United Slates
Envi
Agei
Labor.
EPA 038a
Research and Development
SEPA
Wetland Creation and Restoration:
The Status of the Science Vol. I
-------
EPA/600/3-89/038
October 1989
WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION:
THE STATUS OF THE SCIENCE
Volume I: Regional Reviews
Edited by:
Jon A. Kusler
Association of State Wetland Managers
Box 2463
Berne, New York 12025
and
Mary E. Kentula
NSI Technology Services Corporation
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
-------
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. Harquist
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
ill
-------
VOLUME H: 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
One 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 Water-body Restoration and Creation Associated with Mining 117
Robert P. Brooks
Mitigation and The Section 404 Program: A Perspective 137
William L. Kruczynslri
Options to be Considered in Preparation and Evaluation of Mitigation Plans, 143
William L. Kruczynski
Contributors 159
IV
-------
FOREWORD
Attempts to compensate for wetland losses by
creating new wetlands or restoring degraded ones
have greatly increased in recent years in federal,
state, and local wetland protection efforts. The
scientific and policy questions generated by such
efforts have been intensely debated by regulators,
developers, consultants, and academics. While
research and dialogue show wide agreement on
several key points with regard to restoration and
creation, many doubts remain regarding technical
certainties and proper utilization of creation or
restoration to compensate for new impacts to
wetlands.
In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) began a multiyear research program to
examine the scientific issues which result from
wetland creation and restoration. EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) manages this
program through its Environmental Research
Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. As part of this
overall program, ORD embarked on an effort to
synthesize the knowledge accumulated to date into
a statement of the status of the science of wetland
creation and restoration. The Agency views this
document as a first step in meeting the needs of
wetlands regulators for an analytical framework
from which to make decisions concerning wetland
creation and restoration. Although intended for
use primarily by federal staff involved with the
Clean Water Act Section 404 program, this status
report should prove useful to state regulatory
personnel as well as to the private sector.
The report describes current scientific
knowledge involved with wetland creation and
restoration from a regional perspective and from
the perspective of selected common denominator
topics. It is to be noted that the report focuses on
scientific issues with restoration and creation, not
on policy issues. It identifies the limits of our
knowledge and attempts to set priorities for future
research.
A wide range of pertinent scientific and
technical data, plus the hands-on information which
has accumulated in recent years was compiled. A
thorough literature synthesis was undertaken
which incorporated available data from across the
country. This information was then integrated to
assess the status of wetland creation and
restoration on a regional basis. The authors of the
papers attempted to infer broad similarities and
general mitigation "truths", both positive and
negative, with respect to potential success of
wetland creation and restoration projects. In
addition to information routinely collected in
specific research efforts, they attempted to draw
upon material which has not been reported in the
juried literature.
Beyond the "cold facts" literature review, the
synthesis achieved a valuable goal which is central
to the development of a status report—the effort
gathered scientists and technicians together who
represent much of the expertise concerning
mitigation in the United States. It was also the
goal of those directly involved to review, analyze,
touch upon, or discuss the various concepts and
findings which numerous unnamed individuals
have brought to this discourse on wetland
restoration and creation.
The EPA is thankful to all those individuals,
both named and unnamed, who helped to focus and
compile information. The time and effort given by
these individuals, particularly those experts who
have assisted the EPA Corvallis Research Lab, are
greatly appreciated. The content of this status
report evidences quite clearly the enthusiasm,
conviction, and professionalism of the experts
throughout the United States who participated.
One note of caution on the use of this report: it
is not a policy document, nor is it intended to
define, express or endorse any federal policy toward
many tough issues in wetland mitigation, such as in-
kin d/out-of-kind compensation or on-site/off-site
approaches. The views expressed are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of the Agency.
We hope you will find the document useful and
stimulating.
The Office of Wetlands Protection
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated
that 30-40% of the original wetlands in the United
States have been lost and that destruction
continues at 300-400,000 acres per year (Tiner
1984). In the last decade, interest has increased in
wetland restoration and creation at all levels of
government, in the scientific community, and in the
private sector. Restoration and creation have been
advocated to:
reduce the impacts of activities in or near
wetlands,
compensate for additional losses,
restore or replace wetlands already degraded
or destroyed, and
serve various new functions such as
wastewater treatment, aquaculture, and
waterfowl habitat.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
January 1986 adopted a Wetlands Research Plan
(Zedler and Kentula 1986) to assist the Agency in
implementing its responsibilities to protect the
nation's wetlands resource. Agency personnel
surveyed in the planning process agreed that there
was a pressing need to determine how well created
and restored wetlands compensate for losses
permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The research proposed was designed to
improve methods of creating, restoring, and
enhancing wetlands and wetland functions; to
provide guidance for the design of effective projects;
and to develop methods for evaluating the potential
and actual success of projects.
This status report is the first major publication
resulting from the research initiated on wetland
creation and restoration. Conceived as a
mechanism for identifying the adequacy of the
available information, this status report will help
set priorities for the research program and provide
Agency personnel with an analytical framework for
making 404 permit decisions based on the status of
the science of wetland creation and restoration.
Concern about the status of the wetland
resource and interest in enhancing it through
wetland creation and restoration continues to be
strong in the U.S. Numerous meetings and
symposia have been held to discuss wetlands issues.
Recently, at the request of the EPA, the
Conservation Foundation convened the National
Wetlands Policy Forum to address major policy
concerns. The goal was to develop sound, broadly
supported guidance on how federal, state, and local
wetlands policy could be improved. In its final
report (The Conservation Foundation 1988) the
Forum specifically recommended that:
"the nation establish a national wetlands
protection policy to achieve no overall net
loss of the nation's remaining wetlands
base, as defined by acreage and function,
and to restore and create wetlands, where
feasible, to increase the quality and
quantity of the nation's wetland resource
base".
The Forum went on to emphasize that the goal of no
net loss does not imply that individual wetlands
will be untouchable. Therefore, a substantial
increase in efforts to restore and create wetlands is
inherent to attaining the Forum's objective. These
recommendations attest to the timeliness of the
research prescribed in the EPA Wetlands Research
Plan (Zedler and Kentula 1986).
This status report is not the first attempt to
gather information on wetland creation and
restoration (Table 1). Previous works are cited
throughout this report. The purpose of this
endeavor was to build upon previous work, not to
duplicate it. An effort was made to capture
information not published elsewhere and
incorporate it with published literature to produce a
unique resource.
HOW THE REPORT WAS PREPARED
A meeting was held in February 1987 to discuss
a draft plan for this status report. The objectives
were to insure that appropriate topics were covered
and presented in a format that would be useful to
Agency 404 personnel. At the meeting the
scientists actively involved in wetland creation and
restoration, who ultimately became authors for the
chapters in the report, together with
representatives of the EPA Regions and the Office
of Wetlands Protection critiqued a proposed outline
and a list of potential topics. Key questions
considered were: What information about wetland
creation and restoration is needed? For what
wetland types in what parts of the country is there
sufficient information about creation and
restoration to form a unit for a regional review?
What specific information should be presented in
each of the regional reviews and how should it be
organized? The recommendations were
incorporated into the final plan. The authors were
then commissioned to prepare individual chapters
in the report. Once prepared in draft form, the
papers underwent an extensive peer review process.
The authors of the chapters in this volume were
selected because of their expertise in particular
areas of wetland science or their active involvement
in a specific aspect of wetland creation and
restoration. An effort was made to separate the
Vll
-------
Table 1. The best known of the compilations of information on wetland creation and restoration in the U.S.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON
WETLANDS RESTORATION AND CREATION
15 years of proceedings sponsored by
the Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida
THE WORK OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM OF
THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
See reports published, such as:
Saucier, R.T., C.C. Calhoun, Jr., R.M. Engler, T.R. Patin, and H.K. Smith. 1978. Executive overview and
detailed summary: dredged material research program. Tech. Rep. DS-78-212. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Exp. Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Newling, C J. and M.C. Landin. 1985. Long-term monitoring of habitat development at upland and wetland
dredge material disposal sites, 1974-1982. Tech. Rep. D-85-5. U.S. Army Engineers Waterway Exp. Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL PLANT COMMUNITIES
1982. Lewis, R.R. (Ed.).
CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
1982. Josselyn, M. (Ed.). Rep. T-CSGCP-007.
Tiburon Centr. Environ. Studies, Tiburon, California.
WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION IN THE UNITED STATES
FROM 1970 TO 1986: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1986. Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee and R.R. Sharitz,
Wetlands 6(1): 1-88.
MITIGATING FRESHWATER WETLAND ALTERATIONS
IN THE GLACIATED NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENCE BASE.
1987. Larson, J.S. and C. Niell (Eds.). Publ. 87-1.
Environ. Inst., Univ. Mass., Amherst, Massachusetts.
WETLAND FUNCTIONS, REHABILITATION, AND CREATION IN
THE PACD7IC NORTHWEST: THE STATE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING
1987. Strickland, R. (Ed.). Publ. 86-14.
Wash. State Dept. Ecol., Olympia, Washington.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL WETLAND SYMPOSIUM:
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS AND LOSSES
1988. Kusler, JA., M.L. Quammen and G. Brooks (Eds.).
Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.
PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE:
INCREASING OUR WETLAND RESOURCES
1988. Zelanzny, J. and J.S. Feierabend.
Nat. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.
vui
-------
science perspectives presented in this status report
from the policy views of agencies involved in
wetland management. Therefore, primarily
scientists who are not associated with a government
agency were commissioned to prepare papers.
Authors were also requested to avoid policy
judgments on key topics fraught with policy
implications, such as onsite/offsite mitigation, in-
kind/out-of-kind mitigation, and mitigation banks.
It was also recognized that the success of this
project depended on the participation of the many
other experts in the field. Attempts were made to
involve them through presentations and discussions
at meetings of wetland scientists, the information
gathering process, and the review procedure.
Meetings of authors were held to assess their
progress at various stages of the project. To get
early feedback, authors also presented outlines of
their papers in special sessions of previously
scheduled meetings of wetland scientists, such as
the annual meeting of the Society of Wetland
Scientists. EPA personnel were encouraged to
attend and to provide input. Authors of regional
reviews of inland and coastal wetlands were later
assembled in separate meetings to discuss their
first drafts and to identify common issues. In
September 1987, some of the authors presented
their draft papers at the Association of State
Wetland Manager's National Symposium: Hy-
drology.
The National Wetland Technical Council was
invited to assist in the evaluation of research needs.
A meeting of the Council was held to discuss the
research issues presented in the draft manuscripts.
The Council's recommendations are reported in the
statement of research needs which constitutes the
final chapter of Volume I, prepared by Council
members Dr. Joy B. Zedler and Dr. Milton W.
Weller.
WHAT THE REPORT IS AND IS NOT
This report is a preliminary evaluation of the
status of the science of wetland creation and
restoration in the United States. It is, by no means,
the final word. It intentionally avoids a variety of
key issues which were deemed more policy than
scientific in nature.
This status report is composed of two volumes.
The first volume is a series of regional reviews.
Each review summarizes wetland creation and
restoration experiences in broadly defined wetland
"regions" (e.g., Pacific coastal wetlands, wooded
wetlands of the Southeast). The authors were
asked to summarize the available information,
identify what has and has not been learned, and
recommend research priorities. Their primary task
was to synthesize and evaluate information from as
many sources as possible, including personal
experience.
The second volume is a series of theme papers,
covering a wide range of topics of general
application to wetland creation and restoration
(hydrology, management techniques, planning).
The amount and quality of information
available to the authors was uneven by region and
topic, so the papers vary in length and level of
detail. This is particularly apparent in the regional
reviews. The most quantitative and best
documented information was available for Atlantic
coastal wetlands, consequently, the reports on these
systems heavily cite the juried literature.
Conversely, information on the creation and
restoration of inland freshwater wetlands was
spotty, at best, so the authors drew more heavily on
personal experience.
Much was learned from this effort to document
the status of the science despite the information
gaps; the key conclusions are presented in the
Executive Summary. Throughout the preparation
of this report, authors and informed contributors
continually affirmed that the creation and
restoration of wetlands is a complex and often
difficult task. This, in turn, pointed to the need for
setting clear, ecologically sound goals for projects
and developing quantitative methods for
determining if they have been met. To validate the
goal setting process, wetland science must progress
and the role of wetlands in the landscape must be
understood. Only then can one truly evaluate
which ecological functions of naturally occurring
wetlands are provided by created and restored
wetlands.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We appreciate the contribution made by many
individuals during the preparation of this status
report. Personnel from the EPA Office of Wetlands
Protection and Regions responded generously with
their time when we needed advice and reviews. Dr.
Eric M. Preston, the EPA Project Officer, was
supportive of the effort and provided valuable
advice.
We especially want to thank those who
contributed information, in many cases data from
personal files. With these contributions previously
unpublished material is now available. A host of
wetland scientists and managers reviewed the
manuscripts, providing valuable counsel that led to
improved papers. Dr. Mary Landin of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment
Station, Dr. Charles Seqelquist of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's National Ecology Center, and
Dr. Mary Watzin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wetlands Research Center
coordinated reviews of all the manuscripts from
their respective labs.
IX
-------
The manuscripts were copy edited by Gail appreciate their dedication to this project and their
Brooks and word-processed by Joyce G. Caron and commitment to the advancement of wetland science.
