Phosphate
   Res., Bartow, Florida.

Brooks, D.R.  1987.  Rehabilitation  following mineral
   sands mining on North Stradbroke Island, p.  24-34.
   In  T.  Farrell (Ed.),  Australian  Mining Industry
   Council, Canberra.

Brooks, D.R.  1988.  Wetland rehabilitation following
   mineral sands mining in Australia.  Paper presented
   at  Mine  Drainage  and  Surface  Mine Reclamation
   Conf., U.S. Dep. Interior Bur. of Mines, 17-22 April
   1988, Pittsburgh.

Brooks, R.P.  1984.    Optimal designs  for restored
   wetlands, p. 19-29.  In J.E. Burris (Ed.), Treatment of
   Mine Drainage by Wetlands.  Contrib.  No. 264, Dep.
   Biology, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park,
   PA.

Brooks, R.P.  1986.  Wetlands as a compatible land use on
   coal surface mines.   National Wetlands Newsletter
   8(2):4-6.

Brooks, R.P., D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill (Eds.).   1985a.
   Proc. Conf. Wetlands and  Water Management on
   Mined Lands. Pennsylvania  State  Univ., University
   Park, Pennsylvania.

Brooks, R.P., J.B.  Hill, F.J.  Brenner, and S. Capets.
   1985b.   Wildlife use of wetlands  on coal surface
   mines in western Pennsylvania,  p.  337-352. In R.P.
   Brooks,  D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proc. Conf.
   Wetlands  and Water Management on Mined Lands.
   Pennsylvania  State  Univ.   University   Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Brooks, R.P.,  and W.E.  Dodge.   1986.   Estimation of
   habitat  quality  and summer population density for
   muskrats on a watershed basis.  J. Wildl. Manage.
   40:269-273.

Brooks, R.P. and WJ. Davis.  1987.  Habitat selection by
   breeding  belted  kingfishers ( Ceryle alcvon).    Am.
   Midi. Nat. 117:63-70.

Brooks, R.P. and  J.B. Hill. 1987.  Status and trends of
   freshwater wetlands in the coal-mining  region of
   Pennsylvania. Environ. Manage.  ll(l):29-34.

Brooks, R.P. and R.M. Hughes.  1987.  Guidelines for
   assessing  the biotic  communities of freshwater
   wetlands, p. 278-282. In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen,
   and G.Brooks (Eds.), National Wetland Symposium:
   Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Association of
   State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

Burley, J.B.,  and R.B. Hopkins.   1984.  Potential for
   enhancing  nongame  bird  habitat  values   on
   abandoned mine lands of western North Dakota, p.
   333-343.   In D.H. Graves (Ed.),  Proc.  Symp.  on
   Surface Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol.,  and Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Burris, J.E. (Ed.). 1984. Treatment of Mine Drainage by
   Wetlands.   Contrib.  No.  264,  Dep.   Biology,
   Pennsylvania  State  Univ.,  University  Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Cardamone, M.A., J.R. Taylor, and W.J. Mitsch. 1984.
   Wetlands  and Coal Surface Mining: A Management
   Handbook.    Water Resour.  Res.  Inst., Univ.  of
   Kentucky,  Lexington.

Carpenter, J.M., and G.T. Farmer.  1981.  Peat Mining:
   An  Initial  Assessment  of Wetland Impacts  and
   Measures to  Mitigate Adverse Effects. Final Report.
   U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C.

Clewell, A.F.  1981. Vegetational restoration techniques
   on reclaimed phosphate  strip  mines in Florida.
   Wetlands 1:158-170.

Clewell,  A.F.   1983.  Riverine forest restoration  on
   reclaimed  mines at Brewster Phosphates, central
   Florida,  p.   122-133.  In D.J.  Robertson (Ed.),
   Reclamation  and  the Phosphate Industry.   Proc.
   Symp. of Florida  Inst. of Phosphate Res., Bartow,
   Florida.

Cole,  C.A. 1986. Morphometry, hydrology,  and some
   associated water quality fluctuations in a surface
   mine  wetland  complex  in  southern  Illinois,  p.
   157-163.   In D.H. Graves (Ed).  Proc.  Symp.  on
   Surface Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol.,  and Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Coss,  R.D., J.R. Nawrot, and W.D. Klimstra.  1985.
   Wildlife  habitats  provided  by  aquatic  plant
   communities  of surface  mine  lakes, p.  29-39.   In
   D.H. Graves  (Ed.), Proc.  Symp.  on Surface Mining
   Hydrol., Sedimentol.,  and Reclam.  University of
   Kentucky, Lexington.

Crawford, R.D., and J.A. Roasiter.  1982. General design
   considerations in creating artificial wetlands  for
   wildlife, p.  44-47.   In  D.  Svedarsky  and R.D.
   Crawford.  (Eds.),  Wildlife Values  of Gravel Pits.
   Misc.  Pub. 17-1982  Minnesota  Agric. Exp.  Stn.,
   University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Dames  and Moore.   1983.  A  Survey  of  Wetland
   Reclamation  Projects  in  the Florida  Phosphate
   Industry.  Publ. No. 03-019-011.  Florida Institute of
   Phosphate Research, Bartow.

Damman, A.W.H., and  T.W. French.   1987.   The
   Ecology of Peat Bogs of the Glaciated Northeastern
   United States: A Community Profile.  U.S. Fish
   Wild!. Serv. Biol. Rep. 87-38.
                                                     133

-------
Darnell, R.M.  1976.  Impacts of Construction Activities
   in Wetlands of the United States.  U.S. Environ. Prot.
   Agency, Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-76-045.

Doxtater, G.D.  1985. Potential of future mine-cut lakes, p.
   1-6.   In L.B.  Starnes (Ed.),  Fish  and  Wildlife
   Relationships  to Mining.   Proc.  Symp. 113th Ann.
   Meet. Am. Fish. Soc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Dunn, W.J., and G.R. Best. 1983.  Enhancing ecological
   succession:   5.  seed bank survey of  some Florida
   marshes  and  role of  seed  banks  in   marsh
   reclamation, p. 365-370.  In D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc.
   Symp. on Surface Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol., and
   Reclam.  University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Emerick, N.R.  1985. Nesting islands for  giant Canada
   geese on west-central Illinois strip-mine lands, p. 381.
   In R.P. Brooks,  D.E. Samuel and J.B. Hill (Eds.),
   Proc. Conf. Wetlands and Water Management on
   Mined Lands.  Pennsylvania State Univ.  University
   Park, Pennsylvania.

Erwin, K.L. 1985.  Fort Green reclamation project.  3rd
   Ann. Rep. Agrico Chemical Co., Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L., and G.R. Best.  1985.  Marsh community
   development  in a central  Florida  phosphate
   surface-mined  reclaimed wetland.   Wetlands
   5:155-166.

Fletcher, S.W.  1986. Planning and evaluation techniques
   for replacement of complex  stream  and  wetland
   drainage systems, p. 195-200.  In J. Harper and B.
   Plass  (Eds.),   New Horizons  for   Mined  Land
   Reclamation. Proc. Nat. Meet. Amer. Soc. for Surface
   Mining and Reclamation,  Princeton, West Virginia.

Florida Defenders of the Environment. 1984. Phosphate
   Mining in Florida:  A Source Book.  Environ. Serv.
   Cen., Gainesville, Florida.

Fowler, D.K.,  and  L.J. Turner.  1981.   Surface Mine
   Reclamation for Wildlife.  U.S. Dep.  Interior, Fish
   Wildl.  Serv., FWS/OBS-81/09, Washington, D.C.

Fowler,  D.K.,  D.M. Hill,  and  L.J.  Fowler.   1985.
   Colonization of coal  surface mine sediment ponds in
   southern Appalachia by aquatic organisms  and
   breeding amphibians, p. 261-280.  In R.P. Brooks, D JS.
   Samuel  and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proc.  Conf. Wetlands
   and  Water   Management  on  Mined   Lands.
   Pennsylvania  State  Univ.  University  Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Prayer, W.E.,  T.J.  Monahan,  D.C. Bowden and F.A.
   Graybill.  1983.   Status and Trends of  Wetlands  and
   Deepwater  Habitats in the  Conterminous  United
   States, 1950's to 1970's.  Dep. of Forest and Wood
   Sciences, Colorado  State  University, Fort  Collins
   Colorado.

Gallagher, T.J.   1982.   Eugene's urban  wildlife area:
   Delta Ponds, p. 122-126. In W.D. Svedarsky and R.D.
   Crawford.   (Eds.), Wildlife Values  of Gravel Pits.
   Misc.  Pub. 17-1982 Minnesota Agric.  Exp. Stn.,
   University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Gilbert, T., T. King, L.  Hord, and J.N. Allen, Jr.  1980.
   An assessment of wetlands establishment techniques
   at a Florida phosphate mine site. Proc. Ann. Conf.
   Restoration and Creation of Wetlands.  Hillsborough
   Community College, Tampa, Florida. 7:245-263.

Gilliam,  J.W.   1985.   Management  of agricultural
   drainage water for water quality, p. 208-215. In H.A.
   Groman, T.R. Henderson, E.J. Meyers, D.M.  Burke
   and J.A. Kusler (Eds.), Proc. Conf. Wetlands  of the
   Chesapeake.  Environmental  Law  Institute,
   Washington, D.C.

Girts, M.A.,  and  R.L.P. Kleinmann.  1986. Constructed
   wetlands for  treatment  of  acid  mine drainage: a
   preliminary  review, p. 165-171.   In D.H.  Graves
   (Ed.),  Proc.  Symp. on  Surface Mining Hydrol.,
   Sedimentol.,  and Reclam. University of Kentucky,
   Lexington.

Glazier, R.C., R.W.  Nelson,  and W.J. Logan.   1981.
   Planning for mine  cut lakes, p.  533-540.  In D.H.
   Graves  (Ed.), Proc.  Symp. on  Surface Mining
   Hydrol., Sedimentol.,  and  Reclam.  University of
   Kentucky, Lexington.

Gleich, J.G.  1985.  Why don't coal companies build
   wetlands?, p. 191- 194. In R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel
   and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proc.  Conf. Wetlands  and
   Water  Management  on Mined Lands.    Penn-
   sylvania   State   Univ.    University   Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Glesne, R.S., and C.J. Surprenant. 1979.  Summary of
   Central  States  Fishery Station  strip mine lake
   project reports 1973-1978, p. 123-125. In D.E. Samuel,
   J.R. Stauffer, Jr., C.H. Hocutt and W.T. Mason, Jr.
   (Eds.), Surface Mining and  Fish/Wildlife  Needs in
   the Eastern United States.   Addendum.  U.S. Dep.
   Interior,  Fish  Wildl.   Serv.  FWS/OBS-78/81,
   Washington,  D.C.

Grandt, A.F.  1981.  Permanent  water impoundments, p.
   123-136.  In Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation
   Symp. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

Haynes,  R.J.    1984.    Summary  of   wetlands
   reestablishment on surface-mined lands in Florida,
   p. 357-362.  In  D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc. Symp. on
   Surface  Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol., and Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Haynes,  R.J.   1986.   Surface mining  and  wetland
   reclamation strategies, p. 209-213. In J. Harper and
   B.  Plass (Eds.), New Horizons for Mined Land
   Reclamation.  Proc. Nat.  Meet.  Amer.  Soc.  for
   Surface  Mining and Reclamation, Princeton, West
   Virginia.

Hayes, L.A., J.R. Nawrot, and  W.D. Klimstra.  1984.
   Habitat   diversity  change   associated   with
   reclamation in Illinois, p. 363-368.  In D.H. Graves
   (Ed.),  Proc.   Symp. on  Surface  Mining  Hydrol.,
   Sedimentol.,  and Reclam. University of Kentucky,
   Lexington.

Hepp,  J.P.  1987.  An ecological survey  of four newly
   created  surface-mine  wetlands   in  central
   Pennsylvania.  M.S. Thesis.  Pennsylvania State
   Univ., University Park.

Herricks, E.E.  1982.  Development  of aquatic habitat
   potential of  gravel pits,  p.  196-207.   In W.D.
   Svedarsky  and  R.D. Crawford (Eds.),  Wildlife
   Values of Gravel Pits. Misc.  Pub.  17-1982 Minnesota
   Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
                                                    134

-------
Hill, J.B.  1986.  Wildlife use of wetlands on coal surface
   mines in  western  Pennsylvania.   M.S. Thesis.
   Pennsylvania   State  Univ.,  University  Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Hudson, M.S.   1983.   Waterfowl  production  of three
   age-classes of stock ponds in Montana.   J. Wildl.
   Manage.  47:112-117.

Jones, D.W., M.J. McElligott, and R.H. Mannz. 1985a.
   Biological,   Chemical,   and    Morphological
   Characterization of 33 Surface Mine Lakes  in Illinois
   and Missouri. Peabody Coal Co., Freeburg,  Illinois.

Jones,  D.W.,  R.H.  Mannz,  M.J.  McElligott, and B.
   Imboden. 1985b.  A rotenone survey to determine the
   standing crop of fishes in  a 21-acre  surface-mine lake
   in St. Clair County, Illinois, p. 7-13. In L.B. Starnes
   (Ed.), Fish and  Wildlife Relationships to Mining.
   Proc. Symp.  113th  Ann. Meet.   Am.  Fish. Soc.,
   Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

King, T., L. Hord, T.  Gilbert, F. Montalbano, III, and J.A.
   Allen, Jr.  1980.  An evaluation of wetland habitat
   establishment and wildlife  utilization  of phosphate
   clay settling ponds. Proc. Ann. Conf. Restoration and
   Creation of  Wetlands.   Hillsborough Community
   College, Tampa, Florida. 7:245-263.

King,  T., R.  Stout, and T. Gilbert.   1985.   Habitat
   Reclamation  Guidelines.    Off.   Environ.  Serv.,
   Florida  Game   and Fresh  Water Fish  Comm.,
   Barstow, Florida.

Klimstra, W.D.  and J.R. Nawrot.  1982.  Water as a
   reclamation alternative: an assessment  of values, p.
   39-44. In D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc.  Symp. on Surface
   Mining   Hydrol.,   Sedimentol.,   and   Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Klimstra, W.D.,  J.R. Nawrot, and M.R. Santner.  1985.
   Recreation  utilization  of surface-mined  lands, p.
   403-408.  In D.H. Graves (Ed.), Proc. Symp. on Surface
   Mining   Hydrol.,   Sedimentol.,   and   Reclam.
   University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Koopman,  R.W.   1982.   Pits,  ponds,  and  people:
   reclamation  and public  use,  p. 127-131.   In W.D.
   Svedarsky  and  R.D.  Crawford   (Eds.),   Wildlife
   Values of Gravel Pits. Misc. Pub. 17-1982, Minnesota
   Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Leedy, D.L.  1981.  Coal Surface Mining Reclamation and
   Fish and  Wildlife  Relationships  in  the  Eastern
   United States. Vol. 1. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl.
   Serv. FWS/OBS-80/24, Washington, D.C.

Leedy,  D.L., and T.L Franklin.   1981.  Coal Surface
   Mining  Reclamation   and  Fish  and  Wildlife
   Relationships in the Eastern United States. Vol. 2.
   U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/25,
   Washington, D.C.

Lomax, J.L.  1982.  Wildlife use of mineral extraction
   industry  sites in and coastal plains of New Jersey, p.
   115-121.   In W.D.  Svedarsky  and R.D.  Crawford
   (Eds.), Wildlife  Values of Gravel  Pits. Misc.  Pub.
   17-1982,  Minnesota  Agric. Exp. Stn.,  University of
   Minnesota, St. Paul.

Mannz, R.H.  1985.  Recreational fishing in surface
   mine lakes  - a  case study  in St.  Clair County,
   Illinois,  p. 409-415.  In  D.H. Graves (Ed.),  Proc.
   Symp. on Surface Mining Hydrol., Sedimentol., and
   Reclam.  University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Marion, W.R., and T.E.  O'Meara.   1983.   Phosphate
   reclamation plans  and  changes in wildlife habitat
   diversity,  p.  498-509.   In  D.J.  Robertson  (Ed.),
   Reclamation  and the  Phosphate  Industry.  Proc.
   Symp. of Florida Inst.  of Phosphate Res., Bartow,
   Florida.

McGee, G.W., and J.C. Harper, II. 1986.  Guidelines for
   Reclamation of  Severely Disturbed  Areas.   ST-7
   Pennsylvania State University Extension Service,
   University Park.

McRae,  S.G.   1986.   Opportunities  for  creative
   reclamation following sand and gravel extraction,
   p. 51-53.  In  J.  Harper and B. Plass (Eds.), New
   Horizons for  mined Land Reclamation.  Proc. Nat.
   Meet.  Amer.  Soc.   for  Surface  Mining  and
   Reclamation, Princeton, West Virginia.

Mining and Reclamation  Council of America  and Hess
   & Fisher Engineers,  Inc.    1985.   Handbook  of
   Alternative  Sediment  Control Methodologies  for
   Mined  Lands.   U.S.  Dep. Interior, Off. Surface
   Mining,  Washington,  D.C.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.   1981.
   Minnesota Peat  Program. Final Report. St.  Paul,
   Minnesota.

Montalbano, F.,  W.M.  Hetrick,  and T.C.  Hines.   1978.
   Duck  foods in central Florida  phosphate settling
   ponds, p. 247-255. In  D£. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer, Jr.,
   C.H.  Hocutt and W.T. Mason,  Jr. (Eds.),  Surface
   Mining  and Fish/Wildlife  Needs  in the Eastern
   United States. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv.
   FWS/OBS-78/81,  Washington,  D.C.

National Research Council.  1980.   Surface Mining  of
   Non-Coal Minerals.  Appendix  I: Sand and gravel
   mining  and quarrying and  blasting for crushed
   stone  and other construction materials.   National
   Academy of Sciences,  Washington, D.C.

Nawrot, J.R. 1985.  Wetland development on coal mine
   slurry  impoundments: principles, planning, and
   practices, p. 161-172.  In R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel
   and J.B. Hill (Eds.),  Proc.  Conf.  Wetlands and
   Water  Management  on  Mined  Lands.   Penn-
   sylvania   State   Univ.   University   Park,
   Pennsylvania.

Nelson, R.W. and Associates.    1982.   Planning and
   Management  of  Mine-Cut  Lakes at  Surface Coal
   Mines.  U.S. Dep. Interior,  Off. Surface Mining.
   OSM/TR-82/1, Washington, D.C.

O'Leary, W.G., W.D.  Klimstra, and J.R. Nawrot.  1984.
   Waterfowl habitats  on  reclaimed  surface mined
   lands in southwestern Illinois, p. 377-382.  In D.H.
   Graves  (Ed.), Proc.  Symp. on Surface  Mining
   Hydrol., Sedimentol.,  and Reclam.   University  of
   Kentucky, Lexington.

Peltz, L.R. and O.E.  Maughan.  1978.  Analysis of fish
   populations  and selected  physical  and chemical
   parameters of five strip mine ponds in Wise County,
   Virginia  with implications  for  management,  p.
   171-176.  In D.E.  Samuel,  J.R.  Stauffer, Jr., C.H.
                                                    135

-------
   Hocutt  and W.T. Mason,  Jr. (Eds.), Surface Mining
   and Fish/Wildlife  Needs in the  Eastern  United
   States.    U.S.  Dep.  Interior,  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.
   FWS/OBS-78/81, Washington, D.C.

Pentecost,  E.D.  and R.C.  Stupka.   1979.   Wildlife
   investigations at a coal refuse  reclamation site in
   southern Illinois, p. 107-118.  In D.E. Samuel,  J.R.
   Stauffer, Jr., C.H. Hocutt and W.T. Mason, Jr. (Eds.),
   Surface Mining and  Fish/Wildlife  Needs  in  the
   Eastern United States.  U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl.
   Serv. FWS/OBS-78/81, Washington, B.C.

Rafaill, B.L.  and W.G. Vogel.  1978.   A Guide for
   Vegetating Surface-Mined Lands for Wildlife in
   Eastern Kentucky  and West Virginia.   U.S. Dep.
   Interior,   Fish Wildl.   Serv.    FWS/OBS-78/84,
   Washington, D.C.

Robertson,  D.J. (Ed). 1983. New directions for phosphate
   mine reclamation, p. 510-516. In D.J. Robertson (Ed.),
   Reclamation and  the Phosphate Industry.  Proc.
   Symp.  of Florida Inst. of Phosphate Res., Bartow,
   Florida.

Rogowski, A.S. 1978.  Water regime in strip mine spoil,
   p. 137-145. In D.E. Samuel, J.R.  Stauffer, Jr., C.H.
   Hocutt  and W.T. Mason,  Jr. (Eds.), Surface Mining
   and Fish/Wildlife  Needs in the  Eastern  United
   States.    U.S.  Dep.  Interior,  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.
   FWS/OBS-78/81, Washington, D.C.

Sandusky,  J.E. 1978.  The potential for management  of
   waterfowl  nesting habitat on reclaimed mined land,
   p. 325-327. In D.E. Samuel, J.R.  Stauffer, Jr., C.H.
   Hocutt  and W.T. Mason,  Jr. (Eds.), Surface Mining
   and Fish/Wildlife  Needs in the  Eastern  United
   States.    U.S.  Dep.  Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv.
   FWS/OBS-78/81, Washington, D.C.

Schaller, F.W. and P. Button  (Eds.).  1978.  Reclamation
   of Drastically  Disturbed  Lands:  Proceedings  of a
   Symposium.  Amer.  Soc.  Agronomy, Madison,
   Wisconsin.

Soil   Conservation   Service.  1979.   Engineering
   FieldManual for Conservation Practices. U.S. Dep.
   Agric.,  Washington, D.C.
Sponaler, M., W.D. Klimstra and J.R. Nawrot.  1984.
    Comparison of avian populations on unmined and
    reclaimed lands  in  Illinois, p.  369-376.  In D.H.
    Graves (Ed.),  Symp.  Surface Mining,  Hydrology,
    Sedimentology, and Reclamation.  University  of
    Kentucky, Lexington.

Street, M.  1982.  The Great Linford Wildfowl Research
    Project - a  case  history,  p. 21-33.  In Wildlife  on
    Man-Made Wetlands. Proc. Symp. A.R.C. Wildfowl
    Centre, Great Linford, England.

Thompson,  C.S.  1984. Experimental practices in surface
    mining coal—creating  wetland habitat.   National
    Wetlands Newsletter 6(2)0.5-16.

Tiner, R.W., Jr.  and J.T. Finn.  1986. Status and Recent
    Trends of Wetlands in Five Mid-Atlantic States.
    U.S.  Pish  Wildl.  Serv.  National  Wetlands
    Inventory,  Newton Corner, Massachusetts/U.S.
    Environ. Prot. Agency Region HI, Philadelphia.

Warburton, D.B., W.B. Klimstra, and J.R. Nawrot. 1985.
    Aquatic macrophyte  propagation  and planting
    practices for wetland establishment,  p. 139-152.  In
    R.P. Brooks, DJ3. Samuel, and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proc.
    Conf. Wetlands and Water Management on Mined
    Lands.  Pennsylvania  State Univ. University Park,
    Pennsylvania.

Wetzel, R.G.  1975.   Limnology.  W.B. Saunders Co.,
    Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania.

Wieder, R.K. and G.E. Lang.  1986.  Fe, Al, Mn, and S
    chemistry of Sphagnum peat in four peatlands with
    different metal and  sulfur input.  Water. Air,  and
    Soil Poll. 29:309-320.

Williams,  G.L.   1985.   Classifying  wetlands according
    to  relative  wildlife value: application to water
    impoundments, p.  110-119.    In M.D. Knighton
    (comp.), Proc. Water Impoundments for Wildlife: A
    Habitat Management Workshop.  U.S. Dep. Agric.,
    For. Serv.,  North Central For. Exp. Stn.,  St. Paul,
    Minnesota.

Wyngaard, G.A.  1985.  Ethical and ecological concerns
    in  land reclamation  policy: an analysis  of  the
    Surface Mining  Control and Reclamation  Act of
    1977, p. 75-81. In R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B.
    Hill  (Eds.),  Proc.  Conf.  Wetlands  and  Water
    Management on Mined Lands.  Pennsylvania State
    Univ. University Park, Pennsylvania.
                                                     136

-------
          MITIGATION AND THE SECTION 404 PROGRAM:
                                  A PERSPECTIVE
                                 William L. Kruczynski1
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                        Region IV
    ABSTRACT.  Although the basic language of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
    Control Act Amendments of 1972 has not changed substantially since the Program's inception,
    the Program has  evolved through revisions in U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers (Corps)
    Regulations and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines, and the judicial history
    of wetland case law.  Compensatory replacement mitigation appeared early in the program as
    an attempt to replace loss of wetlands, at least on paper. It appeared in projects for which
    federal commenting agencies chose not to dispute issuance of a Corps permit.

       The  EPA and the Corps are currently negotiating a joint mitigation policy, but there
    remains a difference of opinion  between the agencies concerning how mitigation should be
    considered in the permitting process. It is EPA's position that the presumption that there are
    alternatives to the  destruction of wetlands cannot be overcome by the applicant's promise to
    create new wetlands.  However, compensatory replacement mitigation may be appropriate for
    projects  for which there  are no practicable alternatives and all  appropriate and practicable
    minimization has been required.  There are three categories of proposed projects, those for
    which impacts are:  (1)  significant regardless of proposed mitigation, (2) significant unless
    sufficiently offset  by mitigation,  and (3) not significant.   Consideration of the role of
    compensatory mitigation for  projects which are not immediately  rejected  from further
    consideration because of the magnitude of the environmental losses must be made on a case-by-
    case basis.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    Compensatory replacement mitigation is the
attempted  replacement of the  functions  and
values of wetlands proposed for  filling through
creation  of new wetlands  or enhancement of
existing wetlands.

    In order to better understand the ongoing
controversy concerning the role of mitigation in
evaluating  Section  404  permit applications, it
is  necessary  to  discuss briefly the history of
wetlands mitigation and the role of the Section
404 (b)(l) Guidelines in the permit application
review process. This discussion will demonstrate
how the inappropriate application of mitigation to
projects can transform a straightforward review
procedure into a  complex and confusing analysis
based more  upon perceptions than  scientific
principles.
                                        HISTORY
    A review  of the legislative and  judicial
history of the  Section 404 program is given by
Liebesman (1984, 1986), Want (1984), and Nagle
(1985). Section 404 was enacted as part of Public
Law 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), to control
pollution  from  discharges of dredged or fill
material  into  waters of the United  States.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is responsible for administration of the
Clean  Water  Act, Congress authorized  the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps
of Engineers, to issue permits under Section 404,
since that agency had been regulating dredging
and placement of structures in navigable waters
under  the Rivers and  Harbors  Act of 1899.
However,  Congress, in Section 404(b),  directed
the EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, to develop
    1The views expressed in this chapter are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views
or the policies of the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                            137

-------
the environmental  standards,  known as  the
Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines, for  the  program.
Nothing in Section 404 of the FWPCA delineated
the role of the Guidelines in the permit review
process, but Congress clearly intended that the
Guidelines  should  provide   environmental
criteria by which to judge  the suitability of
disposal  sites.  In addition  to  the  Guidelines,
Congress, under  Section 404(c), gave  EPA the
authority to  prohibit, withdraw or restrict the
specification  of  a  404 discharge  site.  This
authority, which is known as  a 404(c) "veto", can
be used  by EPA to prevent the  unacceptable
adverse impact of a 404 project.

    On September 5,1975, EPA, after consultation
with the  Corps, published in  interim final form,
the  Section  404(b)(l)  Guidelines,  which
established  regulatory  considerations  and
objectives to govern   decisions  concerning
issuance  of  Section  404  permits.    These
considerations included avoiding  discharges
that disrupt aquatic food chains and destroy
significant wetlands, avoiding  degradation of
water  quality,  and protecting fish and shellfish
resources.   These regulations  also  set forth a
presumption that a permit will not be granted for
work in  a wetland unless  the applicant clearly
demonstrates  that,  for non water dependent
projects,  there are  no less environmentally
damaging, practicable alternatives available.

    In  1977,  Congress  amended  the FWPCA
through passage of the Clean Water  Act (CWA).
Although sections were  added to Section 404 to
exempt  certain  discharges,  such  as normal
agricultural and  silvicultural activities,  and to
establish procedures for transfer of the program
to the  states,  Congress did  not change  the basic
outline of the program which had evolved through
Corps  Regulations, EPA Guidelines and judicial
review.

    From 1977 through 1980,  there was  little
conflict  between  the  Corps  and  EPA  in
implementing the Program.  Although the Corps
initially  wanted  to  restrict the extent of  its
geographical jurisdiction,  the  Corps  complied
with a court  ruling (NRDC  vs. Callaway) and
issued  revised Regulations on  July 19,  1977,
which  expanded the  definition of "waters of the
United  States"  to  include  wetlands.  The
Regulations declared that "wetlands are  vital
areas that constitute a valuable public resource,
the unnecessary alteration  or destruction of
which  should  be discouraged as contrary to the
public  interest".   The  Corps Regulations also
reiterated the presumption  against  filling
wetlands  for  non water dependent  projects as
stated  in  the 1975 EPA Guidelines.  The Corps
proposed that each District Engineer consult with
the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service (FWS),
National Marine Fisheries  Service (NMFS), Soil
Conservation  Service, EPA, and state agencies
in reaching a  decision on whether "the benefits
of a proposed alteration outweigh the damage to
the wetland resource"  and whether "the proposed
alteration is necessary to realize those benefits".
This has been called  the  Corps' public interest
review. The  District  Engineer also had  to
"consider whether the  proposed   activity  is
primarily dependent on being located in, or in
close proximity to, the aquatic environment and
whether feasible alternative sites are available".
The Corps Regulations place the burden of proof
on the applicant to provide information on the
water dependency of a project and evaluation of
alternative sites.

    The EPA promulgated revised Guidelines on
December 24,  1980. These Guidelines reiterated
the water  dependency tests and presumption
against alteration of wetlands found  in the 1975
interim  Guidelines   and  the 1977  Corps
Regulations. The Guidelines also expanded these
presumptions  to include special aquatic  sites
which  include  sanctuaries  and  refuges,
wetlands, mudflats, vegetated  shallows, coral
reefs,  and riffle  and  pool  complexes.  These
Guidelines establish a fundamental premise that
"the degradation or destruction of special aquatic
sites  ... may  represent an irreversible loss of
valuable aquatic resources" and that  "dredged or
fill material should not be discharged into the
aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated
that  such  a  discharge  will  not  have  an
unacceptable adverse impact".

    The  binding, regulatory  nature  of  the
Guidelines  was  emphasized   in   the 1980
Guidelines because some Corps Districts were
issuing Section  404  permits  for  non  water
dependent activities  when  there   were less
environmentally damaging alternatives.  Prior
to 1982, when EPA, FWS, or NMFS objected to
issuance of a Corps permit, the objecting agency
could  elevate the  permit  decision  to  higher
authority. In Region IV during the mid and late
1970's, the threat of  elevation of a District
Engineer's decisions  was usually  enough  to
result  in modification, withdrawal, or denial of
permit  applications   for   environmentally
unacceptable projects.  Few permits were elevated
each year to Corps Divisions and fewer yet were
elevated  to the  Office of Chief of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.

    In 1981,  the President's Task Force on
Regulatory  Relief  targeted the  Section 404
Program  for reform.   This reform effort  seemed
to question, among other things, the  extent to
which  the EPA Guidelines should be treated as
binding and regulatory.  The Corps  issued new
Regulations as a regulatory relief measure in
July 1982 in interim  final form. The intent of
these Regulations was to expedite  the permit
issuing process  and  expand  the  nationwide
permit program.
                                              138

-------
    In  July  1982  the   Corps  revised  the
memoranda of agreement MOA with EPA, FWS,
and  NMFS regarding elevation  of permit
decisions.  The  new  MOA's stated  that only
specific, higher level, officials of those agencies
could request elevation and that the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) had the sole
discretion to grant such requests.   As a result,
federal agencies  charged  with protection of
natural resources were less able  to influence
Corps permitting decisions.  Because of shortened
processing  time, increased workloads, logistics,
and  interagency  politics,   compensatory
replacement mitigation was frequently used in
some parts of the country to resolve differences of
opinions between  federal  agencies concerning
the  "public interest  review".  Other  Corps
Districts issued permits over agency objections
without any  mitigation.  Consideration  of
compensatory  mitigation  appearance  in
permitting decisions was seemingly justified by
some promising results  in wetland creation
projects  which had  appeared in the scientific
literature.

    Since the inception of  the Program, various
factors  made compensatory  replacement
mitigation  a  popular  option in  the federal
permitting  process.  The FWS and NMFS did not
have any  authority similar to the  EPA veto
authority under Section 404(c). Thus, as early as
1975 agencies would compromise their positions
on a permit application as  long as there was, at
least on paper, no  net loss  of wetlands.  Federal
agencies recommended compensatory replace-
ment mitigation, in part, due to EPA's hesitancy
to use its  404(c) authority.  Also,  elevation of
Corps decisions was difficult at best, even  before
regulatory  relief measures  were adopted.   Some
agencies may have rationalized that since the
Corps, in some cases, would issue permits  for
projects  which were non water dependent and
which had practicable alternatives,  replacement
mitigation  was  a  method of  getting   some
environmental  benefit  in  exchange for filling
activities.  Agencies within Region  IV  began
writing letters  in response  to the Corps'  public
notices which stated that they would not object to
permit issuance provided that a similar area of
wetlands  was created in  exchange  for the
wetlands to be  filled.  Work in the mid and late
1970's seemed to show that  certain  wetland
systems could be created by man; this was used
as   a  further rationalization  to  support
replacement mitigation.  Response of agencies to
Corps public notices which included a request for
compensatory replacement mitigation  became
more common  after  regulatory relief measures
were in  place  and were a clear signal to the
Corps that agencies would not elevate permit
decisions.  A decrease in elevations assured the
Corps that it could meet its goal of shortening
processing time  for  permit  applications.
Commenting federal  agencies, particularly after
regulatory relief measures were in place, felt
that they had "no practicable alternatives" other
than  to recommend that  wetland losses  be
mitigated   through   attempted   wetland
replacement.  "Mitigation"  came  to  mean
minimize  adverse  impacts  regardless  of
alternatives,  and   when  that  cannot  be
accomplished, attempt to replace wetlands lost.

    On   the  surface, requiring replacement
mitigation seemed to be an equitable solution to a
problem.  However,  the  Section  404(b)(l)
Guidelines  were  regularly  being ignored in
some regions when compensatory mitigation was
offered.  This  was rationalized  by concluding
that any losses of fish and wildlife habitat and
other wetland functions  were replaced  through
attempted  wetland creation.   Also  ignored  was
the hidden environmental cost of  changing or
altering existing habitats  with values  in  their
present  states  in  hopes  of improving  these
wetland values.