Carol DeYoung. Members of the EPA Wetlands
Research Team responded, sometimes at a Mary E. Kentula and Jon A. Kusler
moment's notice, with help on a variety of tasks.
Arthur D. Sherman balanced numerous jobs, while
tracking the progress of the individual papers. LITERATURE CITED
Without his assistance many tasks in this project
could not have been completed. Stephanie Gwin, The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's
Frances Morris, Jean Sifneos, and Donna Wetlands: An Action Agenda; The Final Report of the
Frostholm performed a myriad of chores to prepare National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington, D.C.
the manuscripts for printing. Their attention to „,. „ ^ T ,__. „. .. , , t, TT .. , Oi ,
detail was m-eatlv annreeiated Tmer> R'W" Jr' 1984' Wetlands of the United States:
detail was greatly appreciated. Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory.
Jon and I want to personally thank the authors Washington, D.C.
of this document. They responded to our requests
with enthusiasm and a sense of humor, despite the Zedler, J.B. and MJS. Kentula. 1986. Wetland Research
short deadlines that we set. Most of all, we Plan. EPA/600/3-86/009, Environmental Research Lab.,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon. Nat. Tech. Infor. Serv. Accession No. PB86
158 656/AS.
-------
CCUTIVE SUMMARY
Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula
INTRODUCTION
This executive summary is divided into three
principal sections: (1) conclusions concerning the
adequacy of our scientific understanding concerning
wetland restoration and creation; (2)
recommendations for filling the gaps in scientific
knowledge; and (3) recommendations for wetland
managers with regard to restoration and creation
based upon the status of our scientific
understanding.
The following general conclusions are offered
with regard to the adequacy of our scientific
understanding and the success of restoration and
creation projects in meeting particular project goals.
ADEQUACY OF THE SCIENCE BASE
1. Practical experience and the available
science base on restoration and creation
are limited for most types and vary
regionally.
Experience in wetland restoration and creation
varies with region and wetland type, as does the
evaluation and reporting of such experience in the
scientific literature. Hundreds and perhaps
thousands of coastal and estuarine mitigation
projects have been constructed along the Eastern
seaboard. These projects have been subject to a fair
amount of follow-up monitoring and have been
quite widely reported in the literature. Fewer
projects have been implemented on the Gulf and
Pacific coasts and, correspondingly, there is a
smaller literature base.
In general, much less is known about restoring
or creating inland wetlands. However, two types of
inland wetland projects have been quite common:
impoundments to .create waterfowl and wildlife
marshes, and creation of marshes on dredged spoil
areas along major rivers. Despite the number of
these impoundment projects and a relatively large
literature base dealing with waterfowl production
and other related topics, only a modest portion of
the literature critically examines these efforts. A
modest literature base is available on wetlands
created on dredged spoil. The best known research
is that of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dredged Materials Program.
2. Most wetland restoration and creation
projects do not have specified goals,
complicating efforts to evaluate "success".
Project goals have rarely been specified, even in
cases where wetlands have been intentionally
restored or created. This has complicated efforts to
evaluate "success". Lacking such goals, success has
commonly been interpreted as the establishment of
vegetation that covers a percentage of the site and
exists for a defined period of time (e.g., 2-3 years).
Such measures of success, however, do not indicate
that a project is functioning properly nor that it will
persist over time. Often these criteria have some
relationship to the characteristics of natural
wetlands of the same type in the region, but this
relationship is limited. In the rare cases where
project goals have been formulated and follow-up
studies conducted, there have been situations
where failure to meet specific goals has occurred
although there was partial or total revegetation of
the site.
Ideally, success should be measured as the
degree to which the functional replacement of
natural systems has been achieved. This is much
more difficult to assess and cannot be routinely
quantitatively determined. The ability to estimate
success of future projects will be fostered through
establishing specific goals that can be targeted in
an evaluation.
3. Monitoring of wetland restoration and
creation projects has been uncommon.
Despite thousands of instances in which
wetlands have been intentionally or unintentionally
restored or created in the United States, in the last
50 years there has been very little short term
monitoring and even less long term monitoring of
sites. Monitoring of sites and comparisons with
naturally occurring wetlands over time would
provide a variety of information including rates of
revegetation, repopulation by animal species, and
redevelopment of soil profiles, patterns of
succession, and evidence of persistence.
XI
-------
SUCCESS OF RESTORATION AND
CREATION
1. Restoration or creation of a wetland that
"totally duplicates" a naturally-occurring
wetland is impossible; however, some
systems may be approximated and
individual wetland functions may be
restored or created.
Total duplication of natural wetlands is
impossible due to the complexity and variation in
natural as well as created or restored systems and
the subtle relationships of hydrology, soils,
vegetation, animal life, and nutrients which may
have developed over thousands of years in natural
systems. Nevertheless, experience to date suggests
that some types of wetlands can be approximated
and certain wetland functions can be restored,
created, or enhanced in particular contexts. It is
often possible to restore or create a wetland with
vegetation resembling that of a naturally-occurring
wetland. This does not mean, however, that it will
have habitat or other values equaling those of a
natural wetland nor that such a wetland will be a
persistent, i.e., long term, feature in the landscape,
as are many natural wetlands.
2. Partial project failures are common.
For certain types of wetlands, total failures
have been common (e.g., seagrasses, certain
forested wetlands). Although the reasons for
partial or total failures differ, common problems
include:
* lack of basic scientific knowledge;
* lack of staff expertise in design, and lack of
project supervision during implementation
phases;
* improper site conditions (e.g., water supply,
hydroperiod, water depth, water velocity,
salinity, wave action, substrate, nutrient
concentration, light availability, sedimentation
rate, improper grades (slopes);
* invasion by exotic species;
* grazing by geese, muskrats, other animals;
* destruction of vegetation or the substrate by
floods, erosion, fires, other catastrophic events;
* failure of projects to be carried out as planned;
* failure to protect projects from on-site and off-
site impacts such as sediments, toxics, off-road
vehicles, groundwater pumping, etc.; and
* failure to adequately maintain water levels.
3. Success varies with the type of wetland
and target functions including the
requirements of target species.
A relatively high degree of success has been
achieved with revegetation of coastal, estuarine,
and freshwater marshes because elevations are less
critical than for forested or shrub wetlands, native
seed stocks are often present, and natural
revegetation often occurs. Marsh vegetation also
quickly reaches maturity in comparison with shrub
or forest vegetation. However, some types of
marshes, such as those dominated by Soartina
patensr have been difficult to restore or recreate due
to sensitive elevation requirements.
Much less success has been achieved to date
with seagrasses and forested wetlands. The reasons
for lack of success for seagrasses are not altogether
clear, although use of a site where seagrasses have
previously grown seems to improve the chances for
establishing the plants. Lack of success for forested
wetlands is due, at least in part, to their sensitive
long term hydrologic requirements. Such systems
also reach maturity slowly.
Although certain types of wetland vegetation
may be restored or created, there have been few
studies concerning the use of restored or created
wetlands by particular animal species. Restoration
or creation of habitat for ecologically sensitive
animal or plant species is particularly difficult.
4. The ability to restore or create particular
wetland functions varies by function.
The ability to restore or create particular
wetland functions is influenced by (1) the amount
of basic scientific knowledge available concerning
the wetland function; (2) the ease and cost of
restoring or creating certain characteristics (e.g.,
topography may be created with relative ease, while
creation of infiltration capacity is difficult); and (3)
varying probabilities that structural characteristics
will give rise to specific functions. For example
(note this is meant to be illustrative only):
* Flood storage and flood conveyance functions
can be quantitatively assessed and restored or
created with some certainty by applying the
results of hydrologic studies. Topography is the
critical parameter and this is probably the
easiest parameter to restore or recreate.
* Waterfowl production functions may be
assessed or created with fair confidence in some
contexts, due to the large amount of experience,
scientific knowledge, and information on marsh
design, and marshes are, relatively speaking,
easily restored or recreated.
* Wetland aesthetics may or may not be difficult
xu
-------
to restore or create, depending on the wetland
type and the site conditions. Visual
characteristics are, in general, much easier to
restore than subtle ecological functions.
Some fisheries functions may be assessed and
restored or created. However, the ability to
restore or create fisheries habitat will depend
on the species and the site conditions.
Some food chain functions may be assessed,
restored, or created. Other more subtle
functions are difficult due to the lack of basic
scientific knowledge and experience.
Certain pollution control functions (e.g.,
sediment trapping) may be relatively easy to
assess and create. However, others (e.g.,
immobilization of toxic metals) may be difficult
to create, particularly in the long term because
of uncertainties concerning the long term fate
of pollutants in wetlands and their impact on
the wetland system.
Groundwater recharge and discharge functions
are difficult to assess and create. One
confounding factor is that soil permeability
may change in a creation or restoration context
(e.g., a sandy substrate may quickly become
impermeable due to deposition of organics).
Heritage or archaeological functions (e.g., a
shell midden located in a marsh) are
impossible to restore or create since they
depend upon history for their value.
5. Long term success may be quite different
from short term success.
Revegetation of a restored or created wetland
over a short period of time (e.g., one year) is no
guarantee that the area will continue to function
over time. Unanticipated fluctuations in hydrology
are a particularly serious problem for efforts to
restore or create wetland types (e.g., forested
wetlands) with very sensitive elevation or
hydroperiod requirements. Droughts or floods may
destroy or change the targeted species composition
of projects.
Hydrologic fluctuations also occur in natural
wetlands. But hydrologic minima and maxima as
well as "normal" conditions exist within tolerable
ranges at particular locations, otherwise the
natural wetland types would not exist. Natural
wetlands have been tried and tested by natural
processes and are, in many instances, "survivors".
Long term damage to or destruction of restored
or created systems may be due to many other
factors in addition to unanticipated hydrologic
changes. Common threats include pollution,
erosion and wave damage, off-road vehicle traffic,
and grazing. Excessive sediment is a serious
problem for many restored or created wetlands
located in urban areas with high rates of erosion
and sedimentation. Unlike many natural wetlands,
restored or created wetlands also often lack
erosional equilibrium (in a geomorphologic sense)
with their watersheds.
6. Long term success depends upon the
ability to assess, recreate, and manipulate
hydrology.
The success of a project depends to a
considerable extent, upon the ease with which the
hydrology can be determined and established, the
availability of appropriate seeds and plant stocks,
the rate of growth of key species, the water level
manipulation potential built into the project, and
other factors. To date, the least success has been
achieved for wetlands for which it is very difficult to
restore or create the proper hydrology. In general,
the ease with which a project can be constructed
and the probability of its success are:
* Greatest overall for estuarine marshes due to
(1) the relative ease of determining proper
hydrology; (2) the experience and literature
base available on restoration and creation; (3)
the relatively small number of wetland plant
species that must be dealt with; (4) the general
availability of seeds and plant stocks; and (5)
the ease of establishing many of the plant
species. However, it is difficult or impossible to
restore or create certain estuarine wetland
types due to narrow tidal range or salinity
tolerances, e.g., high marshes dominated by
Spartina patens on the East Coast. The same is
true of estuarine wetlands in regions or areas
with unique local conditions, e.g., the
hypersaline soils common in southern
California salt marshes.
* Second greatest for coastal marshes for the
same reasons as those given for estuarine
wetlands. However, high wave energies and
tidal ranges of the open coast reduce the
probability of success.
* Third greatest for freshwater marshes along
lakes, rivers, and streams. The surface water
elevations can often be determined from stream
or lake gauging records. There is a fair amount
of literature and experience in restoring and
managing these systems. However, vegetation
types are often more complex than those of
coastal and estuarine systems. Problems with
exotic species are common. Determination and
restoration or creation of hydrology (including
flood levels) and hydrology/sediment
relationships are more difficult. This is
frequently compounded by altered hydrology
and sedimentation patterns due to dams and
water extractions.
-------
* Fourth greatest for isolated marshes supplied
predominantly by surface water. There is
limited experience and literature on restoring
or creating such wetlands except for waterfowl
production where water levels are manipulated
on a continuing basis. Determination and
restoration of hydrology is very difficult unless
mechanisms are available for actively
managing the water supply. Depending on the
wetland type, plant assemblages can also be
complex.
* Fifth greatest for forested wetlands along
lakes, rivers, and streams. Determination and
restoration or creation of hydrology is very
difficult due to narrow ranges of tolerance.
Water regimes may be evaluated with the use
of records for adjacent waters, but such records
are often not sensitive enough. There is also
limited literature or experience in restoring
such systems. Vegetation is diverse; both the
understory and canopy communities may need
to be established. Moreover, it may take many
years for a mature forest to develop.
* Sixth greatest for isolated freshwater wetlands
(ranging from marshes to forested wetlands)
supplied predominantly with ground water.
Determining and creating the hydrology is very
difficult. There is limited experience and
literature except on some prairie pothole
wetlands.
7. Success often depends upon the long term
ability to manage, protect, and
manipulate wetlands and adjacent buffer
areas.
Restored or created wetlands are often in need
of "mid course corrections" and management over
time. Original design specifications may be
insufficient to achieve project goals. Created or
restored wetlands are also particularly susceptible
to invasion by exotic species, sedimentation,
pollution, and other impacts due to their location in
urban settings and the inherent instability of many
of their systems. Careful monitoring of systems
after their original establishment and the ability to
make mid course corrections and, in some
instances, to actively manage the systems, are often
critical to long term success.
Efforts to create or enhance waterfowl habitat
by wildlife agencies and private organizations
through the use of dikes, small dams, and other
water control structures have been quite successful
due, in large measure, to the ability to control and
alter the hydrologic regime over time. Water levels
may be changed if original water elevations prove
incorrect for planned revegetation. Drawdown and
flooding may be used to control exotics and
vegetation successional sequences.
However, most wetland restoration or creation
efforts proposed by private and public developers do
not involve water control measures. In addition,
few developers are willing to accept long term
responsibility for managing systems. Water level
manipulation capability and long term management
capability are also insufficient, in themselves,
without long term assurances that the system will
be managed to achieve particular wetland
functional goals. For example, water level
manipulation and long term management capability
exist for most flood control, stormwater, and water
supply reservoirs. But wetlands along the margins
of these reservoirs are often destroyed by
fluctuations in water levels dictated by the primary
management goals.
Restored or created wetlands should be
designed as self sustaining or self managing
systems unless a project sponsor (such as a wildlife
agency or duck club) clearly has the incentive and
capability for long term management to optimize
wetland values.
The management needs of restored or created
wetlands are not limited to water level
manipulation. Common management needs for
both wetlands subject to water level manipulation
and those not subject to such manipulation include:
~ Replanting, regrading, and other mid-course
corrections.
— Establishment of buffers to protect wetlands
from sediment, excessive nutrients, pesticides,
foot traffic, or other impacts from adjacent
lands.
— Establishment (in some instances) offences and
barriers to restrict foot traffic, off-road vehicles,
and grazing animals in wetlands.
— Adoption of point and non-point source pollution
controls for streams, drainage ditches, and
runoff flowing into wetlands.
- Control of exotics by burning, mechanical
removal, herbicides, or other measures.
- Periodic dredging of certain portions of
wetlands subject to high rates of sedimentation
(e.g., stormwater facilities).
8. Success depends upon expertise in project
design and upon careful project
supervision.
Hydrologic and biological as well as botanical
and engineering expertise are needed in the design
of many projects. In addition, the involvement of
experts with prior experience in wetland restoration
or creation is highly desirable. This is particularly
xiv
-------
true where a wetland with multiple functions is to
be created from an upland site. Less expertise may
be needed where restoration is to occur, the original
hydrology is intact, and nearby natural seed stocks
exist.
Careful project supervision is also needed to
insure implementation of project design. It is not
enough to design a project and turn it over to
traditional construction personnel. For example,
bulldozer operators often need guidance with regard
to critical elevation requirements, drainage, and the
spreading of stockpiled soil. Plantings must be
shaded from the sun and kept moist until they are
placed in the ground.
9. "Cook book" approaches for wetland
restoration or creation will likely be only
partially successful.
Too little is known from a scientific perspective
about wetland restoration to provide rigid, "cook
book" guidance. The interdependence of a large
number of site-specific factors also warrants against
too rigid an approach. For example, in a salt
marsh, maxima and minima in hydrologic
conditions for particular plant species may depend
not only on elevation but on salinity, wave action,
light, nutrients, and other factors. Often the best
model is a nearby wetland of similar type.
Although "cook book" prescribing rigid design
criteria are not desirable, guidance documents
suggesting ranges of conditions conducive to success,
are possible. Requirements for wetland creation
that incorporate such general criteria, combined
with incentives and flexibility to allow for
experimentation offer an increased probability of
success as well as a contribution to the information
base.
FILLING THE GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE
A variety of measures are needed to fill the
gaps in our scientific knowledge. Authors list
specific research needs in their papers. The
National Wetland Technical Council provides an
overview of research needs in the final paper of
Volume I of this report (see Zedler and Weller).
The full range of topics needing further
research is impressive and perhaps intimidating,
given the limited funds available for wetland
research. Cost effective measures will be needed to
fill the gaps, relying, to the extent possible, upon
cooperative sources of funding and innovative
strategies. For example, the private and public
development sector may be able to provide a portion
of the needed research through the monitoring of
various restoration and creation projects. Research
in wetland restoration and creation may also take
place cost-effectively as part of broader lake
restoration, strip mine restoration, river
restoration, reforestation, Superfund clean up, or
post natural disaster (flood, fire, landslide) recovery
efforts. Some of the measures needed to fill the
gaps include:
1. Systematic monitoring of restoration or
creation projects.
Given the high cost of demonstration projects,
the greatest potential for filling gaps in scientific
knowledge may lie with careful monitoring of
selected types of new restoration or creation
projects.Standardized methods for project
evaluation and project monitoring are needed to
facilitate determination of "success" and
comparisons between systems and approaches. A
regional and national database on projects should
be created.
Monitoring should involve:
— Careful baseline studies on the original wetland
systems before they are degraded or destroyed,
— Monitoring of selected features of the new or
restored systems at periodic intervals (e.g., six
months, a year, three years, five years, ten
years, twenty-five years, etc.) to determine
characteristics of the restored or created
wetlands (vegetation types, vegetation growth
rates, fauna, etc.), functions of the wetlands and
persistence of the wetlands. The precise
features needing monitoring and the level of
monitoring detail will differ, depending upon
the type of wetland and specific research need.
Monitoring of new projects can be made a
condition of project approval, although, equitably
and practically, there must be limits to the prior or
post-construction studies and to the duration of the
post-construction monitoring period. Project
sponsors may be required to carry out monitoring to
insure project success over a specified period of
time, but they may balk at more basic research
responsibilities. Cooperative projects between
project sponsors and academic institutions and non
profit or government research organizations may
reduce the burden on project sponsors while
improving the quality of long term monitoring.
Such cooperative projects may also involve
comparisons between restored or created wetlands
and natural wetlands in the region.
After the fact monitoring of restoration and
creation projects already in existence may also
provide invaluable information, although many
such projects lack detailed baseline information
concerning the original wetland or the specifics of
the restoration or creation effort (e.g., size,
substrate, planting, etc.).
xv
-------
2. Demonstration projects.
Wetland demonstration projects established by
universities, research laboratories, or agencies to
test various restoration or creation approaches offer
the greatest "control" and have the greatest
potential for answering some research questions.
The National Wetland Technical Council (see Zedler
and Weller, this volume) recommends the
establishment of a series of such demonstration
projects on a regional basis. However, such projects
will likely be expensive to establish and monitor.
Funds may be generated by making such projects
multi-objective like the riverine wetland
demonstration projects on the Des Plaines River
north of Chicago established by Wetland Research.
This demonstration project also provides a regional
park and wetland education area.
3. Traditional scientific research.
More traditional scientific research is needed
on a wide variety of specific topics. Many of the
topics relate to basic issues in wetland science, not
simply wetland restoration or creation. Some of
this research needs to be conducted on natural as
well as altered or created systems. The research
could involve laboratory experiments, traditional
field research, the monitoring of restoration or
creation projects, and the establishment of
demonstration projects.
Particularly critical topics include:
1. The hydrologic needs and requirements of
various plants and animals, minima water
depths, hydroperiod, velocity, dissolved
nutrients, and the role of large scale but
infrequent hydrologic events such as floods and
long term fluctuations in water levels.
2. The importance of substrate to flora, fauna,
and various wetland functions such as removal
of toxics.
3. Characteristics of rates of natural revegetation
in contrast with various types of plantings.
4. A comparison of the functions of natural versus
restored or created wetlands with special
emphasis upon habitat value for a broad range
of species, food chain support, and water
quality protection and enhancement functions.
5. An evaluation of the stability and persistence
of restored or created systems in various
contexts and in comparison with natural
systems.
6. An evaluation of the impact of sediment,
nutrients, toxic runoff, pedestrian use, use by
off-road vehicles, grazing, and other impacts
upon restored or created wetlands and their
functions in various contexts. Further
investigation of management alternatives to
reduce or compensate for such impacts is also
needed.
7. Landscape level comparisons of natural and
restored or constructed systems from a broad
range of perspectives (see Zedler and Weller,
this volume).
Further research into wetland restoration and
creation will help provide the scientific know-how
for restoring systems which are already degraded as
well as for reducing future impacts. It will, more
broadly, test the limits of knowledge of wetland
ecosystems and how they function. The result will
be the production of invaluable, broadly applicable,
scientific information. Without such knowledge, the
restoration and creation of wetlands in many
contexts will continue to be largely a matter of trial
and error.
4. Continued synthesis of existing1 scientific
knowledge.
Additional specific guidance documents based
upon existing information could be prepared for the
restoration and creation of specific types of
wetlands and specific functions. The present
synthesis, like previous efforts, has been limited by
time, funding, and geographical scope. Moreover,
pertinent information is constantly being
generated.
Such synthesis efforts might productively draw
upon the "grey" wetland literature, such as permit
files and the records of wildlife refuge managers
and nonprofit land management organizations.
They might also productively draw (where
applicable) upon the larger body of scientific
literature with information of potential interest to
specific aspects of restoration or creation. These
include scientific reports and studies pertaining to
restoration of lakes, restoration of streams,
restoration of strip-mined areas, Superfund clean
up efforts, and restoration of other ecological
systems such as prairies. Studies of natural
response and recovery processes for systems
impacted by floods, volcanoes, fires, and other
natural processes should also be consulted.
Synthesis efforts should focus not only upon the
creation or restoration of systems but their
subsequent maintenance and management.
Particularly good candidates for such syntheses
(because of the large number of restoration or
creation efforts now being attempted) include:
-- Wetlands created to serve as stormwater
detention areas,
- Wetlands along the margins of flood control and
water supply reservoirs and other
xvi
-------
impoundments designed to provide habitat,
control erosion, protect water quality, etc.,
Wetlands designed to serve as primary,
secondary, or tertiary treatment facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WETLAND
MANAGERS
There are many policy questions and mixed
policy-science questions which the wetland
regulator must address in evaluating permits
proposing wetland restoration and creation such as
prior site analysis requirements (e.g., alternative
site analysis); acceptable levels of degradation for
the original wetlands; desired levels of
compensation (e.g., acreage ratios); types of
compensation (e.g., in-kind, out-of-kind), and
location of compensation (on-site, off-site). These
questions were not addressed by the present study
which focused only upon the adequacy of the
scientific base for wetland restoration and creation.
However, based upon this science review,
recommendations may be made which have broad
scale applicability to restoration or creation efforts
wherever they may occur:
1. Wetland restoration and creation
proposals must be viewed with great care,
particularly where promises are made to
"restore" or 'recreate" a natural system in
exchange for a permit to destroy or
degrade an existing more or less natural
system.
Experience to date indicates that too little is
known about restoration and creation and there are
too many variables to predict "success" for
restoration or creation in many contexts. There
have been too few projects with too little
monitoring, and, there is too limited a literature
base. This does not mean, however, that wetlands
with characteristics approximating certain natural
wetlands or with specific functions resembling those
of the natural wetlands cannot, in some instances,
be restored or created. Enough is known to suggest
key factors or considerations in restoration and
creation. And there is a considerable body of
experience pertaining to certain types of wetlands
(e.g., marshes for water fowl production) in certain
contexts.
2. Multidisciplinary expertise in planning
and careful project supervision at all
project phases is needed.
Experience to date suggests that project
success will depend, to a considerable extent, upon
the care with which plans are prepared and
implemented and the expertise of the project staff.
Restoration and creation projects require slightly
different types of inputs at each phase:
- Project design. Wetland restoration or creation
without hydrologic design will fail. This does
not mean that a hydrologist must be involved in
every project but that hydrology must be
carefully considered. Careful documentation of
elevations and other hydrologic characteristics
of naturally occurring systems, including either
the original unaltered system or nearby
systems, can be a helpful guide. Individuals
with hydrologic as well as botanical and
biological expertise are needed in project design.
A soils expert may also be needed (depending
upon the project).
— Project implementation. Careful supervision of
bulldozer operators and other implementation
personnel by someone with a complete
understanding of the critical parameters for the
project such as grade, drainage, soil, and
planting needs is critical.
-- Post project monitoring and mid-course
corrections. Botanical and biological expertise
is often needed for project monitoring and to
design mid-course corrections.
A project applicant should provide information
concerning the qualifications of project staff at each
phase of project design and implementation, such as
degree qualifications, work experience, etc.
3. Clear, site-specific project goals should be
established.
Because no wetland can be restored or
duplicated exactly, it is important that the
applicant establish site-specific goals for a
restoration and creation project related to existing
and proposed wetland characteristics and functions.
These goals should be used to assist design,
monitoring, and follow-up as well as to act as a
benchmark for success. These goals can, depending
upon the circumstances, relate to the size of the
area to be restored, the functions to be restored, the
type of vegetation, the density of vegetation,
vegetation growth rates, target fauna species,
intended management activities and other
parameters.
4. A relatively detailed plan concerning all
phases of a project should be prepared in
advance to help the regulatory agency
evaluate the probability of success for that
type of wetland, at that site, meeting
specific goals.
Generalized project information indicating that
a project applicant will "create a wetland" at a
particular site provides no real basis for
determining the probable success of a project.
xvn
-------
Although needed information will differ, depending
upon the type of wetland and area, at a minimum, a
plan is needed:
setting forth clear project goals and measures
for determining project success,
indicating the boundaries of the proposed
restoration or creation area,
indicating proposed elevations,
indicating sources of water supply and
connection to existing waters and uplands,
indicating proposed soils and probable
sedimentation characteristics,
indicating proposed plant materials,
indicating whether exotics are, or may be,
present and, if so, what is to be done to control
them,
indicating the methods and timing for
plantings (if replanting is to take place),
setting forth a monitoring program, and
setting forth proposed mid-course correction
and project management capability.