    Consultants for  applicants quickly adopted
mitigation  as a means of obtaining permits and
undermanned and overworked agency review
staffs  were  soon faced with  many   difficult
decisions.  In many cases, because there  were
little or no data upon which to base decisions,
inconsistent  recommendations   were  made
concerning acceptable replacement mitigation,
including  buying  and   donating   lands,
mitigation banking,  out-of-kind  replacement,
and off-site replacement.  Typically, a permit for
filling a wetland, for  whatever reason, could be
obtained if the applicant was willing to create a
similar wetland by  scraping down uplands to
wetlands elevations and  planting the area with
appropriate species.  There was little or no data
available regarding  the  scientific capability of
replicating   many  kinds   of  wetlands,
particularly  during  the  early  years of the
program. Also, little or no monitoring of wetland
creation projects was required.

    Although  numbers  fluctuated at  first, it
became standard  practice in the southeastern
United  States to require  replacement mitigation
at  a ratio of 1.5:1 on an acre for acre  basis.
Agencies rationalized that  greater than 1:1 was
justified because of the  uncertainty of wetland
creation and to compensate for the length of time
that it  would take to replace fully functional
systems.  Corps  Districts in Region IV  generally
accepted  this  argument  and  included  1.5:1
mitigation as a condition to Corps permits.

    Wetland  creation  practices  developed
concurrently  with the regulatory history.   Ex-
amples  of some  pioneers  in the field on the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts include  Savage (1972),
Woodhouse,   Seneca,  and   Broome   (1972),
Eleuterius (1974), Garbisch  et al.  (1975),  and
Lewis and Lewis (1978).  At  this same  time, in
                                             139

-------
response to growing environmental  awareness
and  the  increasing  problem  of acceptable
disposal  of   dredged   material,  Congress
authorized the Corps' Dredged Material Research
Program in  1973. One of the  primary efforts of
that program was  to  assess  the feasibility of
developing  habitats   on  dredged  material
substrate.   Although  research  in   wetlands
creation originally began as attempts to stabilize
dredged material and eroding  shorelines, it soon
developed in  the 1970's into the business of
planting wetlands in exchange for wetland acres
permitted to  be filled.   A  symposium  which
started modestly in  1974  as a "Conference on the
Restoration  of Coastal  Vegetation in  Florida"
soon  became  a major  scientific  vehicle to
demonstrate what kinds  of mitigation for dredge
and fill projects were available. The  conference
is  now entitled "Conference on the Restoration
and Creation of Wetlands" and is international
in scope and interest. Initial successes of marsh
creation projects in  1975  through 1978 were used
as further justification  of replacement mitigation
for Section 404 permits.

    Revised  Corps Regulations, published in July
1982, provided little recognition of the regulatory
role  of the  Section 404(b)(l)  Guidelines in the
review of permit applications for certain types of
wetlands and contained  Nationwide Permits for
all dredge or fill activities in two categories  of
waters,  isolated  waters and  waters  above
headwaters.  The National Wildlife Federation
challenged these Corps  Regulations  on several
counts including the role of the Guidelines in the
review   process   and  the   cumulative
environmental  impacts  of   the  nationwide
permits for activities  in the  two categories of
waters. This suit was  settled  in February 1984
and  the  Corps agreed  to  promulgate new
regulations  which  acknowledged, among other
things, the regulatory nature  of the  EPA
Guidelines.  The Corps also agreed to establish
acreage limitations for Nationwide Permits for
isolated and headwater  waterbodies.  The Corps
published revised regulations in October 1984
and again in November 1986. The primacy of the
Guidelines in the Section 404 review process was
settled and the Corps agreed that no permit can be
issued unless it complies with the requirements
of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. A permit that
complies with the  Guidelines will  be issued
unless the  District Engineer  determines that it
would be contrary  to the public interest.  This
sequencing clearly  and explicitly highlights the
priority of the Section  404(b)(l)  Guidelines in
permitting decisions.

    In  1985,  the   agencies   negotiated new
memoranda  of  agreement which reestablished a
first stage elevation of permitting decisions to the
Corps  Division  Engineers.   In  EPA's  case  a
difference in interpretation of the Guidelines is
one criterion by which a permit decision may be
elevated.

    In 1981, the  FWS formalized its mitigation
policy and included Guideline precepts (FR 456,
15:7644-7663).   The policy also  established
"resource categories" which defines "significant
impact" by delineating wetland types  which
receive  different  levels of review.  Mitigation
can be considered by FWS for proposals that:

1.   Are ecologically  sound.

2.   Select  the   least  environmentally   dam-
    aging alternative.

3.   Avoid or minimize loss of fish and wildlife
    resources.

4.   Adopt  all measures  to  compensate  for
    unavoidable loss.

5.   Demonstrate  a public need and are  clearly
    water dependent.

    EPA and the  Corps are currently working on
a joint mitigation policy. However, as previously
mentioned, there  remains a difference of opinion
between the agencies concerning if and when
mitigation  should  be  considered  in  the
permitting process.   The recent  Attleboro Mall
404(c) case highlighted the differences of opinion
between the  Corps and EPA on the  place  of
mitigation  in the  stepwise  application  of the
Guidelines. Although it is beyond the scope of this
document  to  discuss  that  case  fully, it  is
important to recognize that the Corps position in
this case was  that if mitigation will  theoretically
offset the adverse impacts to wetlands with a  net
result of "zero impact", a permit applicant need
not  seek  a  less  environmentally damaging
alternative. Several  other Corps Districts also
appear to  be  taking this  position  on  the
application  of mitigation in the  review process.
Conversely, a recent paper by  Thompson and
Williams-Dawe (1988) presents legal, scientific,
and policy grounds to reject this interpretation of
the Guidelines in  the decision  process.   They
state that  the Guidelines  support a sequential
approach  to  mitigation  and that mitigation
cannot substitute for the alternatives test.  The
presumption  that  there  are alternatives  to
destruction  of a wetland cannot be overcome by
the promise to reduce wetland  destruction or
create new wetlands elsewhere.

    Thompson and Williams-Dawe (1988) state
further that  failure to  follow  the  stepwise
approach  of  review given  in  the Guidelines
creates practical difficulties.  For  example, it has
become commonplace  to  contemplate,  "What
acreage of  created permanent  waterbodies  is
adequate  mitigation for  filling  of  seasonally
                                              140

-------
flooded wetlands for  residential  development?"
Elaborate procedures  such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures
and  the  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation
Wetland Functional Assessment  Technique, and
other methods are  available  to  answer  such
difficult questions. But proper application of the
Guidelines may obviate the need to ask  such
questions in most cases.
          GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES
    The Section 404 Guidelines establish specific
restrictions which require that no discharge
should be permitted unless:

1.  There   are   no  less  environmentally
    damaging  practicable alternatives  to the
    proposed   plan.  These  alternatives  are
    presumed for non water dependent activities
    in special aquatic sites.

2.  The discharge will not result in a. violation
    of the water quality standards, toxic effluent
    standards,  jeopardize  and  endangered
    species, or  violate requirements imposed to
    protect a marine sanctuary.

3.  The discharge will not cause or contribute to
    significant  degradation, either individually
    or cumulatively, of:

    a.  Human health or welfare, water quality
        supply,  fish,   plankton,   shellfish,
        wildlife, or special aquatic sites;

    b.  Life  stages of  aquatic  life or  water
        dependent wildlife;

    c.  Aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity
        or stability; or

    d.  Recreation,  aesthetics  or  economic
        values.

4.  All practicable steps are taken to minimize
    adverse impacts.

    During  the evolution of the Section  404
program, and in accordance with the 404(b)(l)
Guidelines,  the  fourth restriction  includes
compensatory replacement mitigation as a form
of impact minimization.  Historically, the role of
replacement mitigation in the  decision making
process has been inconsistent and has resulted in
confusion in the application of the Guidelines.
ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
OF THE GUIDELINES

    Since EPA  and the Corps  are seeking to
develop  a  joint  policy on mitigation, it is
therefore premature to give a definitive statement
on the role of mitigation in the application of the
Guidelines.  Thus, the following discussion is an
analysis of the author's  interpretation of the
application of the Guidelines in the review  of a
permit application.

    For many years, EPA  has publicly taken the
position that mitigation  should  occur in  the
sequence of avoidance first,  then  minimization
and,  lastly,  compensation  of   unavoidable
impacts. EPA considers these  specific elements
to represent the required sequence of steps in the
mitigation  planning process as it relates to the
requirements  set  forth  in  the  404(b)(l)
Guidelines. A review of a  proposed  permit's
acceptability under the Guidelines should follow
a sequence of events:  (1) avoidance  [Section
230.10(a)],  (2) impact minimization  [Section
230.10(d)],  and finally,  (3)  compensation by
techniques  such as restoration  and  creation
[Subpart H].  The  highest  level  of mitigation
appropriate and  practicable (as practicable is
defined in the Guidelines at Section 230.3) should
be achieved at a  given step prior  to applying
techniques in the next step.

    In  light  of   the  above, compensatory
mitigation  of wetlands should not  be considered
in the initial analysis.  That analysis should be
confined to a consideration of alternative sites or
designs, construction methods, or other logistical
considerations. If all impacts cannot be avoided,
other forms of minimization can be factored into
a  determination  of whether  there  are  less
environmentally damaging alternatives.  If an
applicant fails to demonstrate that there are no
practicable,  less   environmentally damaging
alternatives to the proposed action,  the applicant
fails to meet the test of the first restriction even if
the applicant proposes  to replace  the wetlands
intended for filling.

    Both   minimization  of  impacts   and
replacement of wetlands could be factors in
determining whether a project passes the second
restriction.  For example,  a project which would
result in a  violation of a water quality standard,
such as turbidity, could be redesigned  to reduce
the size of  the project or treat runoff, and these
modifications  could result  in  meeting  the
standard.   It is possible that wetlands created to
compensate  for  wetlands  unavoidably  lost
through filling could also be part of the treatment
system.
                                             141

-------
      There is general agreement concerning the
  relationship between the  third  and  fourth
  restriction  concerning minimization of impacts.
  It is conceivable that impacts could be minimized
  to   a  level  which  is  no longer considered
  significant. Thus, as  proposed  impacts  of a
  project  are  reduced, the  significance  of the
  impacts  can be  reevaluated  and, if  found
  acceptable,  a project could be determined  to
  comply  with the  Guidelines.  Appropriate and
  practicable compensatory  mitigation  will  be
  required for unavoidable adverse impacts which
  remain  after  all   other  appropriate  and
  practicable minimization has been required.

      However,   there  have   been  different
  interpretations  on  the role  of compensatory
  mitigation in the test of significant impacts. The
  underlying  reason for conflicting  opinions  on
  this matter is the lack of a standard definition of
  what   constitutes  a "significant" impact.   There
 are  good reasons  for  the lack  of  a standard
 definition of "significant" since the determina-
 tion must be  made at a local  or regional level
 because of differences  in the  sensitivity  of
 habitats nationally. Because of the  uncertainty
 regarding the success of compeatory mitigation,
 a cautious approach should be taken in reaching
 a finding of no significant degradation based on
 this type of mitigation. Further,  there are some
 wetland habitats  in  which  any filling would
 result in significant  degradation regardless of
 the  apparent example,  it is inconceivable that
 filling  for residential  development  could  be
 allowed in  a vast area  of  fully  functional
 Everglades wetlands or a pristine intertidal  red
 mangrove swamp.  Wetland habitats can be, and
 indeed  have been, ranked locally or  regionally
 and some of  these listings provide   notice  of
 habitats  in   which   any  filling activity would
 be considered  to be significant.
                                         CONCLUSION
      In summary, consideration must be made on
  a case-by-case basis of the role of compensatory
  mitigation  for  projects  which  are  not
  immediately rejected from further consideration,
  because of the magnitude of the environmental
  losses they pose. Discharges into wetlands can be
  significant regardless of mitigation, significant
  unless  offset   through   mitigation,   or  not
 significant.  The  second  category  is  most
 complex.   For  projects  in  this   category,
 consideration of whether  a proposed mitigation
 plan  will  actually  prevent  the  significant
 impacts  from  occurring must  be  carefully
 evaluated.  Factors to be  considered  in making
 this determination  are considered in  the next
 chapter.
                                       LITERATURE CITED
Eleuterius, L.N. 1974. A Study of Plant Establishment on
   Spoil  areas  in Mississippi Sound and  Adjacent
   Waters. Contract Report DA 1-72-C-0001, U.S. Army
   Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Garbisch, E.W., Jr., P.B. Woller,  and R.J. McCallum.
   1975.  Salt Marsh Establishment and Development.
   Technical Manual 52, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
   Coastal Engineering Research  Center, Fort Belvoir,
   Virginia.

Lewis, R.R. and C.S. Lewis. 1978.  Tidal marsh creation
   on dredged material in Tampa Bay, Florida, p. 45-67.
   In Proc.  Fourth Annual Conf. Restoration Coastal
   Vegetation  Florida,  May 14,  1977. Hillsborough
   Comm. Coll., Tampa, Florida.

Liebesman, L.R. 1984. The  role of EPA's Guidelines in
   the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit  program-
   Judicial   interpretation  and   administrative
   application. Environmental Law Reporter. News and
   Analysis 14:10272-10278.

Liebesman, L.R. 1986. Recent Developments under the
   Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
   Program.  American Bar Assoc., Water Qual. Comm.
   Workshop, January 10, 1986, Washington, D.C.
Nagle, E.W. 1985. Wetlands protection and the neglected
   child of the Clean Water Act: A proposal for shared
   custody of Section 404. Virginia Jour. Nat. Res. Law
   5:227-257.

Savage, T. 1972.  Florida Mangroves as Shoreline
   Stabilizers. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Prof. Papers Ser. No.
   19.

Thompson, D.A. and A.H. Williams-Dawe.  1988.  Key
   404 Program Issues in Wetland Mitigation, p. 49-53.
   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 Wetlands Managers,  Berne,
   New York.

Want, W.L. 1984. Federal Wetlands Law:  The cases
   and the problems.  Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 8(1):
   1-54.

Woodhouse,  W.W., E.D. Seneca, and  S.W.  Broome.
   1972. Marsh Building with Dredge Spoil  in North
   Carolina.  Bull. 445, Agric.   Exper.  Sta., North
   Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
                                                 142

-------
      OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PREPARATION AND
                 EVALUATION OF MITIGATION PLANS
                                 William L. Kruczynski1
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                        Region IV
    ABSTRACT.  Consideration of compensatory mitigation should be confined to projects which
    comply with  the Environmental Protection Agency's Section  404(b)(l)  Guidelines.   The
    complexity  of designing a successful  mitigation plan is due to specific  characteristics of
    many types of wetlands and the many options available at mitigation sites.  The types of
    compensatory mitigation, in order of preference, are: restoration, creation, enhancement,
    exchange.   Preservation  should  only be considered  when  the  ecological benefits of
    preservation greatly outweigh the environmental losses of an unavoidable  filling activity.

       A methodology based upon rating of the options is presented to aid in  the selection of an
    acceptable mitigation  plan.  In general, on-site, in-kind, up-front mitigation  is the preferred
    option.  However, other options may  be acceptable based  upon availability of sites, plant
    material, and other variables.  The proposed methodology should be used as  a guide and not
    as the only criterion in decision making.  Monitoring of mitigation sites  is essential to
    demonstrate creation of functional wetland systems.
                                   INTRODUCTION
    This chapter will discuss the advantages and
disadvantages  of  compensatory  mitigation
options  which are available for projects which
receive  Section 404 permits.  This guidance is
based upon my experience.  It is intended for both
preparers and reviewers  of  mitigation plans.
This analysis is proposed for use as part of the
analytical framework for evaluating proposals to
mitigate the environmental losses of dredge and
fill projects. It is not meant to be a step-by-step
approach  to  selecting  the   most  desirable
mitigation option.  Development  of such  an
approach would be difficult since the site specific
characteristics of the wetland  community which
will be  lost and  the available mitigation sites
and options cannot be anticipated.  Discussion is
confined  to   compensatory   mitigation  and
assumes that a project meets the Section 404(bXl)
Guidelines. Examples given in  the  text  to
illustrate  specific  points  reflect  the  author's
knowledge  of  ecosystems  in  the  southeastern
United   States,  but  the  conclusions  and
recommendations  are intended to be generally
applicable  to  wetland  ecosystems.   The
recommendations in this chapter have not, at this
time,  been  embraced in  the form  of formal
Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) policy
or guidance.