The amount of formality and detail needed for
a restoration plan may depend upon the size of the
project, its location, the type of wetland, and other
factors.
functioning systems. Relevant hydrologic factors
include: water depths (minima, maxima, norms),
velocity, hydroperiod, salinity, nutrient levels,
sedimentation rates, levels of toxics and other
chemicals, etc.
7. Wetlands should, in general, be designed
to be self-sustaining systems and
"persistent" features in the landscape.
To the extent possible, restoration and creation
projects should be self-sustaining without the need
for continued water level manipulation or other
management over the life of the project unless such
management is an intentional feature of the project
(e.g., a wildlife refuge for waterfowl production) and
a government agency or other responsible body with
long term maintenance powers will have
responsibility for the project.
Restoration or creation projects attempting to
replace natural wetlands or designed to serve long
term objectives should also include design features
insuring the long term existence of such projects.
To be persistent, wetlands must not be located in
areas where natural or man-made processes such as
wave action, excessive sedimentation, toxics, or
changes in water supply will destroy them.
However, many must also undergo periodic major
stresses such as fires, floods, and icing over which
interrupt the vegetational sequences that occur in
most natural wetlands. Such stress must be of a
magnitude sufficient to interrupt successional
sequences but not great enough to destroy the
wetland.
5. Site-specific studies should be carried out
for the original system prior to wetland
alteration.
Due to complexities in natural systems, the
lack of an extensive scientific base, and difficulties
in formulating standards for restoration or creation
at a site, a careful inventory of wetland
characteristics (size, hydroperiod, soil type,
vegetation types and densities, fauna) should take
place prior to wetland destruction to determine
wetland values and functions, act as a guide for
restoration at the site or creation at an analogous
site, and form the comparative basis for
determining the success of the restoration or
creation project.
6. Careful attention to wetland hydrology is
needed in design.
Although the basic design needs for
"successful" (i.e., meeting specified goals) wetland
restoration or creation will differ by type of wetland
and area, wetland hydrology is the key (although
not necessarily sufficient in itself) to long term
8. Wetland design should consider
relationships of the wetland to the
watershed water sources, other wetlands
in the watershed, and adjacent upland and
deep water habitat.
Although cost may prevent broad scale analyses
for every restoration and creation project, an
analysis of a proposed restoration or creation in a
broader hydrologic and ecological context is needed,
particularly where "in-kind" goals are not to be
applied, where the existing wetland is already
degraded, where specific habitat or other values
dependent upon the broader context are to be
created, or where expected urbanization or other
alterations in the watershed or on adjacent lands
may threaten the wetland to be created or restored.
9. Buffers, barriers, and other protective
measures are often needed.
Protective measures are needed for many
restored or created wetlands which may be
threatened by excessive sedimentation, water
pollution, diversion of water supply, foot traffic, off-
xvui
-------
road vehicles, and exotic species. Such measures
are particularly needed in urban or urbanizing
areas with intensive development pressures.
Measures may include buffers, fences or other
barriers, and sediment basins.
10. Restoration should be favored over
creation.
In general, wetland restoration at the site of an
existing but damaged or destroyed wetland will
have a greater chance of success in terms of
recreating the full range of prior wetland functions
and long term persistence than wetland creation at
a non-wetland site. This is due to the fact that
preexisting hydrologic conditions are often more or
less intact, seedstock for wetland plants are often
available, and fauna may reestablish themselves
from adjacent areas.
11. The capability for monitoring and mid-
course corrections is needed.
Due to the lack of basic scientific knowledge,
lack of experience in restoring and creating many
types of wetlands, and the possibility that any effort
will fail to meet one or more goals, restoration and
creation projects should be approached as
"experiments". The possibility of mid-course
corrections should be reflected in project design in
the event that the project fails to meet one or more
specified goals. Such corrections may involve
replanting, regrading, alterations in hydrology,
control of exotics, or other measures.
12. The capability for long term management
is needed for some types of systems.
In some instances, long term management
capability is critical to the continued functioning of
a system, such management may include water
level manipulation, control of exotics, controlled
burns, predator control, and periodic sediment
removal.
13 Risks inherent in restoration and creation
and the probability of success for restoring
or creating particular wetland types and
functions should be reflected in standards
and criteria for projects and project
design.
Risks and probability of success should be
reflected in the stringency of design requirements,
area ratios (e.g., 1:1.5, 1:2) and standards for
possible mid-course corrections for projects. Where
restoration or creation is very risky or the
possibility of project failure may have serious
consequences (e.g., destruction of endangered
species), successful completion of the restoration or
creation project prior to damage or destruction to
the original wetland is needed.
14. Restoration for artificial or already
altered systems requires special
treatment.
Restoration and creation efforts for wetlands
already in an altered condition raise special issues
and special problems. In restoring an altered
wetland, an historical analysis suggesting natural
conditions and functions may provide better
guidance for restoration than simple documentation
and replication of the status quo. A regional
analysis of wetland functions and values and
"needs" is also desirable.
-------
WETLAND MITIGATION ALONG THE PACIFIC COAST OF
THE UNITED STATES
Michael Josselyn
Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies
San Francisco State University
Joy Zedler and Theodore Griswold
Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory
San Diego State University
ABSTRACT. Mitigation to compensate for coastal wetland losses has taken place under federal
and state permit policies for over 15 years. As a result, a substantial data base has developed in
the scientific and governmental literature on which to base recommendations for improvement in
mitigation practice. The purpose of this chapter is to review the status of wetland mitigation along
the Pacific coast based on the available literature and more recent evaluations.
An important distinction must be made when evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation in
off-setting wetland losses. Many projects have failed due to lack of compliance with permit
requirements, e.g., have never been implemented or were completed without regard to permit
specifications. On the other hand, mitigation effectiveness for those projects which have been
completed is more difficult to assess. Functional success involves evaluation not only based on
objectives; but on our knowledge of wetland hydrology and ecology, fields of science which have only
recently received significant attention. Given the rarity of Pacific coastal wetlands and the
substantial losses which occurred prior to the Clean Water Act, mitigation must be considered only
after avoidance measures are thoroughly considered.
Mitigation for Pacific coastal wetlands is not a "cookbook" exercise. The concept that wetlands
are simple ecosystems that can be re-created with little forethought must be rejected. Hydrologic
characteristics of a mitigation site are especially important as they structure the possible wetland
habitats that can be created. Within the Pacific coastal zone, four general hydrological types occur:
Wetlands associated with small coastal rivers or lagoons, often subject to sandbar closure,
Wetlands associated with major estuaries and coastal embayments,
Wetlands associated with rivers, and
Non-tidal wetlands such as vernal pools.
Within each of these broad categories, specific opportunities and constraints must be
considered prior to approving mitigation proposals. In-kind habitat replacement will not be feasible
if mitigation is proposed across types, given their significant differences. Most importantly,
watershed management must also be considered within each hydrologic type as an important
criteria in evaluating the potential success of a mitigation proposal.
Permit applications must include information on project goals and habitat objectives. Goals and
objectives must be specific and stated within a time frame that can be monitored. In addition, a
number of elements need to be included within mitigation proposals:
Description of existing conditions including information on site history, topography, hydrology,
sedimentation, soil types, presence of existing wetlands and wildlife, and adjacent land uses.
Description of proposed hydrological conditions as related to the specific requirements of the
wetland vegetation and habitat desired.
Means by which mitigation site constraints such as subsidence, excessive sedimentation, and
poor substrate are to be ameliorated.
-------
Planting procedures, especially within tidal sites with poor soils or limited seed recruitment. If
planting is not required, the period of time after implementation during which full plant
establishment is expected should be determined and justified in light of the habitat lost.
Determination of appropriate buffers that provide protection to the wetland.
Enforceable procedures to provide construction project oversight by qualified engineers,
hydrologists.
Monitoring programs to allow enforcement of permit requirements and provide further
information on the effectiveness of mitigation projects as a means to increase wetland resources
rather than to simply offset losses.
Outside of site specific review, resource agencies must assess the long-term implications of
individual permit approvals. Re-appraisal should be based on detailed analysis contained within
accessible database files. Such appraisal can provide important information on regional trends and
means by which mitigation can be re-directed to better serve fish and wildlife needs.
INTRODUCTION
The distribution and functioning of Pacific Coast
wetland systems has been described in numerous
reviews (Macdonald 1977,1986, Zedler 1982, Zedler
and Nordby 1986, Josselyn 1983, Seliskar and
Gallagher 1983, Simenstad 1983, Phillips 1984,
Strickland 1986). Several symposia, workshops,
and guidebooks have been published on the status
of wetland restoration within the region (Josselyn
1982, Harvey et al. 1982, Hamilton 1984, Josselyn
and Buchholz 1984, Zedler 1984, Strickland 1986,
Josselyn 1988b). A baseline for determining the
distribution of wetland types as well as trends in
habitat losses and gains is also available (Boule1 et
al. 1983, Marcus 1982, Handley and Quammen in
press). With this background of information, why
then are scientists and agency personnel debating
whether wetland restoration and creation are
effective management tools for mitigating wetland
habitat degradation and loss on the Pacific coast?
Race (1985) brought the controversy to the
forefront with her article concerning the lack of
success of mitigation projects in San Francisco Bay.
She argued that many wetland mitigation sites had
failure due to lack of establishment by either
natural or planted wetland vegetation or problems
in creating appropriate elevations for marsh
vegetation. She also noted problems in determining
project adherence to mitigation requirements due to
poor permit descriptions. Her analysis included
experimental plantings, dredge material disposal
sites, and sites restored by dike breaching. Harvey
and Josselyn (1986) countered that Race had
overemphasized experimental plantings in her
analysis and had ignored the fact that significant
wetland habitats had been created despite the lack
of specific planning objectives. Nevertheless,
Race's arguments and the experience with
mitigation in other regions of the country have
continued to fuel the debate (O'Donnell 1988).
Further analyses of wetland mitigation success
in San Francisco Bay were conducted by Eliot
(1985) and Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) (1988). They found
inconsistencies between completed projects and
stated goals, most of which could be attributed to
lack of enforcement or poor planning and
implementation. Kentula (1986) observed similar
problems in evaluating wetland mitigation in the
Pacific Northwest and criticized the lack of
quantitative data necessary to evaluate project
effectiveness. Quammen (1986) best described the
evaluation problem by distinguishing criteria for:
compliance (how well permit and regulatory
obligations were met) and function (how well the
created wetland functions replace those of natural
wetlands) success. Previous reviews have failed to
separate these; and what may be a failure in one
evaluation can be successful in another.
This chapter focuses on the functional success
or effectiveness of wetland mitigation projects
within the coastal zone of the western United
States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Though we
make recommendations on implementation and
monitoring activities that can improve compliance
success, our primary attention is centered on the
technical and scientific criteria used to plan and
implement a wetland mitigation project. This book
is written for those reviewing Section 404 permits
in which wetland mitigation is proposed. We
assume that all steps necessary to avoid or
minimize the requirement for habitat replacement
have been taken prior to consideration of
mitigation.
-------
WETLAND TYPES ALONG THE PACIFIC COAST
The extent of wetlands within the coastal
counties of California, Oregon, and Washington is
estimated at 67,100 hectares (166,000 acres), or 1.4
percent of the nation's total coastal wetland acreage
(Table 1). If the inland counties around San
Francisco Bay are included in the total, the amount
of wetland extent is doubled to 134,000 hectares
(332,000 acres). Two-thirds of the Pacific coast's
salt marsh and tidal mudflats are located in San
Francisco Bay. The greatest amount of forested
wetland is found along the north coast in
Washington.
This chapter focuses primarily on emergent
wetlands (marshes) as that term is used by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification
System (Cowardin et al. 1979). We recognize,
however, that most marshes are a complex of
unconsolidated bottom, open water, unconsolidated
shore, and emergent vegetation. Furthermore, we
emphasize estuarine and palustrine habitats within
the coastal zone, though some habitats such as
vernal pools extend far inland. We have not
considered riparian or wooded wetlands.
Coastal wetlands can be further distinguished
by the type of estuarine system with which they are
associated. The hydrologic characteristics of these
systems greatly influence the functioning of the
emergent wetland and dictate the types of
restoration and creation feasible.
WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SMALL
COASTAL RIVERS OR LAGOONS
SUBJECT TO SANDBAR CLOSURE
Most wetlands along the Pacific coast are
associated with relatively small coastal streams and
rivers. Of 85 named wetland systems for the Pacific
coast (summarized in Macdonald 1986), at least 50
would be considered within this category. Though
some are open to tidal action throughout the year
via either natural or man-made channels, others
are subject to sandbar closure during some or all of
the year. The emergent wetlands are clearly
subject to annual and interannual variation in
salinity and hydrologic regimes. Frequently, these
systems exhibit sharp haloclines where the denser
oceanic water entering through the sandbar occurs
on the bottom of the lagoon while freshwater
remains on the surface. These systems are also
subject to significant sedimentation when the
sandbar is present.
Examples of lagoonal wetlands system include:
Netarts Bay, and Salmon River, Oregon; and Albion
River, Pescadero Marsh, San Elijo Lagoon, Estero
Americano, and Tijuana Estuary in California.
WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH
MAJOR ESTUARIES AND COASTAL
EMBAYMENTS NOT SUBJECT
TO SAND BAR CLOSURE
These wetlands cover the largest acreage along
the Pacific Coast, especially those associated with
San Francisco Bay. These wetlands have been
created by the deposition of sediment and
subsequent inundation of low lying lands as sea
level has risen. Estuarine wetlands are subject to
seasonal salinity changes related to freshwater
inflow, but the variation is usually not as great as
that experienced in coastal lagoons. Estuarine
wetland soils exhibit both vertical and horizontal
gradients in salinity due to tidal fluctuations and
freshwater flow. Saline tidal marshes are found
near the estuary mouth and freshwater tidal
marshes at the head. Too much sedimentation can
be a problem in these wetland systems, particularly
in small estuaries downstream from lumbering and
agricultural land uses.
Examples of estuarine wetlands include:
Grays Harbor, in Washington, Willapa Bay,
Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, San Francisco Bay,
and San Diego Bay, in California.
WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH RIVERS
ENTERING AT THE COASTAL ZONE
A few large rivers discharge directly into the
Pacific Ocean with no enclosed basin in which
freshwater and salt water mix appreciably. Tidal
action may cause vertical zonation of the
vegetation, but the primary factor influencing
marsh composition is freshwater flow. Due to the
relatively rapid river flow, sedimentation and
erosion modify sites, causing shifts between
emergent and mudflat communities.
Examples of this type of wetland system are
the Columbia River and Eel River.
VERNAL POOLS
Vernal pools are seasonally wet habitats which
have hard pan soils that retain water in shallow
depressions. Plant species of varying tolerance to
the depth and duration of flooding germinate within
the pool. Most species are annual and have short
life histories; the seeds provide the mechanism for
survival during the long dry period. Invertebrate
species are also adapted to the ephemeral nature of
the pools and survive the dry period by such
mechanisms as cyst formation. Vernal pools within
the coastal zone are more common in the southern
portion of the west coast, though many have been
lost to development.
-------
Table 1. Wetland area in hectares for the coastal counties of Washington, Oregon, and California (from
Alexander et al. 1986). San Francisco Bay data from National Wetlands Inventory maps
prepared by US Fish and Wildlife and includes tidal and diked marsh. Dash (-) indicates no data
available.
STATE
SALT MARSH
FRESH MARSH
TIDAL FLATS
WOODED
TOTAL
California
SFBay
Oregon
Washington
Total
8741
41253
7608
9591
67193
1780
60
2549
7123
11512
5423
25876
10198
890
42387
1376
140
-
11817
13333
17320
67329
20355
29421
134425
While more prevalent inland, examples of
vernal pool habitats can be found on coastal
terraces near Santa Barbara and San Diego.
MAN-MADE WETLANDS
A number of man-made wetland types play an
important role in regional wildlife habitats. For
example, many of the tidal wetlands around San
Francisco and San Diego Bays have been converted
to salt ponds. These impoundments currently
support a number of wading birds such as
black-necked stilts, avocets, and herons, which may
not have been as common historically as they are
now. In Suisun Marsh within northern San
Francisco Bay, the tidal wetlands have been diked
and managed as seasonal impoundments to attract
waterfowl. Water management is designed to
encourage specific plants to attract waterfowl and
to discourage disease and vector problems.
Throughout the west coast, dikes and levees
have converted many tidal wetlands to seasonal
wetlands due to the impoundment of rainwater
during the winter. These habitats include sites that
support wetland species throughout the year as well
as fields that are fanned for a significant portion of
the year. In many instances, they provide
important habitat for migratory waterfowl during
the winter and spring months.
Finally, wetlands designed to provide treat-
ment for point or non-point wastewater sources are
increasing in number throughout the west coast.
The Arcata Wetland Complex in Humboldt Bay and
the Mountain View wetland in San Francisco Bay
provide wildlife habitat while reducing nutrient and
suspended sediment loads (Demgen 1981). More
recently, wetlands have been designed to treat
urban runoff (Meiorin 1986). Though designed to
replicate natural wetlands, these sites must be
highly managed to control water quality and
potential health problems.
SUMMARY
Each of these wetland types has a different set
of functional values that must be considered when
attempting to manage or restore them (Table 2).
Small, freshwater/brackish water ponds have a
broad range of functions, whereas vernal pools
provide only a few functions. Diked wetlands do not
provide significant fishery habitat, but are more
important as flood storage basins than tidal
marshes. In addition, there are different
management issues associated with each. For
example, land uses within the watershed must be
considered when attempting to restore wetlands in
coastal rivers and lagoon systems, as they are
subject to high siltation. On the other hand,
estuarine wetlands are less susceptible to siltation,
but can be impacted by pollutants entering the
estuary.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF PACIFIC COASTAL WETLANDS
The volume and timing of freshwater inflow is
the most important natural variable affecting the
distribution and functioning of coastal and estuar-
ine wetlands along the Pacific coast of the
-------
Table 2. Significant wetland functions associated with various West coast wetland types and major management problems to be considered in their restoration
or enhancement. Wetland functions from Adamus (1983) include: (SA) shoreline anchoring, (ST) sediment trapping, (NR) nutrient retention, (PCS) food
chain support, (PH) fishery habitat, (WH) wildlife habitat, (AR) active recreation, (PA) passive recreation, (GWD) ground water discharge, (GWR) ground
water recharge, (FS) flood storage. Most functions are applicable to all wetland types; this table focuses on those most important in the management and
restoration of these habitats.
WETLAND TYPE
IMPORTANT WETLAND FUNCTIONS
SA ST NR PCS FH WH AR PR GWD QWR FS
MANAGEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH RESTORATION
Wetlands associated with low
flow rivers and lagoons
Major estuarlne wetlands
Coastal riverine wetlands
Vernal pools
Man-made wetlands
Diked, managed wetlands
Unmanaged seasonal
wetlands
Freshwater/brackish
ponded wetlands
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
xxxxxxxxxx
Fluctuating freshwater Inflow, erosion In watershed with deposition
In wetland, seasonally variable mouth closure.
High density land use adjacent to site; pollutants In estuary.
Watershed activities affect downstream functioning, possible
catastrophic change In wetland distribution due to floods.
Small size, need for seed source, subject to seasonal and
Interannual variability In water availability.
Subsidence of land surfaces due to compaction, management of
water control structures to affect habitat modification.
High adjacent land use, seasonal and Interannual variability
depending upon rainfall.
Watershed management and non-point source pollutants.
Wastewater wetlands
XXX
Water quality maintenance, possible.
-------
United States (Onuf and Zedler 1987, Macdonald
1986). Freshwater inflow affects water and soil
salinity, sediment and nutrient transport, and,
consequently, plant and animal distributions and
productivity. Other factors usually considered in
explaining the biogeography of wetlands are of
lesser significance along the Pacific coast. For
example, annual temperature differences between
Washington and southern California are moderated
by the maritime influence of the Pacific Ocean;
altitude is not important as all coastal marshes are
near sea-level; and soil types are usually similar as
a consequence of recent sedimentation and limited
peat accumulation.
Along the Pacific coast, from 30 to 50 degrees
North latitude, Macdonald (1977) described four
climatic zones, all of which are based on available
water (the difference between precipitation and
evaporation) (Table 3). There is a net annual excess
of water above 40 degrees and a net deficit below
that latitude. The coastal wetland vegetation
ranges from dominance by sedges and tules in the
north to cordgrass and succulents in the south.
The frequency and duration of freshwater
inflows markedly affect the structure and ecological
function of coastal systems. There are several
scales of variability in streamflow, with definite
seasonal pulses (most streams in southern
California do not flow at all during the long summer
drought), occasional major floods, and rare
catastrophic floods that completely alter wetland
morphometry (e.g., 40% reduction in the low-tide
volume of Mugu Lagoon during a recent flood,
(Onuf 1987)). The impacts are large because the
downstream sediment traps (coastal wetlands) are
relatively small. In addition to changing
morphometry, major floods can eliminate fish and
invertebrate populations, most of which have
limited tolerance to low-salinity water, especially
when seawater is rapidly replaced by fresh water.
No less important are the seasonal pulses of
freshwater, which control the establishment of
many wetland plants. Most coastal halophytes are
tolerant of hypersalinity, but their seeds may not
exhibit high germination percentages in salt water,
and their seedlings may not survive in marine
conditions. The "low-salinity gap" that accompanies
occasional winter floods is responsible for
germination and establishment of many species in
the arid southwest (Zedler and Beare 1986). At the
same time, artificial prolongation of winter
freshwater inflows (from post-flood discharges from
reservoirs or year-round release of treated
wastewater) can allow native salt marsh vegetation
to be invaded by, or even replaced by, weedy
hydrophytes (e.g., Typha and Scirpus species).
Restoration of coastal wetlands is especially
difficult where the natural hydrology cannot be
recovered because permanent structures (dams)
regulate the timing of flows and other human needs
(wastewater treatment, importation of water)
dictate volumes of flow.
Coastal geography also influences the role of
runoff on wetland systems. Unlike the broad,
gently sloping coastal plain of the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts of the United States, the Pacific coast is
characterized by mountain ranges and steep cliffs
punctuated by small rivers flowing to the ocean.
Most of these rivers have mean annual flows of less
than 100 cubic meters per second with peak flows
typically occurring between November and April.
However, storm events, or less frequently, geologic
episodes (vulcanism and earthquakes) can cause
catastrophic floods that rush down steep slopes and
narrow river valleys. Such events affect coastal
wetlands for decades after the floods.
The size of coastal wetlands is limited by the
steep topography and lack of protection by barrier
beaches. Significant exceptions to this rule exist,
such as the estuarine systems of Puget Sound and
the broad tidal marsh plains within Humboldt and
San Francisco Bays. Boule' et al. (1983), in a
review of the coastal wetlands of Oregon and
Washington, determined that within the emergent
vegetated wetland category, wetlands greater than
100 acres comprised 75% of the total acreage within
estuaries, whereas 90% of the palustrine (includes
riparian) wetlands were less than 100 acres, with
45% less than 10 acres.
Coupled with size is the isolation of most
wetland systems along the Pacific coast. In the
Pacific Northwest, the steep coastal topography
separates the adjacent watersheds. In areas of low
landforms, urbanization has isolated wetlands. In
the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco Bay and
Seattle-Tacoma areas, population growth has been
extremely rapid, exceeding an 85% increase
between 1950 and 1980. In. Oregon and in less
urbanized counties, population density and growth
rates have been less than 60% during the same
period. Their population densities are an order of
magnitude smaller than urbanized areas (Figure 1).
Urban development consumes wetland habitat and
isolates the remnant wetlands, making it difficult
for wildlife species to move between wetlands.
Kunz et al. (1988) observed in Washington that the
highest number of wetland impacts coincided with
the counties of highest population and proximity to
water bodies. In California, isolation and loss of
wetland habitats are the major reasons for the
comparatively high number of rare and endangered
species in coastal California.
Given the loss of wetlands within the Pacific
coastal zone (70% along the California coast
(Marcus 1982), the relative isolation of wetlands,
and the frequency of catastrophic events, the
remaining systems gain importance for their rarity,
rather than their abundance (Onuf et al. 1978).
These wetlands provide critical habitat for species
during specific life history phases, e.g., larval stage,
breeding, nesting, and wintering. One cannot
-------
Table 3. Environmental factors affecting wetland distribution and function along the pacific coast of North
America.
LOCATION LATITUDE RAINFALL EVAPORATION NET WATER TEMPERATURE CLIMATIC
(°N) (cm) (cm) BUDGET RANGE (°C) ZONE
SEATTLE
EUREKA
47.36
40.45
90
100
30
40
60
60
14
6
Mesothermal
Humid meso
thermal
SAN 37.45
FRANCISCO
50
120
<70>
Semi-arid
SAN DIEGO
32.53
25
160
<135>
Arid
cr
to
o>
700
600
500
4OO
3OO
O
-5 200
Q_
O
Q_
1 00
WA S/K GH OR L C CA
Coastal Counties
HB BA SC
Figure 1. Population density for coastal counties along the Pacific coast. Densities for all coastal counties in
each state precede selected counties within those states. S/K refers to the Snohomish/King
County area around Seattle/Tacoma, GH refers to Gray's Harbor, L refers to Lincoln County, C
refers to Coos County, HB refers to area surrounding Humboldt Bay, BA refers to all counties
directly bordering on San Francisco Bay (excluding Suisun Marsh), and SC refers to all counties
between Santa Barbara and San Diego.
-------
measure value simply by determining productivity
or contribution to the marine or estuarine food
chains, but must consider that many species have
been extirpated or severely reduced in number due
to lack of wetland habitat during certain periods of
their life history.
STATUS OF WETLAND MITIGATION ALONG
THE PACIFIC COAST
Before evaluating the ecological aspects of
wetland mitigation, a review of the extent and type
of projects which have occurred is necessary. It is
not possible to list all the projects which have been
undertaken as records are inconsistent and
incomplete. Instead, we have relied on compilations
by other authors, recognizing that overlaps and
omissions have occurred (Table 4).
Unfortunately, the evaluation of completed
projects is inconsistent and such projects are
difficult to compare. The simplest evaluation was
whether or not the project has been completed; that
is "have physical acts been carried out" rather than
"has comparable habitat been established...". Suc-
cess under this criteria was a function of permit
enforcement rather than effectiveness of the
restoration or enhancement plan. Other evaluations
used general (and usually undefined) criteria such
as vegetation establishment or functional
capabilities to reach a decision on success. Because
these were based on the evaluation of a single
individual, biases and past experience were likely to
have affected the outcome unless systematic
methods and standard criteria were used. In one
study, the opinions of several biologists and
hydrologists concerning a site's effectiveness were
averaged (BCDC 1988).