    The  complexity of designing a successful
mitigation plan is due to specific characteristics
of the many types of wetlands and  the many
options available for the manipulation of biotic
and abiotic factors at mitigation sites.  A brief
discussion of the common  mitigation  options is
given below.  Factors have been arranged from
very general to specific.  This order reflects the
recommended order in the decision process for
preparing a mitigation plan.
                   GOAL OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    The goal of compensatory mitigation should
be consistent with the goal of the Clean Water Act
which is "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and  biological integrity of our Nation's
        views expressed in this chapter are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                            143

-------
waters".  Replacement  wetlands  should be
designed to replace all the ecological functions
provided by the destroyed  wetlands such as
wildlife habitat, water quality, flood storage, and
water  quantity  functions.  Sometimes  it  is
suggested that wetland functions can be provided
with  the  successful  regrowth of wetland plant
species, but often special project designs, such as
slope or  channel characteristics or watershed
area, are necessary to assure  replacement of
wetland  functions  such  as   flood  storage.
Monitoring of mitigation sites is also essential to
demonstrate  creation  of  fully  functional
compensatory wetland systems.
        PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATION PLANS
    Preparation  of mitigation  plans  is  an
exceedingly complex matter.  Federal project
managers  are  often  forced  to make difficult
decisions  based upon  little  or  no specific
information  concerning expected or  actual
success rates or times necessary to achieve  the
full functions of created communities. Lack of
information is due to either the historical lack of
environmental  monitoring  associated with
mitigation  efforts or poorly designed monitoring
programs for new  projects.  There are several
ongoing efforts to revisit sites where  wetlands
creation mitigation projects have been attempted
as a  condition of issued Corps  permits.   For
example, mitigation sites in Florida and in New
England are being studied by  the Corps of
Engineers  Waterways  Experiment  Station.
However,  there  are few  published follow-up
studies of mitigation sites,  and  the lack of
detailed studies of many  community  types
necessitates  a cautious  approach  concerning
decisions  on  anticipated  values  of created
wetlands.

    EPA  or  U.S.  Army Corps  of Engineers
(Corps) project managers may also not have the
broad  scientific  background or field experience
to design mitigation plans for any or all of the
many  types of  wetland systems which exist in
each region.  In addition, as a matter of policy,
the federal  agencies are  not environmental
consultants; design of a project should carry with
it assurance of success, and the burden to assure
success should be completely on the applicant and
his  technical  consultants.  However,  while
federal project managers should guide applicants
through  this process, federal  agencies  should
require  that applicants prepare  and  submit
detailed mitigation plans for review, rather than
actually aiding them in the preparation of plans.
Initial input  by federal  agencies should be
limited to  generic considerations  pertaining to
community type, suitable sites, area, source of
water, slopes, and watershed size and position.
    The  complexity  of  preparing  mitigation
plans is due to the plethora of options concerning
factors such as  availability of plant materials,
genetic compatibility of stock material with local
populations  and  environmental   conditions,
handling of plant material, planting  schemes,
slopes, water depth and periodicity, soils,  and
fertilization rates.  Seasonal timing of planting,
flooding and fertilization may be critical to the
success of mitigation projects.  It would be very
unusual for a land owner or developer to have the
technical  background to  personally plan or
undertake even a small scale mitigation project.
Good intentions alone do not assure mitigation
success.  Thus,  it  is recommended  that all
replacement mitigation be  performed  by  a
qualified environmental consultant.

    Currently, there are  no restrictions on  who
may call themselves environmental  consultants
or  mitigation  specialists.  Thus,  it is  very
important  that   applicants  examine   the
credentials of  companies  or  individuals  who
may bid on compensatory  mitigation projects.
Reputable  firms which have a long, established
record  of  success  in mitigation  should  be
qualified to discuss options which have worked
in the past and will be able to give accurate cost
estimates.  Environmental consultants should be
encouraged to publish brochures which list and
illustrate  their  successful  and  unsuccessful
projects.  It  has  been  recommended that  a
national or regional  certification  process be
adopted   for   environmental  consultants
specializing in compensatory mitigation. Such a
process, modeled after the  certification process
for professional engineers, has been  initiated in
Florida.   Choice   of   capable,   certified
environmental  scientists   with   regional
knowledge  would  reduce  the frequency of
mitigation  projects  doomed to failure due to
improper planning and design.
                                             144

-------
                             OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    There are three basic types of compensatory
mitigation which  are  available  as options to
replace wetlands  lost to dredging and filling
activities:     restoration,   creation,  and
enhancement   (Table  1).   The   following
discussion will demonstrate that restoration and
enhancement are part of a continuum which can
be  extended to  include  a  fourth and least
desirable mitigation option, namely wetland
exchange.

    Wetland   restoration   refers  to   the
reestablishment of a wetland in an area where it
historically existed but which now performs no or
few wetland functions.  Disturbance of historic
wetland functions  could  be  due  to human
activities,  such as  filling,  channelization, or
eutrophication, or due to natural  events such as
lake level  rise, shoreline  erosion, sediment
deposition, beavers,  or decreased  flooding.
Typically,  wetland soils  remain at disturbed
sites, but they might be  drained,  oxidized, or
buried.

    Wetland creation refers to the construction of
a wetland in an area which was not a wetland in
the recent past. Typically, wetlands are created
by removal of upland soils to elevations which
will support growth of wetland species. Removal
of soils to achieve proper elevation can, by itself,
establish  proper hydrology for wetland plants,
such as along gently sloping  shorelines, or may
prepare the site to receive necessary inundation
from streams or runoff from upland watersheds.
Development of  the   correct  elevation   and
establishment of a proper hydroperiod is  the
critical factor in the success of created wetlands.
In an  area where  soils have been thoroughly
disturbed, such as through surface mining,  any
replacement of previously existing  wetlands
must be considered creation. This is particularly
true if the  soil stratification and  the surficial
aquifer have been  modified.

    Enhancement  refers to  increasing  one or
more of the functions of an  existing wetland,
such as  increasing the productivity or habitat
value by  modifying environmental parameters,
such as elevation, subsidence rate, or wind fetch.
Enhancement sites differ from restoration  sites
because  they already  provide  some wetland
functions. Enhancement implies  a net benefit,
but a positive change in  one wetland function
may negatively  affect other  wetland functions.
The  net  overall  result of enhancement depends
upon established  management  goals.    For
example, the habitat value of a swamp forest can
be increased for wood ducks by  increasing the
amount of open water.  Increased  flooding  will
provide more food for  ducks and may kill  less
water tolerant  trees and provide more nesting
cavities. However, this type of enhancement may
lower the value of the wetland for other species,
such as the spotted salamander, deer, or marsh
rabbit.

    Enhancement taken  to the extreme merely
exchanges  wetland types. For example, habitat
value of open water  may be  enhanced for some
species  by  establishing an emergent marsh or
swamp  forest on fill  material placed in open
water.   This type  of enhancement is more
properly called exchange  since it results in the
replacement of one habitat type (submerged) with
another (emergent).  The  net ecological value of
this mitigation option depends upon  acceptable
management objectives.  For  example, a diverse
forested wetland can be clearcut and planted with
one tree species. If the planted species is a mast
producer, it could be argued that the habitat value
for deer or ducks has been enhanced.   However,
increased  food  for  a  few  species  has been
accomplished through elimination  of the complex
food web of the swamp forest.

    The  choice of  restoration,  creation,  or
enhancement mitigation for any project depends
upon the site specific  characteristics of available
locations. The choice should  be based upon  an
analysis of  factors  that limit  the  ecological
functioning  of the  watershed,  ecosystem,  or
region.  The first question to ask in reaching
this  decision  is,  "Are there  degraded wetland
communities on-site  or nearby which could  be
restored to full function?" If there are, the first
choice of mitigation options should be to restore
historic  wetland functions   of  the  degraded
system.

    Restoration of degraded  systems  should  be
the first option to be considered  since it would
reestablish  the  natural order  and ratio  of
community   composition  in  the   regional
ecosystem.  Moreover, likelihood of success of this
type of mitigation is greater than  for other
options. If a portion of a particular community
has been removed from an ecosystem through
degradation, it would be ecologically beneficial
to restore  that same community back into the
system. In  some cases a sizable  wetland area
can be restored with little effort. For example, a
wetland area which has been diked and drained
through ditching to  create a pasture may  be
returned   to  a functional  wetland through
removal of  all or part of the dike which separates
it from flood  waters.  Because a wetland
previously existed on the site, and provided that
the soils  are still  intact, albeit drained,  the
chances of success  of restoring this  area  to a
fully  functional  wetland are good  once  the
hydrology  is reestablished.  If the  organic
component  of the soils has substantially oxidized,
                                             145

-------
  Table 1.  Compensatory Mitigation Options.
                                  Compensatory Mitigation Options

MITIGATION TYPES                                        RECOMMENDED ACREAGE
   Restoration    -  former wetland, no or few functions         1.5:1; 1:1 upfront
   Creation       -  made from different community            2:1;  1:1 upfront
   Enhancement  -  increase certain functions                 3:1;  1:1 upfront
   Exchange      —  enhancement to the extreme               case by case
   Preservation   -  purchase and donation                    case by case

TIMING OF MITIGATION
   Before        -  most prudent; require if unknowns
   Concurrent    -  encouraged for typical projects
   After         -  discouraged

LOCATION OF MITIGATION
   On-site        -  same locale in watershed or ecosystem
   Off-site        -  different locale or different ecosystem

COMMUNITY TYPE
   In-kind        -  same species
   Out-of-kind    -  different species
                                              146

-------
resulting in subsidence, reflooding of the area
may create an open water lake, rather than an
emergent wetland.

    Restoration  grades  into  enhancement
depending upon how many functions have been
removed from the ecosystem.  A previously wet
area  which  was historically  filled may  be
restored to full  wetland function by grading,
planting, and restoring the historic hydrological
regime.  If  the  wetland  had  been  partially
degraded  and  had  lost one  or several  of its
functions, the area could be enhanced to provide
full wetland functions. For example, a wetland
which has been impounded, retains wetland
vegetation, and is managed for  ducks, could be
enhanced by removing the impoundment dike.
This  would  reestablish  a seasonally flooded
wetland which provides pulsed export of organic
matter to food chains of receiving waters.

    It  could  be   argued   that  the   duck
impoundment itself was  an  enhanced  wetland
since it produced a significantly greater duck
population than unimpounded wetlands.  But it
can only be  considered enhanced for that one
function, namely duck habitat. It has lost its
function to provide detritus on a timely basis for
fishery food  chains  because  of its altered
hydroperiod.  Thus "enhancement" often reflects
little  more than  preference for certain habitat
types or values over others.

    Another  example  of  wetland  habitat
exchange is establishment of an  emergent  marsh
on fill material placed in open water.  This has
been  called marsh  creation in the past. It also
enhances  the  primary productivity of an area;
but, it is an exchange of one  functional habitat
type for another.  Because it results in a  loss of
functions of existing aquatic  habitats, exchange
should often be the last option  in the choice of
mitigation type.  Exchange should only be used
when  there  is  ample  scientific   evidence
demonstrating that the functions of an ecosystem
or region are limited by the lack of a particular
community type.  For example, exchange may be
the option of choice if data demonstrate that the
fisheries productivity and ecological  stability of
an embayment would be  significantly increased
by  establishing a fringe  marsh  along  an
unvegetated shoreline and shallow water habitat.

    If restoration of a degraded wetland  is the
first option, and  wetlands exchange is the last
option  and  should   only   be  used  when
scientifically justified,  then  enhancement and
creation are intermediate options. There are good
ecological  arguments  for  consideration  of
wetland creation before wetland  enhancement
since  the  former will  add to  the total wetland
area of a site, while the latter may only provide
one or more additional functions to  an existing
wetland. Thus, a  logical and  defensible order of
consideration of  the  types  of  compensatory
mitigation   is:   restoration,    creation,
enhancement,  and  exchange.  This  order of
preference  may be  different  for a  specific
mitigation project in light of regional  or site
specific  circumstances,  such  as  quality of
wetlands and availability of mitigation sites.

    Preservation of  existing wetlands through
acquisition should not normally be considered as
compensatory   mitigation  for  unavoidable
wetland  losses  since  there  is  a  net  loss of
wetland  functions and acreage, and  wetlands
proposed  for preservation are usually already
regulated through the Section 404 program and
provide  ecological  functions  to  the  public.
However, there  could be circumstances of such
an unusual character that would justify wetland
preservation  as  a  mitigation  option.   For
example,  if the environmental  effects  of the
proposed filling  are  very  minimal  and the
benefits of placement of a large area of wetlands
(and/or uplands) into public ownership are great,
then preservation may be consistent  with the
goals of  wetland protection although some loss
may result. This is particularly true if an  area
proposed for  preservation  is unique habitat,
subject to general or nationwide permitting, or
otherwise vulnerable  to  development.   Any
agreement for preservation of existing wetlands
should explicitly indicate that the  preservation
shall be required in perpetuity and shall  provide
assurance for  this requirement  through an
appropriate method such as fee title conveyance to
a  well  established, responsible conservation
organization.

    Preservation of  a  large, mixed community
might also be an attractive option if, without such
preservation, the full  functioning  of a  system
could  be  destroyed  through  unregulated
development of upland portions of an upland-
wetland  mosaic, such as a bottomland forest
mixed with upland bluffs and stands.  Loss of
upland habitat  corridors, edge,  and ecological
niches could result  in  the  degradation of the
functioning of the entire ecosystem, particularly
for larger animals, such as black bear.  If the
ecological  benefits  of  preservation  greatly
outweigh the  environmental losses which  will
occur in  permitting an unavoidable wetland fill,
then preservation through  acquisition may be
considered.

    Some have argued that preservation should
be considered as a prime mitigation option  since
it  places wetland areas  which  might  be lost
through future permit actions or  by the dissolu-
tion of the federal  permitting  program,  into
public ownership or control. Most indications are
that the Section 404 program will be strengthened
as permitted  losses of wetlands cumulatively
result  in decreased fisheries production  and
other losses to the national economy.
                                             147

-------
                  CREDIT FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    There is need for guidance to establish and
maintain consistency between project managers
and between EPA Regions and  Corps Districts
concerning acceptable ratios  between wetland
losses and compensation acreages for  the
different mitigation options. One approach is to
require that  the ecological  functions  of the
replacement wetland  be at least  equivalent to
those of the wetland proposed for destruction.
Attainment of functional equivalency should be
the goal of all mitigation  activities.  However,
this  approach  may result in loss  of wetland
acreage and requires  detailed knowledge of the
ecological  contribution  that the  destroyed and
replacement wetland  systems  make   to  the
regional  ecosystem.  Also,  the  ecological
functions  which  are considered in  the  test of
equivalency must be carefully chosen. Proposed
replacement of a degraded wetland habitat by an
improved wetland is another complication which
requires  thorough analysis.  For  example, if
primary productivity is a major  function of a
wetland, establishment of less acreage of a very
productive wetland may adequately  compensate
for the loss of more acreage of a low productivity
wetland.  However, the replacement wetland may
provide much less habitat for a particular species
than  was provided by  the destroyed habitat,
despite overall improved productivity.  Usually
there is  not enough information available to
agencies  to  formulate  scientifically   valid,
functionally  equivalent  replacement  acreage
within  the  processing  period of  a   permit
application.  This information must be supplied
by the applicant as part of the permit application
if he expects the  agencies to consider "functional
equivalent wetland replacement" as a basis on
which to issue a permit.

    General ratios between mitigation  options
can be suggested as flexible guidelines to be
considered in  each permit decision requiring
compensatory  mitigation.  The  following ratios
are suggested for on-site, type-for-type (in-kind)
replacement mitigation. The  analysis becomes
more complex  when  variables such as  off-site
and  out-of-kind  mitigation  options  are
considered.  The  analysis is further  complicated
by the many types of wetland communities, the
varying   success   rates   of  community
replacement,  and  the  difficulty  of justifying
ranking  and  exchange of  different wetland
values.
RATIOS FOR RESTORATION

    In  general,  the  chances  of  success  in
restoration  of most  destroyed  herbaceous
wetlands (e.g., marshes) is good because this type
of wetland generally grows rapidly and because
a  wetland  previously  existed  at the  site.
Restoration  is  a  matter  of  removing  the
perturbations and reestablishing the soils, plants,
and hydrology at the same  site where a wetland
was created by nature. Restoration (or creation)
of forested  streams  or  bottomland  hardwood
floodplains has been attempted, but is much more
difficult.  To date, no restoration projects are
known which are of a sufficient age  to  have
achieved  a fully  functional, self-reproducing
system; most are under twenty years of age.
Restoration  (or creation) of submerged seagrass
communities  seems  to be   a  "hit or  miss"
proposition with  little documentation  concerning
specific environmental conditions needed for
success.

    Because of the varying rates of success  of
restoration of different vegetative communities,
it  is  difficult to  justify  general  criteria for
acreage credit for restoration  of  all types  of
wetlands.  Indeed, if it has not been demonstrated
conclusively that restoration of a  particular
wetland community is possible, then the prudent
approach  is to reject  any proposed replacement
mitigation. If the ecological loss through filling
of such a wetland is determined  to result in
significant  environmental degradation,  then
filling  of such  a wetland  is  unacceptable.
However,  if   it  has   been   convincingly
demonstrated that a particular wetland type can
be restored, then 1.5 to 1  mitigation should be
required on an acre-for-acre basis; that is, 1.5
acres restored for  each acre unavoidably lost.
The  justification  for requiring greater  than
parity is due to the uncertainty that a particular
project  will be  successful and to compensate
partially for the length of time that the restored,
planted wetland system takes before becoming
fully functional.  Planting of the restored system
is required unless  it can be  conclusively
demonstrated that a natural colonization  will
result in the vegetative community of choice.

    The ratio of wetlands  restored to wetlands
lost can be reduced to 1 to 1 if wetland restoration
is performed "up front", that is before  a filling
activity is initiated.  Reduction  of the  ratio to
parity assumes that a replacement wetland has
been constructed and  monitored  according to an
approved  plan and  that it  has been found  to be
fully functional.  Reduction of the ratio to 1 to 1
might also be justified if data demonstrate that
the restored site will provide increased ecological
and hydrological  value to the area.
RATIOS FOR WETLAND CREATION

    Wetland creation involves increased risk
since it is an attempt to establish a new wetland
                                              148

-------
at a site where one has never existed, or where
the  previously  existing  conditions  which
supported  a  wetland community have been
greatly  modified. Wetlands established on  land
which has  been thoroughly disturbed, such as
through surface mining, are  created  wetlands
even if they occur on the same geographical sites
as  previously existing wetlands.  Creation of
wetlands from existing uplands is  the common
form  of  compensatory  creation mitigation
associated with dredge and fill permits.  If it has
been   convincingly   demonstrated   that  a
particular wetland type can be created, then 1.5 to
1 or 2 to 1 mitigation ratios should be required on
an acre-for-acre basis. Increasing the ratio to 2
to 1 can be justified on the basis of the greater
risk associated with  any particular site.   The
ratio  may  also be  adjusted depending upon
whether planting or natural revegetation is part
of the  proposal.  If  successful creation  (i.e.,
similar value between  created  and natural
wetland) is performed upfront of proposed filling,
then the ratio can be reduced to 1 to 1.
RATIOS FOR WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT

    Wetlands proposed  for enhancement  are
performing wetland functions, and it will often
be  difficult to document net improvements to
wetland functions. There is a risk  that although
some functions will be improved, other currently
existing functions could be degraded.  Due to this
uncertainty, a  3 to 1  mitigation  should  be
required on an acre-for-acre basis.  This ratio
can be lowered to 2 to 1 if it is performed upfront.
It can never be lowered to parity since  there was
an  existing  wetland  which  provided  some
wetland functions at the site.
    Wetland types should not  be exchanged
except under unusual circumstances.   Since
exchange is  the replacement of one wetland type
with another, it is, by definition, on a 1 for 1
basis.   Gains in one  wetland type cannot be
equated with losses of another type since each
performs  different functions and are  unique
assemblages  of  physical,  chemical   and
biological variables. To say that  they are equal
and that the exchange of one wetland type for
another is acceptable  is the same  as  trying to
equate apples and oranges; they are judged by
different sets of criteria.  However, there may be
unusual circumstances where one wetland type
is particularly rare and one wetland type is
particularly abundant;  such circumstances could
justify  exchange  of   wetland   types   as
compensatory mitigation.
RATIOS FOR WETLAND
PRESERVATION

    Wetland preservation through  acquisition
should  not  be considered  as  compensatory
mitigation  except  in unusual  circumstances
because  a  net overall  loss  in function and
acreage will occur.   It can also be argued that
preservation  through donation, conservation
easements, restrictive covenants and the like is
tantamount  to purchasing a dredge  and fill
permit,  and  is  limited to  developers  with
sufficient capital to make the offer large enough
to be attractive to  regulatory agencies.  Small
landowners seeking an individual permit
usually lack the land resources or  capital to
make such an offer.  Thus, formalizing a  policy
or an exchange ratio justifying such an action is
ethically and legally questionable.
           ECOLOGICAL COSTS OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    There must be a careful analysis concerning
the  ecological   trade-offs  associated  with
conversion of one habitat type to another.  This
analysis  should consider the ecological value of
non-wetland as well as wetland sites proposed for
compensatory  actions.  An area proposed to be
restored  to wetlands or an  area proposed for
wetland  creation may have ecological value in
itself.  For example, an upland pasture which
was  historically  a wetland that was diked and
drained may have become important habitat for
terrestrial species, such as doves, quail, raptors,
bears, or bobcats.

    Unless  there are  unusual  site-specific  or
regional  circumstances, it is not justifiable to
scrape down a functional hydric or mesic forest
adjacent  to an existing marsh to create equal or
greater area of marsh in exchange for filling of
another area. In a similar vein, an impounded
marsh may provide habitat for wading birds or
ducks  in an area  where there is little natural
suitable habitat for these species. Restoration of
such an impoundment  to  a  seasonally flooded
system would disrupt the community which has
adapted to the existing conditions. The difficult
question which must be answered  in analyzing
the ecological value of proposals  of this sort is,
"Do  the ecological  changes associated  with
habitat restoration,  creation, or enhancement
outweigh the overall ecological functions of the
'donor' community?"   This question is hard to
answer objectively because of the bias which
exists  for dwindling wetland resources. It also
requires gathering and interpreting data for
upland or disturbed wetland systems and dredge
                                             149

-------
and fill project managers may have little or no
experience  in  performing  these  analyses.
Comparing existing  ecological  values with
anticipated values of replacement systems is no
easy task. This analysis  should be performed by
a team of experts representing a wide  range of
disciplines  and expertise. The multi-disciplinary
team  of scientists  and engineers at the  Corps
Waterways Experiment  Station is an  excellent
model for  interagency  evaluation. They have
published  many  studies  evaluating  created
wetlands  and  comparing  them  to   natural
reference  sites;  their  methods  provide  an
excellent  source   for  standardizing   these
comparisons.

    The  use of a  "quantitative" methodology,
particularly by inexperienced personnel, to solve
this problem may only add to the confusion. For
example,  the Habitat Evaluation  Procedures
(HEP) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
often  been  used to calculate "habitat suitability
indices" for sites. These indices are often biased.
A HEP index is  a numerical expression of the
potential use of a site  for a particular species of
fish  or wildlife  chosen  for evaluation.  This
measure of potential (quality) of a site  for these
species,  when  multiplied by area, yields the
number of  "habitat  units",  a  numerical
expression   of   the  useful habitat within  the
study area. Habitat units can be used to compare
different sites for chosen species and to calculate
acreage of replacement habitat as mitigation for
habitat lost through regulated filling.

    HEP uses  models which relate  biological
needs and tolerances of evaluation species  to
environmental  conditions  which occur  in their
habitats.  These  conditions are  expressed  as
variables,   such  as  water depth,   flooding
periodicity, vegetation density,  and  soil type.
Through the use  of formal, documented models,
HEP   provides   "standardized"  numerical
expression of habitat suitability, and thus reduces
variability  due  to subjective  differences  of
opinion.

    Because HEP appraises environmental value
according to habitat  suitability for particular
species, the selection of species to be used in the
evaluation is one of the most controversial parts
of any study.  The methodology can be  easily
misused with improper  selection of evaluation
species.  HEP  procedures  advise forming  an
interagency team  to select the species list, so that
all  constituencies can be represented.   Those
interested in maintaining  or enhancing historic
conditions  commonly select the  most  sensitive
(habitat limited) species  in the  community;
others,  wishing to modify  or develop  the site,
select species most consistent with the proposed
development or  management plan. Moreover,
since  it is impossible  to  exactly  duplicate  a
natural system, and since developers generally
prefer to replace a wetland with a retention pond
or lake,  they usually  prepare compensatory
mitigation plans with  different environmental
conditions which will support a different species
assemblage than exists at the "donor" site.

    During  a recent application  of HEP in  a
seasonally flooded  East Everglades  wetland,  a
consultant chose such a list of species which may
have historically existed at the site, but currently
occur   infrequently  due  to   hydrological
modifications  to  the  wetlands.  The  HEP
calculations  yielded  low habitat  units  for  the
chosen  species under  the existing  conditions.
The procedure was repeated for the habitat which
would result when the site was developed as  a
residential area; development  included several
borrow  lakes  as  enhancement  (exchange)
mitigation. Because of the different,  "improved"
hydrologic   conditions,   the   HEP analysis
concluded that development of the  site would be
ecologically beneficial (for the selected species).

    The  underlying premise of this conclusion
was that management should optimize habitat for
Everglade species  which historically were more
widespread than they are today, such as large-
mouth bass and wading birds.  The distribution
of  these  species   is  limited   by  suitable
hydrological conditions. However,  the disruption
of historic hydrological conditions in the East
Everglades has  also resulted in "disturbed"
Everglades habitats which are wetlands, and are
habitat for species  other than wading birds  and
bass.  Thus, the trade of many acres of disturbed
Everglades, with the resultant loss  of habitat for
bobcats, raccoons, red  tailed  hawks, etc. for  a
residential  community with  a  few acres of
enhanced wetlands (borrow lakes), which would
provide habitat for bass and wading birds, is not
ecologically equitable.  Yet the choice of HEP
evaluation species supported that conclusion.

    Regulatory  agencies  should  be  concerned
with  habitat restoration, such   as restoring
historic  hydrologic conditions  to  the disturbed
wetlands, instead of enhancement or exchange of
a  small portion  of  the wetlands  through
inappropriate mitigation  associated with filling
of a  majority  of the  wetland  area.  Also,
regulators should consider all  aspects of habitat
exchange and realize  that advantages to  the
species of choice may not be balanced by impacts
to other displaced species.

    Another  ecological  cost  which must be
considered in preparing mitigation plans is  the
availability of appropriate plant material. Plant
material may be collected  from a donor wetland
only if that action does not significantly degrade
the ecological functions provided by the donor
system.  Vegetation plugs  may be removed from
a herbaceous wetland donor site and planted  at a
prepared mitigation  site.  But plugs  should be
                                              150

-------
harvested  at sufficiently spaced  intervals  to
maintain  the functional integrity  of the donor
site.

    If plant material  is  obtained  from  a
commercial  source, care  should  be  taken  to
assure that the propagated plants are from a stock
which is  reproductively  compatible and has
similar ecological requirements as  stands which
naturally  occur  in  the locale, A method which
has recently been shown to be  cost-effective  in
restoring  or  creating large wetland areas  in
some   locales is   mulching  of  a   contoured
mitigation site with the upper soil horizon from a
donor wetland. This mulch contains viable seeds
and rhizomes  which usually allows  rapid
establishment  of a diverse plant  community.
Proper application of this  technique has been
effective in creating or restoring both herbaceous
and wooded wetlands.  Appropriate  tree species
are planted in the mulched area, which provides
effective  soil, moisture, and shading for young
trees.  Choice  of donor  wetlands  should be
carefully  controlled  so that  existing mature
wetland systems  are not avoidably lost in order
to create other wetlands. It is preferable that this
material  be obtained from the  wetland which is
proposed to be impacted, and can be stockpiled for
a  short period if wetland  replacement is not
concurrent with alteration  of the donor site.
                   TIMING OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    Three options exist in timing of a mitigation
project relative to receipt of a Section 404 permit.
Mitigation can be performed before the permit is
issued,  concurrent with project initiation and
completion,   or  after  a  filling activity  is
completed. Often an initial Section 404 permit is
needed  for the work performed as part  of the
mitigation project itself since dredging or filling
in waters of the United States is usually required
to restore, create, or connect the mitigation site to
a source of water. Upfront mitigation is possible
as a separate permit action or as part of a phased
permit, with  the receipt of the second  phase,
project  construction, contingent upon successful
completion of the first phase, demonstration  of
successful mitigation.

    Upfront mitigation is  the most  prudent  of
mitigation timing options and should be required
for  all  projects  which   have  considerable
ecological  risks   by virtue  of  their  size,
complexity,   or  uncertainty  of  community
establishment at  the  mitigation  site.  For
example, a permit was issued by the  Corps to a
mining  company for the  connection of two tidal
creeks, which  were  constructed in uplands, with
existing waters.   These created  systems were
monitored and only when  success  criteria were
satisfactorily met did the Corps process a permit
application to mine across an equal  acreage  of
natural, existing tidal  creeks.

    If mitigation  cannot  be  completed in
advance,  it  should  proceed concurrent with
project construction since mitigation becomes an
integral part  of the proposed  project;  this
discourages  viewing mitigation  as an "add on"
cost of  receiving a Corps permit. However,  a
problem inherent in concurrent mitigation is the
association of timing  of the receipt of a permit
and initiation  of a project with the timing of
maximum anticipated  success  rate  due to
seasonality  of biological  and/or  hydrological
factors. In general, early spring is the best time
to plant most coastal herbaceous species, whereas
optimum transplanting times for scrub-shrub or
palustrine forested  wetlands is during  winter
when plant material is senescent. Obviously, the
Corps cannot  refuse  to  process  a   permit
application if it  is received at a time  of year
when  transplanting  is  not optimal.  However,
an issued permit can be conditioned to include a
date for initiation of construction and mitigation
which is consistent with maximum  survival
rates of transplanted material.  Another option is
to allow earth moving  associated  with  project
construction   and   mitigation  to   proceed
simultaneously and delay planting of the site to
conform  with  time  of  expected  maximum
survival rates.

    Regardless of the  time of the  year when
mitigation is initiated or completed, it is  always
advantageous  to  require a guaranteed survival
rate of transplanted  plant material with every
mitigation plan.  This is particularly important
if the  Corps issues   a permit  for  project
construction and the  applicant performs  the
required mitigation  during a time  period when
expected  transplant  survival  is  less than
optimum. Typically in Region IV, a guaranteed
survival of 70% of transplants after two years is
requested.  Replanting should be required until a
70% survival rate is  obtained for one year. This
requirement  necessitates monitoring   of  the
mitigation site.

    Mitigation performed after  a project  is
completed should  be  discouraged  since  it
fragments the project into a construction phase
and  a mitigation phase.  Once the construction
phase of a project is completed, there is little
incentive to complete the mitigation phase in a
timely,  satisfactory  manner.  If post   project
mitigation is  the  only  practical  option,  the
mitigation plan  included  in the Corps  permit
                                              151

-------
should always contain an initiation date and a
completion date. If one or both of these dates are
not honored, the Corps should be encouraged and
supported to take enforcement action for violation
of a permit  condition. Post-project mitigation
should be restricted to small projects which have
a  very  high probability   of  success  or   for
situations  where project  construction must  be
initiated before  the time period when maximum
survival of transplants is assured. Even then, the
earth  moving  and  other  physical  amenities
necessary for preparation of the  mitigation site
for planting should be performed concurrent with
the remainder of the project. A performance bond
should be required from the developer for any
mitigation project  which  has  an  uncertain
chance of success.
                 LOCATION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
    The  goal  of mitigation is to replace the
functions which were provided by the  wetland
area and which were unavoidably lost through a
permitted  activity.   Since  the  wetland  area
provides  ecological functions such as food chain
support or wildlife habitat  to  the ecosystem  of
which it  is a part, it is important that ecological
values of the replacement wetland be provided to
the same ecosystem which was impacted by the
filling activity. Thus, both on-site (same locale)
and off-site (different locale) mitigation should
usually be performed in the same ecosystem and
functional watershed as the  filled wetland area.

    The problem with this rule is the difficulty of
defining  the limits of  a  particular ecosystem.
Ecosystems may be conceived and studied  in
various  scales.  For  example, an ocean,  an
embayment, a lake, a pond,  or a small aquarium
may be called  an ecosystem. For our purposes, it
is best to define ecosystem as any area of nature
which is part of the  same watershed which
includes  interacting   living  organisms  and
nonliving  substances, and where there is  an
exchange of materials and energy.

    Restoration,  creation or  enhancement  of
wetlands should, in most circumstances,  occur
on-site, that is within the same ecosystem and in
the immediate vicinity of  the proposed filling
activity.  For example,  if a  permit is issued for
fill  in wetlands to construct a boat ramp and
mitigation is  required,  a disturbed area along
the same reach of stream should be restored  to
wetland elevation to replace the functions which
were lost. (Of course this assumes that it was not
practicable to  locate the boat ramp in an area of
disturbed wetland.) There is adequate ecological
justification  for  this   approach  since  the
ecosystem  will  remain  unchanged  and the
chance of success of the mitigation is maximized
since it  is close to an area which  already
supports the vegetative community which is being
replaced.

    If there are no potential mitigation sites  in
the immediate area, off-site locations within the
same embayment, stream reach,  or  watershed
(ecosystem) should be  selected.  If a thorough
analysis reveals that there  are no  adequate
mitigation sites within these areas, this may be
adequate reason to recommend that no permit be
issued for the proposed activity.

    Only in unusual circumstances should off-
site  mitigation in  a different  ecosystem or
functional watershed be considered as acceptable
mitigation.  This is  due to  the difficulty in
equating  the impacts of   the   loss   to  one
ecosystem with the advantages to another system.
The burden of proof rests with the applicant to
demonstrate that the anticipated advantages to
the off-site area greatly outweigh  any losses  that
would result through  filling of a wetland  site.
For example, a proposal to mitigate filling of an
intertidal marsh through creation of a forested
wetland must contain data which supports the
conclusion that the loss of intertidal marsh will
not  individually  or  cumulatively  result in
significant degradation to  that  portion  of the
coastline and  that the created wetland  will
greatly improve the ecological functioning of the
adjacent, riverine ecosystem.

    Wetlands mitigation banking is an off-site
compensatory mitigation concept which may be
used  to aggregate smaller  wetland  impacts
towards restoration, creation, or enhancement of
larger wetland mitigation bank sites.  However,
it also entails considerable  legal, scientific, and
administrative complexity and has the potential
for being seriously misused.  Therefore,  due to
the experimental  status  of this  concept, it is
recommended that development and  use  of a
mitigation bank for an individual project be
assessed by a thorough case-by-case review.