Two conclusions can be gleaned from these
evaluations. First, the majority of completed
projects did create some wetland habitat. Second, a
significant percentage of projects evaluated did not
meet the expectations of wetland function
anticipated either as specified in the permit
language or as judged by an expert observer. Most
evaluators felt that the permit language needed to
be more specific. Interestingly, no one suggested
the development of a standardized methodology to
address the problem of variation between
evaluators.
Eliot (1985) addressed the issues of off-site
versus on-site mitigation and the ratio of developed
wetland to restored wetland. She found no
difference in permit compliance between off-site and
on-site mitigation and no consistent ratio of acreage
restored to acreage filled. Kunz et al. (1988) found
that within Washington between 1980 and 1986,
mitigation negotiations had resulted in a net loss of
wetland acreage: from 62 hectares of functional
wetland to 40 hectares of created/restored wetland.
Such continued net losses in wetland acreages have
stimulated some agencies to increase the ratio of
wetland restored to wetland filled (BCDC 1988).
Each of the studies provided a number of
recommendations for future projects:
The most common recommendation was to
improve the permit to include more detail on
the habitat to be created with specific design
objectives and features.
Second, a more precise habitat evaluation of the
development site versus the proposed
mitigation site is needed. This would allow a
better comparison between what was lost and
what habitat values are being created.
Third, improved and more consistent
monitoring of projects should be required. This
should be the responsibility of the applicant, not
the jurisdictional agency. A performance bond
was suggested by Cooper (1987) to require the
applicant to meet certain habitat objectives over
a 5-year period in order to be released from the
monetary bond.
Fourth, the mitigation site should be
constructed prior to or concurrently with the
project development to reduce non-compliance.
Finally, a uniform database for recording
mitigation projects should be developed. Such a
system would allow for frequent updating of
projects and tracking compliance.
Several controversies concerning wetland
mitigation in the Pacific Coast were not resolved by
the authors, though most commented on them.
1. Should degraded off site wetlands be used as
mitigation sites?
These sites may appear to have low value for
wildlife or other wetland functions, yet may still
be classified as jurisdictional wetlands. By
enhancing these habitats, do greater wildlife
benefits accrue despite the net loss of wetland
acreage at the permit sites?
2. How far should wetland mitigation sites be from
the permit site?
Do fish and wildlife which utilized the
developed site move readily to the distant site?
For many migratory species, movement to
-------
Table 4. Reports of wetland restoration/enhancement projects along the West Coast of the contiguous United States. Habitat type refers to general USFWS
classification of project considered. Review refers to source(s) used to locate sites or provide criteria for evaluation, e.g., objectives stated in permit
application. Method refers to general procedures to make evaluations; office refers to examination of literature or personal communication and field
refers to site visits by authors).
AUTHOR
Harvey
et al
(1982)
Josselyn and
Buchholz (1982)
McCreary and
Robin (1984)
Eliot
(1985)
Race
(1985)
Kentula (1986)
Cooper
(1987)
Zentner (1988)
LOCATION
REVIEWED
California
(San Francisco Bay)
California
California
California (San
Francisco Bay)
California (San
Francisco Bay)
Washington Oregon
Washington
California
HABITAT TYPE NO. SITES
STANDARD
Estuarine 9
Estuarlne/Palustrine/ 33
Lacustrine
Estuarine/Palustrine 301
Estuarine 58
Estuarine 11
Estuarine/PalustrJne/ 77
Lacustrine/Riverine
Estuarine/Paluslrine 22s
Estuarine 63
REVIEW
Actual
site work
Permit file
Coastal Cons.
-records
Corps/
BCDC
permits
BCDC permit
and the
'successful
establishment"
of wet. veg.
Oregon State
Lands and US
Fish and
Wildlife.
USFWS admin.
records
Adamus Tech.
METHOD
Field
Office
Office
Office
with 15
field
visits
Field
visits
Office
Office
Field
visits
EVALUATION
No evaluation though
remarks given for Ind.
sites.
No evaluation though
remarks given for
sites.
No evaluation
Complete: 31%
In progress; 44%
Incomplete2: 24%
Success of all projects
reviewed is "debatable".
No evaluation
No evaluation
Success: 65%
Partial: 25%
Failure: 10%
COMMENTS
Dealt with restoration from diked
wetlands.
Included experimental plantings,
References to 5 previous listings.
Description of Conservancy projects;
enhancement and restor projects.
Of 58 projects, only 2 claimed as
"successful*.
Included experimental plantings.
General review, only a few specific
projects described.
Reviewed various components
needed for good restoration plan.
Federal/state projects had lowest %
success.
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
AUTHOR
BCDC
(1988)
Schafer
(pers.
comm.)
WSDOT4
Pritchard
(pera.
comm.)
Seattle
Aquarium9
LOCATION
REVIEWED
California (San
Francisco Bay)
Washington
Washington
HABITAT TYPE NO. SITES REVIEW METHOD EVALUATION
STANDARD
Estuarfn* 18 BCDC permit Field Successful: 33%
visits Partial: 39%
No decision: 6%
Failure: 11%
In Progress: 11%
Palustrine 9 WSDOT files Field Completed projects; no
evaluation
Estuarine 5 Adopt-a-Beach Field Completed or
In progress
COMMENTS
All 0.5 - 2,0 acre replacement
projects.
Information on status Is provided.
1 Of 30 projects reviewed, 11 partially or fully implemented; remainder are pending or planned.
2 Incomplete by date specified In permit.
3 Of 22 projects reviewed, 14 were Implemented; 8 planned.
4 Project Development Office, WSDOT, Olympla, WA 98504.
5 Adopt-a-Beach, Seattle Aquarium, Pier 59, Waterfront Park, Seattle, WA 98101.
-------
another location may be feasible, but for less
mobile species or species dependent upon
specific environmental factors in the region of
the developed site, the mitigation site may not
be suitable.
3. Should mitigation provide for in-kind habitat
losses?
Most authors argue that agency staff must be
prepared to manage for regional habitat goals,
not on a project-by-project basis. Regional
habitat goals would not necessarily call for
in-kind habitat replacement.
4. How long is appropriate for wetland succession
to occur prior to determining whether the site
is successful?
Most authors state that 3 to 4 years is needed
for a site to reach a stage where it can be
evaluated in terms of meeting the project
objectives. On some sites with unusual
conditions, e.g., non-native soils, poor conditions
for plant establishment, or where subsidence
has occurred, this period may be as long as 7 to
20 years. There is little information on what
constitutes a comparable wetland in terms of
species diversity and abundance.
5. Should natural events such as floods, siltation,
or sea-level changes be considered in
determining whether or not a site is successful?
In other words, if natural events modify a site's
ability to achieve the desired objectives, should
these events be controlled or the site
reconstructed?
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN OF RESTORATION PROJECTS
A number of reports have outlined the
necessary planning procedures for the
implementation of wetland restoration projects
along the Pacific coast (Sorensen 1982, Zedler 1984,
Josselyn and Buchholz 1984, Kunz et al. 1988,
Boule1 1988). In addition, specific engineering
criteria have also been developed, especially for
wetlands involving dredge material disposal (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1983 a,b). Each has
recognized the necessity of establishing specific
project objectives and consideration of hydrologic,
biologic, engineering, and cost constraints and
opportunities in the design process. The purpose of
this section is to review the experience of wetland
restoration along the Pacific Coast and to make
specific recommendations that should be considered
when evaluating Section 404 mitigation proposals.
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
"Rarity" is the term which distinguishes the
wetland habitats of the Pacific coastal plain. The
scarcity of continuous wetland habitats along the
coast makes regional planning critical to the
viability of fish and wildlife species associated with
wetlands. When proposals are presented to
eliminate habitats in one part of a biogeographic
region and to consolidate or replace those habitats
in another part of the region, consideration must be
given to the ability of species to accommodate such
shifts.
While migratory birds are able to move great
distances, resident species with restricted ranges
are unlikely to become re-established in the new
locations, especially where development separates
the various wetland habitats. At present, there
have been no successful transplants of wetland
fauna to new restoration sites, although it has been
attempted with the salt marsh harvest mouse in
San Francisco Bay and with rare beetles in the
Tijuana Estuary. Most project proponents assume
that the fauna will move or colonize a new wetland
area over a period of time. This assumption is
likely to result in a loss of species diversity.
The practice of giving mitigation credits for
converting one wetland habitat type (e.g., shallow
water) to another (e.g., deep channels) should be
carefully reviewed for impacts on regional wetland
resources. This is particularly true in southern
California where entire lagoonal systems are being
modified as mitigation for port development. Such
projects may completely eliminate the use of a
wetland by particular species which must seek
suitable habitat in more distant locations.
The perceived importance of commercial and
recreational fisheries over non-game wildlife
resources may also drive mitigation planning. In
Washington, Kunz et al. (1988) found that most
mitigation projects were directed towards
anadromous fish habitat regardless of the type of
wetland lost, resulting in a gradual loss in the
diversity of wetland habitats. For the six year
period analyzed, an average of 2.1 habitats were
lost/project and only 1.4 habitat types/project were
restored through mitigation. This may be an
appropriate planning strategy if part of an overall
regional plan; however, it is more likely the
inadvertent result of individual permit decisions.
Regional planning is difficult to implement as
most projects are reviewed individually rather than
as a whole. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
11
-------
National Wetland Inventory can be utilized to
reduce this problem. A comprehensive inventory is
being completed for San Francisco Bay which will
provide information on the acreage and average size
of various wetland types (Peters and Bohn 1987).
The NWI maps and data can be used to
establish the general amount and diversity of
various wetland types in the proposed project area
and the impact of loss or change of a particular
wetland habitat. At the very least, permit
applications should discuss the significance of the
proposed habitat modification relative to the
quantity of various wetland types in the region. In
addition, agency staff need to evaluate individual
projects on the basis of cumulative impact over time
and should periodically review the regional wetland
habitat changes that have resulted from permit
approvals.
As an alternative to in-depth site evaluation,
most regulators must rely on descriptive site
evaluations. The information that should, at a
minimum, be included is listed in Table 5. A site
containing landfill material or habitat for rare
species will require more research to address those
concerns. In addition, the type of wetland proposed
for the mitigation site may also require more
specific data. For instance, a mitigation site
receiving urban run-off will require further
evaluation to determine the quality of the water
entering the site.
The final product produced from this evaluation
should be a series of maps illustrating the existing
topography, hydrologic features, vegetation, and
presence of any unique attributes which need to be
preserved or enhanced in the mitigation plan.
CONDITIONS AT THE
MITIGATION SITE
Existing conditions represent the starting point
for all project planning. Mitigation proposals
should review and evaluate the hydrologic, edaphic,
and biologic conditions for both the development
and mitigation sites (Sorensen 1982). Increasingly,
studies have shown that even degraded wetland
sites may have important wetland values to rare
and endangered plants and animals, migratory
birds, and hydrologic functions in the region. Sites
presumed to have little value may provide vital
refuge for species during storm events or support
rare and endangered species due to lower
interspecific competition with other species within
these marginal habitats. As a result, one cannot
assume that the loss of a degraded wetland can be
appropriately mitigated by either the creation or
restoration of habitat at another site.
Habitat evaluation techniques such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP) and the joint Federal Highway
Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET, Version 2)
can be used to assess both the development and
mitigation site to determine their relative wetland
values. Only a few training classes are offered each
year and therefore the lack of familiarity with these
methodologies limits their application. In addition,
the absence of uniform habitat suitability models in
coastal wetlands limits the application of HEP.
Ideally, WET and HEP offer the ability to assess
wetlands in the absence of long-term data bases.
Otherwise, the evaluation should include year-long
data on habitat use, especially for sites that support
migratory birds or seasonal fish nursery areas. The
likelihood that a single year's data represents the
regional "norm" should also be indicated by
comparison of rainfall, stream flow, and
temperature data for measurement years and the
period of record.
CRITICAL ASPECTS TO A SUCCESSFUL
MITIGATION PLAN
The important aspects of a mitigation plan that
are specifically applicable to the Pacific West Coast
are dependent on the type of wetland restored or
created. However, there is no "cookbook" solution
and the issues discussed below should be considered
the minimum information necessary to evaluate a
permit application.
Wetlands Associated with Low Flow
Rivers and Lagoons
These systems are dominated by seasonal
hydrographic events which affect salinity, sand bar
closure, and sedimentation. Therefore, long-term
hydrographic records are important in evaluating
the feasibility of mitigation plans. These may be
developed from available data' or through the use of
computer models (Zedler et al. 1984). A number of
features need to be determined: frequency of
various flow events, duration, and flow rates, as has
been done for the Tijuana Estuary (Williams and
Swanson 1987). Examination of aerial photographs
and some knowledge of off-shore currents may be
required to predict the frequency and duration of
sandbar closure as well. Given the dynamic nature
of these systems, mitigation plans within these
wetlands should not attempt to create wetland
types different than those that existed historically.
Hydrographic information is necessary in order
to predict likely vegetation patterns in the system.
Generally, pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) is
tolerant of high salinity and will persist in systems
that are closed either periodically or permanently
by an outer sandbar (Onuf and Zedler 1987).
Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa)r on the other hand,
requires some freshwater inflow in spring and
regular tidal fluctuations. Extremely high flows
may completely shift the balance within the
emergent plant community to one of fresh and
12
-------
Table 5. Existing conditions which should be included in the evaluation of proposed mitigation sites.
FEATURE
DESCRIPTION
PRODUCT
Site history Past uses of site including
past functioning as wetland.
Topography Surface topography including
elevations of levees, drainage
channels, ponds, islands.
Description, map, or photographs illustrating
historic uses.
Topographic map with 1 foot contour intervals,
1" to 100 or 200 scale.
Water control
structures
Hydrology
Flood events
Sediment
Budget
Edaphic
characteristics
Location of culverts tide
gates, pumps, and outlets.
Description of hydrologic
conditions affecting the site.
Current potential for flooding
by high flows, extreme tides,
and storms. Adequacy of
any external or internal
levees.
Analysis of sediment inflow,
outflow, and retention.
Description of existing soils
with analysis of suitability for
supporting wetland plants.
Elevations for all structures, size and type of
structure, current operational status.
Water budget for site including inflow,
precipitation, evaporation, and outflow; tidal
range, history of sand-bar closure.
Evaluation of current flood control protection
using appropriate runoff models.
Evaluation of historic sedimentation rates and
projected due to watershed development.
Presence of hydric and non-hydric soils,
salinity, toxic compounds in filled areas.
Existing
wetland
characteristics
Existing
vegetation
Existing
wildlife
Adjacent site
conditions
Determination of COE
jurisdictional wetlands, if any.
Description of existing habitat
with analysis of degraded
areas and any habitat with
current high value to wildlife.
Description of wildlife using
the site, indicating those
species which may be
displaced by mitigation
activity.
Analysis of wildlife habitat
adjacent to site, indicating
those species likely to benefit
or be impacted by the
mitigation.
Boundary map illustrating wetland extent on
mitigation site.
Vegetation map with list of dominant species
and location of non-native nuisance species and
species of regional concern.
Listing of wildlife known to use site, especially
species of special concern (incl. rare and
endangered).
Map showing site in reference to surrounding
habitats, preferably NWI maps. List of species
benefited or impacted.
13
-------
brackish water species (Zedler 1983). Closure of the
sandbar may lead to a decline in all species due to
long-term inundation or hypersaline conditions;
however, pickleweed is most likely to persist
(Ferren 1985).
Wetlattds Associated with Maioi*
Estuaries
Most sites available for the mitigation of
estuarine wetlands loss are within highly urbanized
areas (San Diego Bay, San Francisco Bay,
Humboldt Bay, and Puget Sound). High density
land uses adjacent to the mitigation sites present
serious constraints to the development of wildlife
habitat. In addition, pollution from urban runoff,
adjacent landfills, and within the bay water itself
may affect the suitability of certain sites.
Wetland mitigation projects within these areas
frequently have involved restoration of former tidal
wetlands that had been diked. Most diked areas
have undergone some degree of subsidence due to a
variety of factors, including oxidation of organic
matter, drying and compaction of the clay and peat
soils, erosion of soil during farming activities,
overdrafting of ground water, or lack of sediment
sources sufficient to maintain elevations relative to
rising sea-level. In some cases, diked areas that
have received fill have also been used for
mitigation. In these cases, the underlying marsh
surface has been lowered by the compression of
marsh clays and peats. Because all the fill material
needs to be removed prior to restoration, the end
result is a former marsh surface below its natural
level.
The most common problem in restoring diked
or filled wetlands is the re-establishment of
elevations necessary for marsh plants. This can be
done through placement of dredged material,
on-site grading, control of water levels, or allowing
natural sedimentation (Harvey et al. 1982, Josselyn
1988b). The selection of the most appropriate
method depends on economic feasibility and the
time allowed for establishment of an emergent
marsh. For example, grading and construction of
water control structures can be expensive; however,
marsh planting can begin immediately following
construction. Allowing sedimentation and accretion
to create suitable elevations for emergent
vegetation is less costly, but may delay marsh
establishment for 10 to 20 years. However, in the
interim, the site will provide wetland habitat values
associated with open water. Use of dredge material
can be effective, especially when the economics of
other disposal methods is prohibitive. The site can
then be planted almost immediately.
Where man-made fill is to be removed, it is
important that all the fill material be excavated
even if this requires over-excavation and
backfilling. At a site in Humboldt Bay, wood debris
was left after excavation to create intertidal
elevations. When tidal action was restored, the
wood debris floated to the surface and was
deposited throughout the newly created wetland.
Five years following restoration, decomposition of
the wood debris continued to cause water quality
problems and methane gas production (Josselyn
1988a). Similar problems can occur in sites subject
to previous industrial processes. Despite five years
of daily tidal action, a former salt crystallizer that
was restored to tidal action in San Francisco Bay
has failed to re-vegetate due to the presence of thick
layers of salt that were not excavated (Josselyn
pers. obs.).
Dredged material placement and grading of
formerly submerged muds can lead to acidic soils or
"cat-clays", especially in the creation of high marsh
and islands (Josselyn and Buchholz, 1984). Liming
is recommended as a treatment for this problem
(Clar et al. 1983) but has had mixed results in San
Francisco Bay (Josselyn and Buchholz 1984,
Newling and Landin 1985). The acidic soils may
last for 10 years or more and, therefore, it is best to
prevent such conditions from developing. If islands
or high marsh areas are planned, it is preferable to
use upland soils that are low in sulfate.
Within estuaries, tidal ranges may either
increase or decrease as one moves from the ocean to
the head of an estuary. Consequently, plant
distribution will shift in relation to the individual
species' tolerance to inundation. In addition, some
species such as tules and cattails are less tolerant of
submergence as salinity increases (Atwater et al.
1979). As a result, their vertical distribution range
is reduced towards the mouth of the estuary.
Mitigation plans should include information on
typical distributional profiles for nearby habitats to
assure appropriate elevations.
Coastal Riverine Wetlands
These wetland types are most vulnerable to
activities within the watershed. Lumbering,
mining, and urbanization have generally increased
rates of sedimentation and the movement of logs,
debris, and pollutants through these wetlands. As
a result, the tidal prism has decreased within these
systems due to filling at the river mouth and
deposition of material to form levees along the
edges of the river as it enters the coastal plain. The
levees isolate the natural riparian wetlands along
the edge of the river by blocking flood and tidal
flows. Furthermore, sedimentation may result in
the loss of tidal flats and eelgrass beds.
The two primary means of enhancing or
restoring these systems are (1) watershed
management to reduce sedimentation or log
deposition downstream and (2) removal of levees
along river edges and restoration of stream-bank
vegetation. Without effective watershed
management, downstream restoration will fail.
Watershed management requires that a detailed
14
-------
analysis be conducted which considers climate,
precipitation rates, vegetation types, slope stability
and aspect, soil type and composition, water
discharge, and land use. Unfortunately, the
required coordination between agencies responsible
for watershed management and coastal resources is
a significant problem. In California, the State
Coastal Conservancy has provided a unique model
to provide the coordination and funding for a
number of watershed management programs in
Tomales Bay, Morro Bay, Los Penasquitos Lagoon,
and others.
Vernal Pools
Vernal pool restoration and creation projects
are subject to unique problems. As isolated
wetlands within upland habitats, the shallow pools
are especially susceptible to off-road vehicle
damage. Thus, sites must be fenced. Their special
hydrology, i.e., short hydroperiods, is difficult to
create. Soils must have the necessary clay layer
that will retain water during the wet season.
Detailed topographic mapping before construction
and contouring during construction are required.
Not only must the pool depth and cross-sectional
profile be correct, but the local drainage area must
not be too large or too small. Placement within a
large catchment will increase water depth and
prolong inundation. In one vernal pool preserve,
leakage of an irrigation pipe artificially prolonged
the hydroperiod and cattails and other marsh
species invaded the pools within one growing
season (P. Zedler, pers. comm.). Eradication
measures are required, because the cattails will
persist even after the pool's normal hydroperiod is
restored. Construction of pools within coastal scrub
areas also damages the surrounding vegetation
which may require restoration to provide a natural
transitional landscape.
Most of the biological information on vernal
pools describes the vascular plants. The plankton,
food webs, and nutrient dynamics are also critical
in assessing pool functions before destruction or
after restoration or creation. In Southern
California, where pool destruction has endangered
certain plants, we recommend that no future
permits for the destruction of existing pools be
granted until restoration/creation efforts can
demonstrate that natural functions can be replaced.
To insure that vernal pool biodiversity is
maintainable, artificial pools should be monitored
during environmental extremes, including
catastrophic drought.
General Considerations Applicable to All
Sites
Replacement acreage ratios-
The loss of wetlands due to development
pressures has been substantial. Permit reviews
have indicated that often the loss of acreage has not
been fully compensated within the mitigation
project (Eliot 1985, Kunz et al. 1988). In addition,
considerable delays between the wetland loss at the
development site and wetland establishment at the
mitigation site result in net decline in habitat
availability to fish and wildlife (BCDC 1988).
Therefore, in no case should mitigation be
permitted on less than a one-to-one replacement
and in most projects, especially those anticipating
delay in implementation, the replacement ratio
should be greater.
Timing of mitigation projects-
Construction of mitigation projects should be
timed to reduce impacts to existing fish and wildlife
and should precede the permitted wetland
development.
Most mitigation sites are either located within
or adjacent to existing wetlands. The protection of
the existing fish and wildlife must be considered in
selecting the period of time during which
construction activity is allowable. For example,
migratory waterfowl primarily utilize wetlands
during the spring months (March through April)
and in the fall (September through November). In
Washington and Oregon, the birds may be present
earlier during the fall migration and some may
overwinter in southern California wetlands. Most
juvenile fish are found within wetlands during the
spring and summer months, and construction in
sites that are utilized by juvenile salmon smolt
should be restricted during the spring. The critical
periods (e.g., nesting) in the life stages of rare and
endangered species must be considered.
Restrictions for protection of wildlife must be
balanced with the feasibility of construction during
certain seasons.
It is not known how long mitigation sites will
take to develop wetland habitat values comparable
to natural wetlands (see examples cited in Kentula
1986). Differences in construction techniques,
variation in plant establishment, and differences in
the colonization of new sites by animals makes it
difficult to predict the rate of succession in
restoration sites. In western tidal marshes, plant
invasion generally proceeds from the higher to
lower elevations of the site (Niesen and Josselyn
1981). Thus, high marsh sites are likely to be
rapidly colonized by vegetation within a few years
whereas lower portions are more slowly
revegetated, unless artificial propagation is
undertaken. Areas above tidal action invariably
require initial plantings and irrigation.
Plant establishment in tidal marshes usually
takes two to four years, though it can be accelerated
by planting. If natural seed sources are not readily
available, plant establishment may take five to
seven years. This is particularly true for Pacific
cordgrass. Freshwater and brackish marshes are
colonized by cattails and tules within one year,
15
-------
whereas woody species such as willows and alders
establish quickly, but maturity isn't reached until
three to five years.
Because restoration sites may not become
vegetated in the first year or two, construction of
the mitigation project site should begin prior to the
permitted development. Given the frequent delays
in construction projects, it is not unreasonable to
request mitigation to begin several years prior to
the proposed development project (see Zedler in
press). Kunz et al. (1988) found that out of 26
projects permitted in Washington State, only two
habitat compensation projects were completed
before the project impacts began. The average time
lag for compensation was 1-3 growing seasons.
Construction oversight and inspection--
Few engineering or construction firms have
specific experience in wetland creation and
restoration. Working drawings and bid
specifications must be prepared by a civil engineer
and only experienced contractors in wetland
restoration should be hired. However, there are
several stages during the development of working
drawings and actual site construction that should
also include the involvement of a wetland biologist
and/or hydrologist (Table 6). As with any
complicated construction project, problems are
likely to occur and judgments from professional
wetland scientists will be needed. Regulatory
personnel do not have the time to make such
decisions. Therefore, the permit itself must require
the applicant to assure on-site review by
knowledgeable personnel.
Revegetation of mitigation sites-
There is often debate over the necessity to
revegetate mitigation sites. Most agree that given
the correct hydrologic regime, wetland plants will
eventually become established. The question is one
of timing and desired composition. How long is an
acceptable period of time before emergent
vegetation is established? Race (1985) considered a
number of restoration projects in the San Francisco
Bay area failures due to the lack of coverage by
vegetation; but many of these sites became fully
vegetated after 3 to 4 years of natural
recolonization (Josselyn pers. obs.).
There are a number of reasons to require
re-vegetation by artificial means:
1. A specific wetland plant community may be
necessary to support certain fish and wildlife
species. Where a rare habitat type will be
destroyed by the permitted development,
replacement habitat should be provided in
advance.
2. Salvaging wetland plants from the
development site may be desirable to preserve
genetic diversity. In addition, some species,
especially woody plants associated with riparian
areas, are valuable due to their age. It might be
desirable to transplant these species to the
mitigation site rather than propagate from
seedlings. However, they must often be cut
back severely to become established and the
high cost of transplanting mature plants limits
the number that can be transplanted. For
annual and herbaceous species, transferring soil
from the impacted wetland to the mitigation
site may be sufficient to re-establish a mixed
plant community.