    As  with  all forms of mitigation, a wetland
mitigation bank cannot justify a  project not
otherwise  in  compliance with the  Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines. Any  restoration, creation,
or  enhancement  project  should be  carefully
designed by the applicant  and agreed to by all
concerned parties through  a legally enforceable
wetland mitigation banking  agreement.  The
bank  should be located in the same geographical
area and consist of wetland types similar to the
wetland where impacts will  eventually  occur.
                                             152

-------
The bank should be operational prior to allowing
any  project  to  use  the  bank's  value  as
compensation for  unavoidable impacts. Long-
term operational, maintenance, and monitoring
plans, and legal guarantees should be included
in the mitigation plan which assure that tasks
are feasible  and  will be undertaken by  the
appropriate parties under the force of law.
                                  COMMUNITY TYPE
    Most recommendations provided thus far in
this discussion are based upon the  assumption
that wetlands which are unavoidably lost will be
replaced by the same wetland community  type.
The chances of replacement with  the  same
wetland community  can  be maximized  by
planting the site.  Natural recolonization of a
mitigation site  is recommended only when there
is an adjacent seed source and the applicant
agrees in advance that if the  desired density or
species composition  are  not present at  the
mitigation site after one or two growing seasons,
that the site  will be planted  to  achieve the
recommended plant community.

    In-kind  mitigation  is desirable since it
replaces the same community type which was lost
and restores the equilibrium of community types
which  had  developed as  a result of natural
causes.  Out-of-kind mitigation  should only be
approved under unusual  circumstances in which
the  data demonstrate  that replacement  of a
different vegetative type for the one destroyed
would  clearly  benefit  the  ecosystem  or
geographical area being evaluated. For example,
if a mining company receives  a  permit to mine
ore which  exists under a wetland vegetated
predominantly by  cattails, a mitigation  plan
may be approved which includes  creating a  more
diverse herbaceous community  at this site. If the
created system provides increased diversity of
habitat or other ecological functions compared to
the monotypic stand of cattails, the replacement
ratio may be reduced to 1 to 1.

    The  decisions and  value  analyses of out-of-
kind  mitigation  proposals  must  be  made
carefully and must include an evaluation of the
entire community which exists on the site. For
example, it is inappropriate to argue that the loss
of a wetland which has a hydroperiod which has
been reduced compared  to historic levels can be
mitigated through creation of a smaller  sized
lake  with  a  permanent  hydroperiod.   That
conclusion  overlooks  the  ecological  values
provided to organisms which are currently using
the drier wetland site.  Such a proposal could be
approved only if it could be demonstrated that the
acreage  of drier wetland habitat  was not  a
limiting factor in the area and the presence of a
lake  would significantly improve the ecological
functioning of the ecosystem. In no case should
the replacement ratio of this type of mitigation be
reduced to lower than 1 to 1.

   Out-of-kind  mitigation  might  also  be
approved if there is a  requirement  to rapidly
stabilize an area, and there is ample assurance
that  in-kind  species will eventually invade the
planted  area. For example, on suitable  sites,
Spartina alterniflora may completely cover a site
in one  growing  season after planting at  an
appropriate  density.   Rapid  cover  may  be
desirable to  stabilize  the  shoreline at  the
mitigation site.  If there  is an adjacent marsh
vegetated by   the  slower  growing  Juncus
roemerianus. it may invade the planted Spartina
area  and eventually achieve  an  equilibrium.
Thus, planting of an area with  Spartina to
mitigate the destruction  of a Juncus marsh may
be justified in this case.
                      SELECTION OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
    Choice of a mitigation option should consider
site specific and cumulative impact assessments
conducted for the proposed site and should be
based on sound ecological principles  based upon
large-scale, landscape considerations.  The best
choice  of a mitigation plan  can only be made
when the status of the functions and values that
will  be  affected are  known.   For example,
enhancement of waterfowl habitat by creation of
a "green  tree" reservoir may be inappropriate for
a  watershed  that  already  has several such
reservoirs,  and  particularly in  a watershed
which has water quality problems, which such
reservoirs are known to exacerbate.  Preserva-
tion may be a defensible option if the proposed
project is on a site  with low functional values
and the area proposed for preservation is of high
functional value or threatened, and is located in
the same watershed.  Only when the tradeoffs
associated with mitigation options are considered
on a scale that is ecologically appropriate (e.g.,
watershed) can  decisions  be made which
                                             153

-------
effectively  protect or replace wetland functions
and values.
success and overall effectiveness of replacement
mitigation.
    The goal of the selection of any mitigation
plan  is to  replace,  as near  as possible,  the
ecological functions of the  wetlands which  will
be destroyed.  Potential options are  summarized
in Table 1.  One selection method is to rank all
potential options by assigned values. Values can
be  regional or site specific.  Options  can  be
evaluated through  the  development of a matrix
with  assigned values based  on  assumptions
concerning preference of the options. An example
of such a matrix  is given in  Figure 1  which
includes all mitigation options  and an example
of assigned  values.

    As discussed above, generally restoration is
the preferred option,  followed  by  creation  and
enhancement.  Thus, these options have been
assigned values of 3, 2, and 1 respectively.  These
values are  almost  exactly the opposite  of the
recommended  acre-for-acre replacement  ratios
discussed  above;  that is,  the recommended
replacement acreage is 1.5:1 for a restoration
project, 2:1  for a creation project, and 3:1 for an
enhancement project.

    Values  of 3, 2  and 1  have been assigned to
upfront, concurrent, and post project mitigation.
This is descriptive of the timing of the initiation
and completion of the replacement wetlands.
The rationale for this  weighting is simply that
the faster the mitigation project  is completed, the
faster the wetland  functions are replaced in the
ecosystem.  Having  replacement  wetlands in
place  and  functioning  before the wetlands
permitted  for filling  are destroyed is  most
desirable.

    Values  of 3 and 1 are assigned to in-kind
and  out-of-kind   community  composition,
respectively.  Generally,  ecosystems reach  an
equilibrium   of   community  types   which
maximizes   trophic   and  nutrient  cycling
efficiencies. Thus,  replacement of  the  same
community  as  that which is lost to filling may
restore the integrity of the ecosystem.

    Values of 3 and 1 have been assigned  to on-
site and off-site replacement, respectively.  On-
site mitigation fulfills the goal  of compensatory
mitigation, that is to replace the functions that a
filled wetland community provides to the portion
of the ecosystem of which it was a part. Thus, on-
site mitigation is  weighted more than off-site
mitigation.

    The   weighting of  upfront, in-kind, and on-
site mitigation options are presumed equal since
each  option represents a similar input toward the
    The  overall  values  of  the 36  mitigation
options given in Figure  1 were  calculated  by
adding the  value assigned to each component.
Values range from 12 to 4. By this method, on-
site, in-kind, upfront restoration is  the most
desirable option,  which is reflected in the high
value it received  (12).  Off-site, out-of-kind, post
project enhancement of an existing wetland is
the least desirable option (4).

    It  is recommended  that project  managers
and preparers  of mitigation  plans   strive to
achieve the highest value  of mitigation type
possible for each mitigation  project.   A limit of
acceptable mitigation options can  be set.  For
example, acceptable projects could be confined to
mitigation options with values of 9 or higher and
only  in  unusual  circumstances  would  a
mitigation  plan with a mitigation option lower
than 9 be approved.  Project managers  have more
flexibility  in the  acceptability  of mitigation
options for community types for which success of
replacement  has  been   conclusively demon-
strated. For example, the  success of creation of a
Spartina alterniflora marsh at proper  elevations
is  well  documented.   Thus,  an acceptable
mitigation  plan might include creation of an £L.
alterniflora  marsh in exchange for filling a
similar marsh if it is  performed concurrently
and on site (10).  Mitigation for this marsh might
also be  possible by concurrently restoring a
Spartina marsh in the  immediate vicinity (11).
However,  it  would  take an  unusual  set of
circumstances to approve a  mitigation plan  for
the loss of this marsh which  includes creation of
a cypress swamp at some other location (7).

    Figure 1 will help  simplify the selection of
ecologically acceptable  mitigation options,  and
can be used to quickly compare the "values" of
different options.  However, because of the  myriad
of  site specific  possibilities  and restrictions,
Figure  1  and recommendations  made  herein
should be used as a guide and not as the only
criterion used in decision  making.

    Some  reviewers   of this  method have
suggested determining the acreage of  mitigation
which is required by the  value of the  mitigation
given in such a matrix.  For example, if a value
of 10 is the acceptable level of mitigation options,
but the applicant can  only  perform  mitigation
options with a value of 7, the option with the lower
value  may be acceptable if  the acreage  was
increased by 10/7. It is possible that a refinement
of  a  general technique  such  as  this may be
acceptable in some regions.
                                               154

-------
                                              RESTORATION
                                                   3
     SCORE   12
                    UPFRONT
                        3
10
                          CONCURRENT
                               2
POS T
  1
       10
                     11
                                                                    10
ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1
\
OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1
     SCORE  11
                                        10
ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1

ON
3

OFF
1
     SCORE
              10
Figure 1. Options to be considered  in  the  preparation and evaluation  of mitigation plans.
         Interpretation of the scores is explained in the text.
                                              155

-------
          MONITORING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECTS
    A serious problem in  evaluating proposed
mitigation  plans  is the  dearth  of quantitative
data on existing mitigation projects, particularly
documentation of changes through  time.   As
stated above, several studies currently underway
will revisit sites  to determine if the mitigation
which was recommended was performed. Data
will be  collected  to evaluate conditions which
contributed to success or  failure of completed
projects.  However, because there is so little
quantitative  information  on replacement  of
many   wetland  communities, particularly
forested communities, it is recommended that all
mitigation  plans   contain   an  approved
monitoring plan.   Further, it is recommended
that if success criteria established for a project
are not met, the  applicant must be required to
take corrective actions until the criteria are met.
This is best accomplished by making the criteria
which define success, the monitoring plan, and
the corrective actions explicit special conditions
of the Corps permit.  Performance bonding may
also be  required  in   circumstances  where
compensatory mitigation is  required for large
projects, for  projects where the  anticipated
success  is  not high, and projects proposed by
applicants who have a poor record of compliance
with permit conditions  or have  a history  of
enforcement actions.

    A  proposed  monitoring plan  should be
reviewed by an interagency  team consisting of
representatives from  the Corps, EPA,  PWS,
NMFS  (when appropriate), and State regulatory
and resource agencies. The basic question  is to
ascertain  whether  the  data collected through
monitoring will be sufficient to demonstrate that
the  replacement  habitat  will  adequately
compensate for the destroyed habitat. This may
be systematically analyzed by listing all known
wetland functions which are provided by the
wetland permitted for  filling,  and  comparing
these   with  anticipated  functions   of  the
replacement habitat. It is probable, especially in
forested wetland creation projects, that the
development of full ecological functioning of the
replacement  community  may take a number of
years.   In  these  cases,   some  reasonable
judgement must be made concerning the level of
function to be used as a measure of success. For
example, the goal of swamp creation might be to
produce a functional, self reproducing, stable
community.   This may take  30 years or more to
accomplish.   It  would be  reasonable to predict
the potential success of such  a project  by
monitoring tree growth  and survival and  the
ability of the faster maturing species to produce
viable seeds for a much  shorter period of time.
Recent evidence indicates that planted intertidal
marshes on dredged  material may take  many
years to develop  soil characteristics, such as
depth to  redox  zone  and organic  matter,
comparable to  naturally  occurring  marshes.
However, it may be adequate to monitor a created
or restored site for plant growth and  survival,
and establish success based upon these  easily
measured criteria. This approach assumes that
once  the plants  are established,  the  other
functions must necessarily follow. For systems
with many unknowns, the prudent approach is to
withhold judgement  on success until a self-
sustaining community is  achieved.

    Success  of mitigation  projects  can be
determined  through use  of  a  "mitigation
scorecard".  This  document summarizes  the
success criteria which must be achieved before  a
project  is  declared fully successful.  The
scorecard should contain criteria for both biotic
and abiotic factors which are integral parts of the
community   which  is   being   mitigated.
Quantitative  limits  should   be   set  using
reasonable, best available estimates, taking into
consideration  factors  such as  time  since
establishment,  distance from a water  source or
from  donor  communities,  planting  densities,
and natural processes. Applicants do not usually
have   to  supply  continuous  data  which
demonstrate progress toward meeting the success
criteria,   unless  there   are   scientifically
justifiable reasons  to require such monitoring.
When an applicant is ready to demonstrate that
success criteria have  been  met,  the interagency
team  which reviewed the monitoring plan should
examine the site, sampling locations, techniques
used,  and the data.

    Agreement upon  the  parameters  and
quantitative limits on the scorecard constitutes a
contract between the  regulators  (Corps) and the
applicant. Anticipated remedial actions such as
replanting with the  same or different species
should be agreed upon before a project is initiated
and must  be made part of the contract.  The
contract  should  only  be changed  through
agreement of all parties including the Corps, the
applicant, and the interagency review team.
                                             156

-------
                SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
     FOR PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATION PLANS
    The following is  a list of specific issues
which should be explicitly addressed during the
permit review process to improve the prospects of
successful compensatory  mitigation of wetland
losses for  projects which  otherwise comply with
the Section 404 Guidelines.  A similar listing is
found in Reimold and  Cobler (1986)  and other
publications.
SLOPES AND GRADIENTS

    A common problem to many unsuccessful
sites is steepness of slopes within the mitigation
area or in surrounding areas. A gentle slope  of
1:5 to 1:15 (verticahhorizontal)  is recommended
for successful wetland  establishment  since  it
provides maximum flooding  and  minimizes
erosion.
SOILS

    Plant growth can be  facilitated by proper
soils.  If it is not possible to supply proper wetland
soils,  the area may  be mulched to provide an
organic  surface horizon,  and/or fertilized to
stimulate plant growth.   Some mitigation sites
are slow to become established because of the lack
of proper soil microflora. It is possible that such
soils  must be inoculated with soil  microflora
during site preparation  to  assure  rapid  and
healthy plant growth.
PLANT MATERIAL

    Transplanting sprigs or other plant stock at
mitigation  sites  is  usually  preferred  over
allowing  natural  colonization,  since trans-
planting   promotes   favorable  community
composition and hastens the establishment of a
functional wetland.  Sites  should be planted at
appropriate times of the year with stock or seeds
that are genetically compatible with  vegetation
native  to  the  locale. Planting  density and
survival rates should  be  specified. Donor  sites
should be protected from over-harvesting.
HYDROLOGY

    Proper water depth and periodicity is the
most important element in planning a successful
mitigation plan. Long term stage records or tidal
data should be used to determine depth and extent
of flooding limits, and mitigation sites should be
planned at  elevations  within  the  flooding
tolerance limits of the community type.  The
methodology  of  establishing  frequency  of
inundation in tidal areas which are distant from
a bench mark is given in  Marmer (1951) and
Swanson (1974).
MONITORING

    Success criteria should be agreed upon before
issuance of a  permit.  Post-project monitoring
should be continued by the applicant until success
criteria are met. Changes in the mitigation plan
or success criteria should be possible only with
approval of all members  of  the interagency
review team.   However, the Corps has the final
authority  on  permits,  including  special
conditions  to  permits which  might  contain
mitigation plans and success criteria.
TIMING

    Upfront mitigation  should be encouraged,
particularly when it is determined that risk of
failure  is  high.  Concurrent  mitigation is
acceptable for projects where success is probable.
LOCATION

    On site mitigation  should be encouraged so
that there is  no net loss of  wetland type or
functions to the local ecosystem.
COMMUNITY TYPE

    Replacement of the same kind of habitat
which was destroyed  should be encouraged in
order  to  restore  the  natural  balance  of
community types in the ecosystem.
                                            157

-------
                                       LITERATURE CITED


Mariner, H.A.  1951.  Tidal Datum Plans.   Special    Swanson, R.S.  1974.  Variability of Tidal Datums and
    Publication  135,  Department of Commerce, Coast      Accuracy in Determining Datums from Short Series
    and Geodetic Survey.                                 of Observations.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                       Administration Technical Report NOS 64.
Reimold,  R.J.  and  S.A.  Cobler.   1986.   Wetland
    Mitigation Effectiveness.  EPA Contract No. 68-04-
    0015,  Metcalf  and  Eddy,  Inc.,  Wakefield,
    Massachusetts.
                                                  158

-------
                                       CONTRIBUTORS
                                        ROBERT P. BROOKS


Affiliation:

   School of Forest Resources
   Forest Resources Laboratory
   Pennsylvania State University
   University Park, PA  16802

Related Experience:

   Robert Brooks' primary research effort for the past 5 years has involved the characterization, restoration,  and
creation of freshwater wetlands on  disturbed landscapes in the northeastern U.S.  Studies related to habitat
selection  by  wetland wildlife, monitoring methods  for  mitigation, coal-mined  lands and  mine  drainage,
peatlands, and wetland-riparian systems impacted by agriculture have resulted in 13 publications.

Related Publications:

Brooks, R.P.,  D.E.  Samuel, J.B.  Hill (Eds.).  1985.  Proc. Conf. Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands.
   Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, Pennsylvania.

Brooks, R.P.,  and J.B.  Hill.   1987.   Status and  trends of freshwater wetlands in the coal-mining region of
   Pennsylvania.  Environ. Manage. ll(l):29-34.

Brooks, R.P.,  and R.M. Hughes.  1988.  Guidelines  for assessing the biotic communities of freshwater wetlands, p.
   276-280.  In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks (Eds.), Proc. Nat. Wetlands Mitigation Symp.:
   Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Assoc. State Wetland Managers, Berne,  New York.
                                       STEPHEN W. BROOME


Affiliation:

   Department of Soil Science
   North Carolina State University
   Box 7619
   Raleigh, NC  27695

Related Experience:

   Stephen Broome's involvement in creation and restoration of coastal salt and brackish tidal marshes began in
1969.  His research  includes studies of the establishment of marsh vegetation for dredged material stabilization,
shoreline erosion control, conversion of upland to intertidal vegetation for mitigation, and revegetation of a marsh
on the coast of France impacted by an oil  spill.  He has authored or co-authored a total of 30 publications related to
these projects.

Related Publications:

Broome, S.W., W.W.  Woodhouse, Jr.,  and E.D.  Seneca.  1975. The relationship of mineral  nutrients to growth of
   Spartina alterniflora in North Carolina:  II. The effects of N, P, and Fe fertilizers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Journal
   39(2):301-307.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca,  and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1983.  The effects of source rate and placement of N and P
   fertilizers on growth of Spartina alterniflora transplants in North Carolina. Estuaries 6:212-226.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca,  and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1986.  Long-term growth and development of transplants of
   the salt-marsh grass Spartina alterniflora . Estuaries 9:62-73.

Broome,  S.W., E.D. Seneca,  and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1988. Tidal salt marsh restoration. Aquatic Botany 32:1-22.
                                                   159

-------
                                     STEVEN W. CAROTHERS


Affiliation:

   President, SWCA, Inc.
   Environmental Consultants
   1602E. Ft. Lowell
   Tucson, AZ   85719

Related Experience:

   Steven Carothers has studied the preservation and management of Southwestern riparian ecosystems for more
than 20 years.  In recent years, he has become involved in a number of habitat restoration efforts, some of which
have included the salvage and transplanting of desert riparian trees and shrubs for major land development
projects.  Prior to the establishment of SWCA, Inc. in  1981, Carothers was curator of biology at the Museum of
Northern Arizona for ten years.  He has published numerous papers relating to riparian habitats in the Southwest.

Related Publications:

Carothers, S.W.   1977.  Importance, preservation and management  of riparian habitats: an  overview.  In  R.R.
   Johnson and DA. Jones (Tech.  coords.).  Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitats.  U.S.
   Dept. Agric., For. Serv. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Rocky Mountain For. and Range Exper. Sta., Fort Collins, Colorado.

Carothers, S.W. and R.R. Johnson. 1975. Water management practices and their effects on nongame birds in range
   habitats,  p. 210-222. In Proc. of Symp. on Management of Forest  and Range Habitats for nongame birds.  U.S.
   D.A. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. WO-1. Washington, D.C.

Carothers, S.W. and R.R. Johnson. 1975. The  effects of stream channel modification on birds in the southwestern
   United States,  p. 60-76. In Proc. of Symp. on Stream Channel Modification, U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Off.
   Biol.  Serv., Washington, D.C.

Carothers, S.W.,  R.R.  Johnson, and S.W.  Aitchison.  1974.  Population structure  and social  organization of
   southwestern riparian birds.  Am. Zool.  1437-108.
                                      ROBERT H. CHABRECK
Affiliation:
   School of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
   Agricultural Center Louisiana State University
   Baton Rouge, LA  70803

Related Experience:

   Robert Chabreck has worked for 31 years on coastal marsh research and management projects.  He has planned,
supervised, or evaluated over 40 projects that involve wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement,  and has 33
publications on the subject.

Related Publications:

Chabreck, R.H. 1972. Vegetation, Water, and Soil Characteristics of the Louisiana Coastal Region. La. Agric. Exp.
   Sta. Bull. 664.

Chabreck, R.H. 1981. Freshwater inflow and salt water barriers for management of coastal wildlife  and plants in
   Louisiana. In R.D. Cross  and D.L. Williams  (Eds.), Proceedings of the National  Symposium on Freshwater
   Inflow to Estuaries; Vol. 2. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-81/04.  Washington, D.C.

Chabreck,  R.H.  1988.   Coastal Marshes-Ecology  and Wildlife  Management.   Univ. of Minnesota Press.
   Minneapolis, Minnesota.
                                                   160

-------
                                           JOHN R. CLARK
Affiliation:
   Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
   University of Miami
   4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
   Miami, Florida  33149

Related Experience:

   John Clark has 16 years of experience in wetlands policy analysis and formulation,  and in implementation of
wetlands regulations with the Conservation Foundation, Wetlands Technical Council, and in private practice.  He
has  been responsible for site specific project  advice on planning and development projects since 1974 (Marco
Island).  Most of his experience is with coastal wetlands in Florida, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and
California. He has twenty publications in this  field.
                                        ANDRE F. CLEWELL


Affiliation:

   President
   AJ. Clewell, Inc.
   1447 Tallevase Road
   Sarasota, PL 34243

Related Experience:

   Andre Clewell earned his Ph.D. in botany from Indiana University in 1963 and served 16 years on the faculty at
Florida State University.  He is  currently  President of A.F.  Clewell, Inc., which  specializes in  vegetation
restoration, particularly for the Florida phosphate mining industry.  He has 10  years experience in vegetation
restoration, including research and  development, project design, and project monitoring.   He is currently in
charge of 17 forest creation and restoration projects that collectively occupy 152 acres and include the creation of 7
headwater streams.  He is the recipient of a 5-year research grant on tree establishment from the Florida Institute
of Phosphate Research. He is well  known as a botanist and as the author of Guide to the Vascular Plants of the
Florida Panhandle  (University Presses of Florida, 1985).

Related Publications

Clewell, Andre F.,  et al. 1982.  Riverine forests of the South Prong Alafia River System, Florida. Wetlands 2:21-72.

Clewell, Andre F.  1988. Bottomland hardwood forest creation along new headwater streams.  Assoc. State Wetland
   Managers Tech. Report 3:404-407.
                                       CHARLENE D'AVANZO


Affiliation:

   School of Natural Science
   Hampshire College
   Amherst, MA 01002

Related Experience:

   Charlene D'Avanzo has been involved in wetlands research for 15 years, primarily in salt marshes systems in
the northeast.  She has published numerous articles on nutrient cycling, food chain dynamics,  and primary
production in salt marshes.  Her experience with wetland mitigation includes project reviews  as a  Conservation
Commissioner in Massachusetts and several papers and talks concerning mitigation  and vegetation in northeast
wetlands.
                                                    161

-------
Related Publications:

D'Avanzo, C.  1986.  Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the northeastern United States; Vegetation.
   In J.S. Larson and C. Neill (Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern
   United States: An Assessment of the Science Base. Publ. No. 87-1, The Environmental Institute, University of
   Massachusetts, Amherst.

Van Raalte, C.D., I. Valiela, and J.M. Teal.  Productivity  of benthic algae in experimentally fertilized salt marsh
   plots. Limnology and Oceanography 21:862-872.
                                          KEVIN L. ERWIN


Affiliation:

   President/Principal  Ecologist
   Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
   2077 Bayside Parkway
   Fort Myers, FL  33901

Related Experience:

   Kevin  Erwin  has worked  with wetland ecosystems for the National  Marine  Fisheries  Service, Florida
Department of Natural Resources, and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation since 1971  and prior to
establishing  his  firm  in 1980.  His involvement  in wetland creation and  restoration covers  over 50 projects
encompassing thousands of acres of mangrove, salt marsh, freshwater marshes and swamps.  Current research on
sites in Florida  ranging in size from 5  to 150 hectares has provided information on design,  construction
techniques, tree survival and growth, macrobenthic community structure, water quality, wildlife utilization,  and
evaluation and monitoring methods.

Related Publications:

Erwin, K.L.  1983-1988.  Agrico Fort Green Reclamation Project, Agrico Swamp West Annual  Reports.  Agrico
   Mining Company, Mulberry, Florida.

Erwin, K.L.,  G.R. Best, W.J. Dunn, and P.M. Wallace. 1984.  Marsh and  Forested Wetland Reclamation of a
   Central Florida Phosphate Mine.  Wetlands 4:87-103.

Erwin, K.L. 1986. A Quantitative Approach for  Assessing the Character of Mitigated Freshwater Marshes  and
   Swamps in Florida. In Proceedings of National Wetland Symposium, New Orleans, LA. Association of State
   Wetland Managers.

Erwin,  K.L.  1989. An Ecological Inventory and Analysis of the Lee  County, Florida,  Coastal Zone  and
   Recommendations  for Future  Resource Management.  The  Sixth Symposium  on  Coastal  and  Ocean
   Management, Coastal Zone '89.
                                           VICKI M. FINN
 Affiliation:

   Graduate Assistant
   School of Public and Environmental Affairs
   Indiana University
   Bloomington, Indiana  47405
                                         MARK S. FONSECA
 Affiliation:

   Research Ecologist
   National Marine Fisheries Service
   NOAA, Beaufort Laboratory
   Beaufort, NC  28516-9722
                                                   162

-------
Related Experience:

   Since   1975, Mark Fonseca's research has centered on various aspects  of the ecology of seagrass meadows
including:  hydrodynamics,  productivity and  nutrient cycling,  population  growth and meadow  development,
transplanting technology,  application of basic  seagrass  ecology to management strategies, and  succession of
restored  seagrass beds. He has provided guidance on approximately 30 seagrass restoration projects, domestic and
foreign.  He has authored 10  papers on seagrass  restoration and management, and has authored or co-authored 36
papers on seagrasses.

Related Publications:

Fonseca,  M.S. and J.S. Fisher. 1986.  A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species
   of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar. Ecol. Proy. Ser. 2915-22.

Fonseca,  M.S., G.W.  Thayer,  and W.J. Kenworthy.  1987.   The use of ecological data in  the implementation and
   management of seagrass restorations, p. 175-187, In M.D. Durako, R.C. Phillips, and  R.R. Lewis (Eds.), Proc.
   Symp. on subtropical-tropical seagrasses of the  southeastern United States. Fl. Mar. Publ. Ser. No. 42.
                                       EDGAR W. GARBISCH
Affiliation:

   Founder and President
   Environmental Concern Inc.
   P.O. Box P
   St. Michaels, MD  21663
Related Experience:
   From 1972 through 1988, under the leadership of Ed Garbisch, Environmental Concern, Inc., has designed and
constructed over 290 wetland creation/restoration projects throughout the eastern United States.  A majority of these
projects involve brackish tidal marshes  and saltmarshes; however,  many represent tidal  freshmarsh, non-tidal
freshmarsh, and wooded wetlands. Approximately 120 of these projects relate to the application of wetland  creation
for shore erosion control throughout the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay.  The majority of the balance of
these  projects  were  constructed as compensation for wetlands lost or  damaged by permitted  developments.
However, some of these projects  were  constructed for (1) wetland habitat development on  dredged materials, (2)
stormwater management, (3) waste water treatment, (4) wildlife habitat, and (5) education  and aesthetics.  Over
96% of these projects are considered  successful, based on their construction according  to planned hydrological
performance and vegetation establishment.  The largest project completed  is 100 acres of brackish  tidal marsh at
Secaucus, New Jersey.

Related Publications:

Garbisch, Jr., E.W. and L.B. Coleman.  1978.  Tidal Freshwater Marsh Establishment in  Upper Chesapeake Bay:
   Pontederia cordata and Peltandra virgrinica.   In  R.E. Good,  D.E.  Whigham,  and  R.L.  Simpson (Eds.),
   Freshwater Wetlands Ecological Processes and Management Potential.  Academic Press,  New York.

Garbisch, E.W.  1986. Highways  and Wetlands:  Compensating for Wetland Losses.  U.S.  Dept. of Transportation,
   FHA Report No. FHWA-IP-86-22.
                                      THEODORE GRISWOLD


Affiliation:

   Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory
   San Diego State University
   San Diego, CA 92182-0057

Related Experience:

   Theodore Griswold has 4 years of experience in coastal wetland ecology, including one year as manager of San
Diego State University's  wetland research facility, a 30-acre site containing 72 artificial wetlands.
                                                   163

-------
Related Publications:

Griswold,  T.  1988.  Physical factors  and competitive interactions affecting  salt marsh vegetation.  M.S. Thesis,
   San Diego State University.
                                        AMANDA K. HILLER

Affiliation:

   Graduate Assistant
   School of Public and Environmental Affairs
   Indiana University
   Bloomington, Indiana   47405
                                      GARRETT G. HOLLANDS

Affiliation:

   Principal-in-Charge
   Wetlands Group
   IEP, Inc.
   Northborough, MA 01532

Related Experience:

   Garrett Hollands has 22 years of experience as a professional geologist and has worked on a wide range of
geologic projects throughout the U.S. and Canada.  For the past 13 years, he has focused on wetland geology and
hydrology while working in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and British
Columbia. Clients have included federal, state and local agencies, environmental organizations, and the private
sector.  He has  been involved in the actual  design, construction, and monitoring of man-made wetlands  for
replication and urban runoff mitigation in a wide variety of geohydrologic settings.

Related Publications:

'Hollands, G.G. and W.S. Mulica.  1978.  Application of Morphological Sequence Mapping  of Surficial Geological
   Deposits to Water Resources and  Wetland Investigations  in Eastern Massachusetts,  Geological  Society of
   America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section.

Hollands, G.G., and D.W. Magee. 1985.  A Method of Assessing the Functions of Wetlands.   In Proceedings of the
   National Wetland Assessment Symposium, Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

Hollands, G.G., G.E. Hollis,  and J.S.  Larson.   1987.  Science Base  for Freshwater Wetland  Mitigation in the
   Glaciated Northeastern United States; Hydrology.  In J.S. Larson  and C. Neill (Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater
   Wetland Alterations  in the Glaciated Northeastern United States:   An Assessment of the Science Base.  The
   Environmental Institute, University  of Massachusetts at Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.
                                        SHERMAN E. JENSEN
 Affiliation:

   White Horse Associates
   P.O. Box 123
   Smithfield, UT  84335
 Related Experience:
   Sherman Jensen has studied riparian habitats since 1980. He has participated in 20 projects in 6 physiographic
 provinces of the West and contributed to 8 publications pertinent to riparian and stream habitats. He is presently
 involved in 2 projects to create riparian and wetland habitats in southern Idaho,  and several projects to devise
 management strategies to restore stream and riparian habitats.
                                                    164

-------
Related Publications:

Jensen, S., M. Vinson, and J.  Griffith.  1987.  Creation of riparian and fish habitats, Birch Creek Hydroelectric
   Facility, Clark County, Idaho, p. 144-149.  In K.M. Mutz and  L.C. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the  Society of
   Wetland Scientists Eighth Annual Meeting,  Seattle, Washington.

Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D.  Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W.
   Minshall,  S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R.  Sedell, and J.S. Tuhy.  1987.   Methods  for Evaluating Riparian
   Habitats with Applications to Management.  U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Intel-mountain Research  Station,
   Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221.  Boise, Idaho.
                                          R. ROY JOHNSON

Affiliation:

   School of Renewable Natural Resources
   Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit
   University of Arizona
   Tucson, AZ  85721

Related Experience:

   Roy Johnson's research efforts have been largely concerned with botanical and zoological investigations in the
deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico  since 1952.  For the past 20  years, he  has
concentrated  largely  on the impacts  of "water  projects"  on the  riparian environment, and  research  and
management implications of those projects on  recreational and wildlife values. Most of his 200 publications have
been on  riparian issues, the most significant resulting from three national and international riparian conferences
for which he was Technical  Co-Chairman.

Related Publications:

Johnson, R.R. and D.A. Jones (Tech. Coords.).   1977.   Importance,  preservation and management of riparian
   habitat:  a symposium. U.S. Dept. Agric., For.  Serv. Tech. Rep. RM-43.  Rocky Mountain For. and Range Exper.
   Sta., Fort Collins, Colorado. 217 pp.

Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick (Tech. Coords,).  1978.  Strategies  for the protection and management of
   floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. [Proc. symp., Callaway Gardens, Ga., Dec. 11-13, 1978.]  U.S.
   Dept. Agric., For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, D.C.  410 pp.

Johnson, R.R.  and S.W. Carothers. 1982. Riparian habitats and recreation: interrelationships and impacts in the
   Southwest and Rocky Mountain region. Eisenhower Consortium Bull. 12, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta.,
   U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Ft. Collins, Colorado.

Johnson, R.R. et al. (Tech. Coord.). 1985.  Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling uses. Gen. Tech.
   Rpt. RM-120. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, Colorado. 523 pp.
                                        MICHAEL JOSSELYN

Affiliation:

   Romberg Tiburon Center & Department of Biological Sciences
   San Francisco State University
   P.O.Box  855
   Tiburon, CA 94920

Related Experience:

   Michael Josselyn is  an estuarine scientist focusing on the ecology and restoration of wetlands.  Since 1978, he
has received support from federal, state, and regional agencies to study and monitor tidal and riparian wetlands
throughout California.  His research interests include plant succession patterns, introduced wetland plants, habitat
use by wetland wildlife,  and  impacts of sea-level rise on  wetlands.  He has also consulted on over 60 restoration
and mitigation projects throughout the United States for the  federal and state resource agencies  and highway
departments.  Dr. Josselyn is a Fellow of the California Academy of Sciences and Senior Scientist  at the Romberg
Tiburon Center for  Environmental Studies, an estuarine research facility of San Francisco State University.
                                                   165

-------
Related Publications:

Josselyn, M.N. (Ed.).  1982.  Wetland restoration and enhancement in California.  California Sea Grant College
   Program. Report #T-CSGCP-007.

   a.  Josselyn, M.N. and J. Buchholz, Summary of past wetland restoration projects in California,  p. 1-10.

   b.   Zedler, J., Josselyn, M., and Onuf, C.  Restoration  techniques, research, and monitoring: vegetation,   p.
       63-72.

Josselyn, M.N.  1983. Tidal Marshes of San Francisco  Bay:  A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
   Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-83/23.

Josselyn, M.N.  1988.  Effectiveness of  coastal wetland  restoration:  California.  In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen,
   and G.Brooks (Eds.), Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Assoc. State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.
                                        JOHN E. KLARQUIST

Affiliation:

   Graduate Assistant
   School of Public and Environmental Affairs
   Indiana University
   Bloomington, Indiana  47405



                                     WILLIAM L. KRUCZYNSKI

Affiliation:

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
   Environmental Research Laboratory—Sabine Island
   Gulf Breeze, FL  32561

Related Experience:

   While a research associate for the Wetland Ecology Project at Florida A & M University, William Kruczynski
conducted research on the zonation of tidal marshes, and the vegetative stabilization and colonization of dredged
material.  From 1978-1986 he served as Project Officer and Chief of the Wetlands  Section for Region IV of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   There he was  involved  in  the review of  Section 10/404 permit
applications, mitigation plans and success criteria  for projects including phosphate mine  reclamation.  Presently
William Kruczynski is the Wetland Scientist/Liaison Officer for EPA Region IV,  stationed at Environmental
Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze.

Related Publications:

Breitenback,  G., C.L.  Coultas, W.L.  Kruczynski, and  C.B. Subrahmanyam.   1978.  Vegetative stabilization of
   dredged spoil in North  Florida. Jour. Soil and Water Conservation 33:183-185.

Kruczynski, W.L.  1983. Salt marshes of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, p. 71-87.  In Roy R. Lewis (Ed.), Creation
   and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Durako, M.J., JA. Browder, W.L. Kruczynski, C.B.  Subrahmanyam, and R.E. Turner. 1985.  Salt marsh habitat
   and  fishery resources  of Florida, p.  189-280.  In  W.  Seaman (Ed.),  Florida Aquatic Habitat  and Fishery
   Resources. American Fisheries Society.
                                               RUSSLEA

 Affiliation:

   Director, North Carolina State Hardwood Research Cooperative
   College of Forest Resources
   North Carolina State University
   Raleigh, NC 27695-8002
                                                    166

-------
Belated Experience:

   Russ Lea has over ten years of research experience in soil science and forestry.  For the past eight years he has
been associated with the North Carolina State Hardwood Research Cooperative. He directs the Cooperative which
has sixteen industrial  and public  agency members with land holdings in the thirteen Southern states.  The
Cooperative conducts research and provides  consulting on forested wetland systems  (naturally occurring and
artificially created), and intensively managed hardwood plantations.  The type of activity  ranges  from basic
research to applied operations and regulatory consulting. He served as a mitigation consultant to North Carolina
Phosphate Company, Savannah River Plant, Occidental Chemicals and Texas Gulf Phosphate.  Lea has served on
Forestry Best Management Practice committees for several southern states and is a consultant on a 350 acre waste
water land application/hardwood tree plantation project in coastal North Carolina.

Related Publications:

Lea, R. 1986. Management of Eastern United States bottomland hardwood forests, p. 185-194.  In D. Hook (Ed.), The
   Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Vol. 2.  Crown-Helm, London.

Lea, R.  1987.  Response of wetland forests to pumped agriculture wastewater. North Carolina Water Resources
   Research Institute Report No. 231.

Mader, S.F., W.M. Aust, and  R. Lea.  1989.  Changes in functional values of a forested wetland following timber
   harvesting practices, p. 149-154. In D. Hook and R. Lea (Eds.), Forested Wetlands of the Southern U.S., Orlando,
   Florida.  '
                                         DANIEL A. LEVINE

Affiliation:

   School of Public and Environmental Affairs
   Indiana University
   Bloomington, Indiana  47405



                                           Roy R, LEWIS m

Affiliation:

   Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
   P.O. Box 20005
   Tampa, FL 33622-0005

Related Experience:

   Roy Lewis has  22 years of experience in marine wetland research.  He has been involved with approximately
100 wetland restoration or creation projects in Florida and the Caribbean.  He has forty publications on the subject.

Related Publications:

Lewis R.R. (Ed.).  1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Lewis R.R. Management and restoration  of mangrove forests in Puerto Rico, U.S.  Virgin Islands,  and Florida,
   U.S.A.  In Proceedings of the International Symposium  on Ecology and Conservation of the Usumacinta
   Grijalva Delta,  Mexico.  Villahermosa,  Tabasco, Mexico. (In press).

Lewis, R.R., R.G. Gilmore,  Jr., D.W. Crewz, and W.E. Odum.   1985.  Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of
   Florida, p. 281-336.  In  W. Seaman, Jr. (Ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources.  Fla. Chapter,
   American Fisheries Society, Kissimee, Florida.

Lewis, R.R. and K.C. Haines.  1981.  Large scale mangrove planting on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands:  second
   year, p. 137-148. In D.P. Cole (Ed.), Proceedings  of the 7th Annual  Conference  on  Wetland Restoration and
   Creation.  Tampa, Florida.
                                                    167

-------
                                           ORIEL. LOUCKS

Affiliation:

   Department of Zoology
   Miami University
   Oxford, Ohio 45056

Related Experience:

   One Loucka has conducted research on land-water interactions, emphasizing the wetlands interface, for nearly
20 years. His papers have addressed transport of water and nutrients into marsh and littoral zone wetlands, and
investigated effects through field studies and predictive models of the long-term functioning of wetland systems.

Related Publications:

Loucks, Orie L. and Vicki Watson.  1978.  The Use of Models to Study Wetland Regulation of Nutrient Loading to
   Lake Mendota,  p. 242-252.  In C.B. DeWitt and E. Soloway (Eds.), Wetlands, Ecology, Values,  and Impacts.
   Proceedings of the Waubesa Conference on Wetlands. Inst.  for Env. Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison.

Livingston, Robert  J. and Orie L. Loucks.  1978. Productivity, Trophic Interactions, and Food-Web Relationships in
   Wetlands  and  Associated Systems, p. 101-119.  In  Wetland  Functions and  Values:  The State of Our
   Understanding.  Amer. Water Resources Assn., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Loucks, Orie L. 1985.  Looking for Surprise in Managing Stressed Ecosystems.  BioScience 35(7):428-432.

Loucks, Orie L.   1989.  Wetland Characteristics—Their Land-water Interactions.   In Wetlands  and Shallow
   Continental Water Bodies; Volume 1. Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands. (In press).
                                         DENNIS J. LOWRY

Affiliation:

   Wetland Ecologist
   IEP, Inc.
   P. O. Box 780
   6 Maple St.
   Northborough, MA  01532

Related Experience:

   Since 1984, Dennis Lowry has been involved in the design of more than one dozen inland wetland creation sites.
On  more  than half of these  projects, he  has been  actively involved in the construction  process, including
supervising equipment operation, conducting the planting efforts, and monitoring the vegetative growth.  He was
one of 20  scientists invited to participate in the University of Massachusetts' workshop, Mitigating Freshwater
Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated N.E. United States, An Assessment of the Science Base.

Related Publications:

Lowry, D.J., E.R. Sorenson, and D.M. Titus.  1988.  Wetland replacement in Massachusetts: regulatory approach
   and case studies, p. 35-56.   In  M.W. LeFor and W.C. Kennard (Eds.). Proceedings  of the Fourth Connecticut
   Institute of Water Resources Wetlands Conference, Storrs, Connecticut.

Golet, F.C. and D J. Lowry.  1987.  Water regimes  and tree growth in Rhode Island Atlantic white cedar swamps, p.
   91-110.  In A.D.  Laderman (Ed.), Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.

Daukas, P., D.J. Lowry, and W.W. Walker, Jr. 1988. Design of wet detention basins and constructed wetlands for
   treatment of stormwater runoff from a regional shopping mall in Massachusetts, p.  686-694. In D.A. Hammer
   (Ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings  of the  International Conference in
   Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
                                                   168

-------
                                           G. SCOTT MILLS


 Affiliation:

   Senior Biologist
   SWCA, Inc.
   Environmental Consultants
   1602 E. Fort Lowell
   Tucson, AZ 85719

 Related Experience:

   Scott Mills has studied riparian ecology in the Southwest for more than 16 years.  His research emphasis has
 been the relationships between the  structure of riparian plant communities  and avian communities.   He has
 recently participated in two major riparian forest creation efforts along the Lower Colorado River.  For the Mittry
 Lake Project, Scott Mills created  the planting design and calculated mitigation values for the planting of more
 than 5500 trees. For a study of the terrestrial ecology of modified bankline habitats, he created an experimental
 design to identify  simple and cost-effective methods to revegetate rip-rapped banklines and to assess effects of
 vegetation on wildlife use.  These experiments included various planting techniques such  as rooted cuttings,
 dormant poles, and seeds, and a range of environmental parameters such as soil amount, planting location, depth
 to water, and irrigation regime.

 Related Publications:

Mills, G.S. and J.A. Tress, Jr. 1988.  Terrestrial ecology of Lower Colorado River bankline modifications.  Report
   to Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada.
                                        WILLIAM A. NIERING


 Affiliation:

   Botany Department
   Connecticut College
   New London, CT 06320

 Related Experience:

   William Niering has been involved in wetland research since he completed his Ph.D. thesis in the early 1950's
 at High Point State Park, N.J.  His major research has been on tidal marshes.  In the late 1960's a joint project
 involved an inventory of inland wetlands of the United States for the Department of the Interior.  An extensive
 survey of over 100 Connecticut marsh systems was undertaken in the early 1970's. Current research is a study of
 four decades  of vegetation  change in the Barn Island marshes  and the factors responsible.  Niering is  also a
 member of the National Wetlands Technical Council.

 Related Publications:

Niering,  W.A. and R. Scott  Warren.  1974. Tidal  Wetlands of Connecticut: Vegetation  and Associated Animal
   Populations. Vol. I. Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Niering,  W.A. and R. Scott Warren.  1980.  Vegetation patterns and processes in New  England salt marshes.
   BioScience 30(5):301-307.

Niering, WA.  1985. Wetlands.  (The Audubon Society Nature Guides)  A.A. Knopf, New York.
                                                    169

-------
                                        WILLIAM S. PLATTS


Affiliation:

   Platts Consulting
   Don Chapman Consultants
   3180 Airport Way
   Boise, ID 83705

Related Experience:

   William Platts has  studied streams and riparian habitats  since 1955.  He has participated in  hundreds of
projects throughout the United States and has published 166 articles. He is currently involved in studies to develop
grazing management for enhancing riparian habitat, and to identify types  of stream and riparian habitat that will
respond similarly to management.

 Related Publications:

Platts, W.S.,  C.  Armour, G.D. Booth, M.  Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S.E. Jensen,  G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W.
   Minshall,  S.B. Monsen, R.L.  Nelson, J.R. Sedell, and J.S. Tuhy.  1987.  Methods for  Evaluating Riparian
   Habitats with Applications to  Management. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, Intel-mountain Research Station,
   Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Boise, Idaho.

Platts, W.S. and J.N. Rinne. 1985.  Riparian and stream enhancement management and research in the Rocky
   Mountains. North Amer. Jour. Fish. Manag. 5(2A):115-125.
                                        JOSEPH K SHISLER

Affiliation:

   Vice President
   Environmental Connection Inc.
   P.O. Box 69
   Perrineville, New Jersey 08535

Related Experience:

   While on the staff at Rutgers University, Joseph Shisler has been involved in the evaluation of the management
of wetland systems for the control of mosquito populations for over 15 years. During this period, he has monitored
the effects of open marsh water management  and tidal restoration of salt hay impoundments on over 30,000 acres of
wetlands.  He has published over 100  manuscripts on the subject of wetland management and impacts on wetland
components. He directed the research on the evaluation of wetland mitigation for the New Jersey Department of
Environmental  Protection. Governor Kean has appointed him a  chairperson  of  the  New Jersey Wetlands
Management Council.

Related Publications:

Shisler, J.K. and D.J. Charette.   1984.  Evaluation  of artificial  salt marshes in New Jersey.   New Jersey
   Agricultural Experiment Station, Publ. No. P-40502-01-84.

Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N.  Wargo.  1987.  Coastal Wetlands Buffer Delineation.  New Jersey Agricultural
   Experiment Station Publ. No. P-40503-01-87.

Shisler, JJC. and T.L. Schulze.  1988. Coastal wetland habitats as a beneficial use of dredged material, p. 55-58.  In
   M.C. Landin (Ed.), Beneficial Uses  of Dredge Material, Proceedings of the North Atlantic Regional Conference.
   U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
                                         JOHN T. STANLEY

 Affiliation:

   The Habitat Restoration Group/John Stanley and Associates, Inc.
   6001 Butler Lane
   Scotts Valley, California 95066
                                                   170

-------
Related Experience:

   John Stanley consults  on the restoration, management and  enhancement of watersheds, river systems and
wetlands.  He has been  a  naturalist for the National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, and  has taught
conservation, environmental studies and natural history courses  at San Jose State University and the University
of California, Santa  Cruz.   He  has  16 years experience consulting  for several  flood control districts on the
assessment and mitigation of biotic impacts of flood control project plans on riparian and stream habitats.  He has
supervised the preparation of revegetation plans for the re-establishment of riparian vegetation along numerous
rivers and streams in central California.

Related Publications:

Stanley, J.T., L.R. Silva, H.C. Appleton, M.S. Marangio, and B. Goldner. Lower Coyote Creek (Santa Clara County)
   Pilot Revegetation Project.   In  D. Abell  (Ed.),  California  Riparian  Systems  Conference:   Protection,
   Management and Restoration for the 1990's. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service. (In press).

Stanley, J.T.  and W.A. Stiles, III.  1983. Revegetation Manual for the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
   Conservation District.  County of Alameda Public Works Agency, Hayward, California.
                                        MILTON W. WELLER

Affiliation:

   Caesar Kleberg Professor in Wildlife Ecology
   Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
   Texas A & M University
   College Station, TX  77843

Related Experience:

   Milton Weller's long-term interests have been in wetlands as habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife.  Most of
his research  projects have dealt  with the natural dynamics of wetlands and their effect on wildlife populations, as
well as  on management strategies.  Studies of emergent wetlands  in the Prairie Pothole Region emphasized
experimental drawdowns for revegetation;  studies of coastal marshes and forested wetlands in Texas have detailed
plant-water relationships important in management for wetland establishment and maintenance.

Related Publications

Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher.  1965.  The Role of Habitat  in the Distribution and Abundance of Marsh Birds.
   Iowa State Univ.  Agric. & Home Econ. Exp. Sta. Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 43.

Weller, M.W.  and L.F.  Fredrickson.   1974.  Avian ecology of a  managed glacial marsh.  Living Bird 112:269-291.

Weller, M.W.  1978. Management of freshwater marshes for wildlife,  p. 267-284.  In R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham,
   and R.L. Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Processes and Management Potential.  Academic
   Press, New York.

Weller,  M.W.   1987.   Freshwater Marshes; Ecology and Wildlife Management.   2nd Ed.   Univ.  Minn. Press,
   Minneapolis, Minnesota.
                                        DANIEL E. WILLARD

Affiliation:

   Director of Environmental Science & Policy Programs Professor of Biology
   School of Public and Environmental Affairs
   Indiana University
   Bloomington, Indiana  47405

Related Experience:

   Daniel Willard has worked in wetlands since 1960.  He has studied wetland regulation and natural history in
California, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana.  He served  on the Office of Technology
Assessment's Wetland Committee;  the  Des Plaines River Project's  Advisory Committee; the Environmental
Protection  Agency's committees  on Wetland Research Priorities and Wetlands and Water Quality; the National
Academy of  Science,  National Research  Council's Committee  on Agricultural Induced Water Quality Problems;
and as Advisor to  the National Wetlands Forum.
                                                    171

-------
Related Publications:

Willard D.E.  Persistence:  the need for eternal  care for urban  wetlands and riparian habitats.  Proc.  Nat.
   Wetlands Conf. on Urban Wetlands.  Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York. (In press).

Willard, D.E.  1988.  Restoration and creation of wetlands in severely perturbed ecosystems, p. 115-122.  In John
   Cairns (Ed.). Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems; Volume I.  CRC Press, Boca  Raton, Florida.

Willard, D.E.  1987.  Agricultural Wastewaters and Wildlife:  An Overview.  In annual papers, U.S. Committee on
   Irrigation and Drainage.  Denver, Colorado.
                                           JOY B. ZEDLER

Affiliation:

   Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory & Biology Department
   San Diego State University
   San Diego, CA  92182-0057

Related Experience:

   Joy Zedler's current research focuses on determining how well artificial wetlands replace the functional values
of natural ecosystems.  This follows 15 years of research experience in coastal wetland ecology, including 6 years
of restoration work.  With several collaborators, she  has 10 funded projects on wetland  ecosystem functioning,
including monitoring and restoration.

Related Publications:

Zedler, J.B.  1984.  Salt Marsh Restoration:   A Guidebook for Southern California.  California Sea Grant College
   Program. Report No. 7-CSGCP-009.

Zedler, J.B. 1988.  Salt marsh restoration: lessons from California, p. 123-238.  In J. Cairns (Ed.). Rehabilitating
   Damaged Ecosystems; Volume I.  CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Zedler, J.B.   1988.  Restoring diversity in salt marshes:  Can we do it?, p. 317-325.  In  E.G.  Wilson (Ed.),
   Biodiversity.  National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
                   U S  Environmental Protection Asency

                   ??W* jS BoulSd,  12th Floor
                   Chicago, IL   60604-3590
                                                   172

-------