3. Invasive and/or exotic species may be better
controlled if a revegetation program is initiated
early in the restoration project. For example,
native high marsh and transition zone species
will have difficulty colonizing if more aggressive
exotic species become established first. The
planting of native species may give the
desirable plants a competitive edge over the
non-native species.
4. Isolated wetlands may not receive sufficient
water-borne seeds or native species nearby may
not produce large numbers of viable seeds. For
example, in the southern portion of San
Francisco Bay, Pacific cordgrass does not
produce seeds during dry years when water
salinities are high; thus, its invasion there is
much slower than in the northern portion of the
bay where water salinities are regularly
reduced by freshwater inflow in the spring.
West coast re-vegetation techniques have been
reviewed by Knutson (1976) and Zedler (1984). The
technique selected depends upon the availability of
plant material, the area to be planted, the soil
conditions, the need to protect plants from grazers
and other plant competitors, and other site-specific
factors. Regardless of the technique used, the
following general guidelines are recommended:
1. Use native species from the local region.
2. Do not allow commercial "cultivars" as a
replacement for native species.
3. If transplanting from nearby sites is necessary,
require monitoring of the donor site to assure
that it is not decimated by the extraction of
plant material.
4. The time of planting for high marsh and
transition zone species should occur during the
fall, prior to the rainy season, unless irrigation
is used.
5. Soil conditions on the site should be monitored
prior to planting to assure that salinity,
moisture, and pH are appropriate for the
planned species.
16
-------
Table 6. Stages in engineering and construction that should be inspected and approved by a wetland
biologist and/or hydrologist. It is assumed that a civil engineer, licensed contractor, and
appropriate construction supervisory staff are also involved.
ACTIVITY
INDIVIDUAL
APPROVAL
Working drawings
Bid documents
Start work meeting
On-site supervision
Acceptance of work
Biologist Approval of overall plans, elevations, and planting
specifications, if any.
Hydrologist Location, elevation, and type of water control
structures.
Biologist Timing of construction, type of equipment, if
specified.
Biologist Location of all construction activity, including
staging areas and disposal sites.
Biologist On-call to review any changes to the plan due
Hydrologist to unforeseen problems.
Biologist Approval of elevations, work modifications,
Hydrologist site clean-up.
Use of buffers between mitigation sites
and upland development-
The use of buffers between wetlands and
upland development is a controversial topic. Buf-
fers are usually upland areas that are not within
areas regulated by federal and state agencies.
Landowners consider such uplands as
developable property. However, resource agencies
usually require buffers as part of approved land-use
plans. As a result, the nature, size, and use of the
buffer zone often becomes a subject of intense
debate fueled by the lack of scientific information
on the effectiveness of various buffer configurations.
Ecologically, a buffer is a transition zone
between one type of habitat and another. Often,
these habitat edges support a more diverse flora
and fauna than either of the two adjoining habitats
(Jordan and Shisler 1988). Buffers are also
important in reducing excess nutrient and sediment
loading to wetlands. On the other hand, land-use
planners view buffers as transitions from higher
density uses on adjoining lands. Under such a
definition, the buffer itself may have a land-use
such as public access, recreation, green-belt, or even
parking lots or roads. Thus, the use of buffers in
land-use planning is to reduce connectivity between
the upland and wetland rather than encourage
wildlife utilization.
Width is the most frequently cited criterion for
buffers. Generally, thirty meters is recommended.
However, the selection of any distance is subjective;
the width should depend on the use of the upland
area and the sensitivity of the species planned for
the mitigation site. Ecologists usually do not have
the information necessary to determine the most
appropriate distance for individual situations.
Based on field study, White (1986) recommended
that 30m buffers would reduce impacts of human
intrusion on Belding's savannah sparrows, an en-
dangered species in Southern California. Josselyn
et al. (1988) determined that water birds varied in
their response to disturbance depending upon
acclimation and distance, but usually reacted
within 25 to 45m.
Other features of buffer zones include fencing to
reduce human and pet intrusion, vegetation and
berms to reduce noise and visual intrusion, and
open water to separate pedestrians from wetlands.
Of these, vegetation, especially native shrubs and
trees, may be the most effective, as it also provides
wildlife habitat.
17
-------
In reviewing mitigation plans, the planned
land-use adjacent to the mitigation site must be
considered. Habitat for highly sensitive species
cannot be planned next to industrial parks unless
elaborate buffers are provided. In addition, upland
development will introduce unwanted predators on
wetland wildlife such as Norway rats, feral cats,
and unleashed dogs. Though predator control plans
have been proposed for some mitigation projects, no
plan has been implemented nor shown to be
effective. High density upland uses will limit the
opportunities for on-site mitigation. It is then
appropriate either to scale down the development
proposal or consider off-site mitigation.
MONITORING PROGRAMS
Two levels of monitoring are necessary. The
first level is one of enforcement. Is the project being
completed in compliance with the permit
specifications? This level of monitoring can be
accomplished through annual site visits by
regulatory personnel or, at a minimum, submission
of site photography by the permittee. A requirement
in the issued permit for an annual report on the
mitigation project during the first 3-10 years may
ensure regular review. The length of time required
should be dependent upon the complexity of and
experience with the type of habitat proposed.
The second level of monitoring involves
evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration
project. A variety of monitoring programs have
been suggested (Zedler et al. 1983, Zedler 1984,
Josselyn and Buchholz 1984), and the need for
monitoring has been expressed by many agencies.
Unfortunately, few mitigation projects have
required detailed monitoring; and of those that
have, the results have not been used to effect
changes. In a review of 404 permits in Washington
State, Kunz et al. (1988) found that only 31% of the
permits incorporated monitoring study
requirements.
Typically, mitigation site monitoring is of short
duration (one year) and only requires data
collection on vegetation coverage. If monitoring is
to be an effective tool to evaluate the success of
achieving mitigation goals, it should be redirected
towards understanding the functions of the
mitigation site as opposed to its appearance (Shisler
and Charette 1984). Josselyn and Buchholz (1984)
outlined the types of monitoring required for
various habitat functions.
Thorn et al. (1987) reported on a monitoring
program directed towards understanding the
functioning of a restoration project on the Puyallup
River estuary in Washington that was designed for
several target species. Portions of the restoration
were designed to support juvenile salmonids,
waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and small
mammals. A design was then selected that
includeda sedge marsh, a cattail marsh,
unvegetated mudflats, and channels. The
monitoring program was directed to sampling
selected physical, chemical, and biological
parameters to evaluate the successful
establishment of vegetation and the utilization by
the target species.
Several wetland sites along the Pacific Coast
have been examined at least five years after
creation (Josselyn and Buchholz 1984, Newling and
Landin 1985, Faber 1986, Josselyn 1988a, Josselyn
et al. 1987, Landin et al. 1987, BCDC1988). These
studies have generally observed that, given
appropriate hydrologic conditions, functioning
wetland habitat in terms of both vegetation
colonization and animal utilization evolved over
time. The restoration sites did not meet all the
objectives stated but provided functions not
anticipated. Thus, monitoring and evaluation of
success or failure should be flexible and based on
ecologic function rather than preconceived notions
of how a wetland should look. For example, in
Humboldt Bay, a high marsh habitat was planned
for the Bracut mitigation bank. Poor substrate
conditions have restricted plant establishment by
typical high marsh species, but have allowed the
extensive colonization by a rare plant species,
Humboldt Bay owl's clover (Josselyn 1988a). On
the basis of the permit objectives, this project would
be considered a failure, yet it provides a very
effective habitat for a rare species. Nevertheless,
one must carefully evaluate whether in-kind
habitat replacement is still being provided if the
mitigation site varies too much from the stated
objectives.
Monitoring is often accepted as a passive
activity with little enforcement. Agency personnel
must review monitoring reports and request
peer-review to assure unbiased reporting (Zedler
1988). Action should be taken to correct problems
at the mitigation site. Kunz et al. (1988-)
recommended that contingency plans be included as
part of the permit if the mitigation should fail.
They and Cooper (1987) suggested a performance
bond as a means to assure funding for corrective
measures.
18
-------
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Successful restoration is based on past
experience and predictions from experimental
research. With this in mind, future projects should
necessarily include in their design at least some
degree of experimentation to ensure site-specific
success, while contributing to our overall
understanding of how best to restore a full, healthy
wetland. Because many Pacific coastal wetlands
are small and isolated, they are often managed for a
relatively few target resources (i.e., endangered
species habitat). Information is therefore needed
regarding the establishment and maintenance of
particular species as well as the general ecosystem.
Important research needs that may be incorporated
into a plan include (but are not limited to)
plant/hydrologic relationships, wildlife habitat
utilization, and nutrient removal functions of
wetlands (Weller et al. 1988; LaRoe 1988).
Significant gaps exist in the understanding of
the effect of various hydroperiods on west coast
plants. Despite this, hydrologic modifications (dike
breaching, tidal restoration, etc.) are often major
components of restoration plans, and improper
hydrology often leads to colonization of mitigation
areas by non-target species. Period and frequency
of soil saturation affect different plant species in
different ways, though hydrologic limits are not
well defined. Salicornia virginica growthT for
example, is inhibited but not entirely eliminated by
prolonged inundation. Whether this inhibition
allows for the establishment of other species (i.e.,
Spartina) is not yet clear, nor is it clear how long
Salicornia can withstand complete inundation.
In a similar way, there are significant gaps
regarding the effect of salinity variation on plant
growth and seedling establishment. Widely
variable salinities may decrease diversity in
wetlands (Zedler 1982), however experimental
evidence is needed before salinity effects on
individual species can be adequately described.
While it is generally accepted that the proper
design of the physical ecosystem component
(topography, soils properties, hydraulic circulation,
sediment budget, etc.) is crucial to a successful
mitigation plan, these areas have received much
less research than biological aspects of coastal
marshes. The extensive body of research on
estuarine and fluvial processes must be extended to
wetland processes.
The goal of most mitigation projects extends to
the restoration of an entire ecosystem. A workable,
self perpetuating system that supports the desired
(target) wildlife species is often desired but seldom
realized, particularly on sites of less than 5 acres.
One of the reasons for this is simply an incomplete
understanding of the systems being restored. The
physical factors and even outward appearance
(vascular plants) of an area may seem right for a
given species to colonize, however several more
subtle factors may deter colonization. Prey species
must be available for the target species, extending
the need for information to the lower trophic levels
of the food chain. Adjacent land uses may affect the
desirability of the restored area for wildlife use.
The area may just be too small for the desired
species, or perhaps misplaced among surrounding
habitats. To gain specific knowledge of these
factors and how they affect the desired wildlife,
broad range experimentation can be incorporated
into future project plans, increasing the success of
those mitigation projects and the ones to follow.
With ever-increasing human population in the
Pacific coast region, wetlands have become
important for their capacity to remove nutrients
from sewage effluent and urban runoff. In some
projects, water quality improvement is an
incorporated goal in the mitigation agreement.
How this function affects the other functions of a
restored wetland is still unclear however, and
presents another need for further research. The
effect of pollutants on the food chain is likely to
have a direct influence on the health of the wildlife
that colonizes the area, yet information regarding
these effects is scarce. Controlled experimentation
incorporated into project plans would greatly assist
in the understanding of the impact of these factors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the review
and guidance provided by Jon Kusler and Mary
Kentula in the preparation of this chapter. In
addition, anonymous reviews by over 10 individuals
greatly assisted in giving a larger perspective to the
text. The following individuals supplied reports or
preprints of material that were important to our
review: Mary Burg, Washington State Department
of Ecology; Ken Brunner, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; James Schaefer, Washington State
Department of Transportation; Kenneth Raedeke,
University of Washington; Ken Pritchard,
Adopt-a-Beach Program; Ron Thorn, University of
Washington; Francesca Demgen, Demgen Aquatics;
Jeff Haltiner, Philip Williams and Associates, and
John Zentner, Zentner and Zentner. Finally,
students at San Francisco State University who
assisted in the preparation of the manuscript are:
Michael Nelson, Molly Martindale, and John
Callaway.
19
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, CJ5., MA. Broutman, and D.W. Field. 1986. An
Inventory of Coastal Wetlands of the USA. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington,
D.C.
A damns, P.R., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for
Wetland Functional Assessment. Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
FHWS-IP-82-23.
Atwater, B.F., S.G. Conard, J.N. Dowden, C.W. Hedel, R.L.
MacDonald, and W. Savage. 1979. History, landforms,
and vegetation of the estuary's tidal marshes, p.
265-285. In T J. Conomos, (Ed.), San Francisco Bay:
The Urbanized Estuary. Pacific Division, Amer. Assoc.
Advance. Sci., San Francisco, California.
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1988.
Mitigation: An Analysis of Tideland Restoration
Projects in San Francisco Bay. Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, San Francisco, California.
Boule', M.C. 1988. Wetland creation and enhancement in
the Pacific Northwest, p. 130-136. In J. Zelazny and
J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing Our Wetland
Resource: Proceedings of A Conference. National
Wildlife Federation. Washington, D.C.
Boule1, M.C., N. Olmsted, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of
Wetland Resources and Evaluation of Wetland
Management in Western Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1980. Bracut Marsh
Restoration Project. Prepared for the California State
Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California.
Clar, M., R. Kort, H. Hopkins, N. Page, and C. Lee. 1983.
Restoration Techniques for Problem Soils. EL-83-1,
Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Washington, D.C.
Cooper, J.W. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat
mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest
Environ. Jour. 3(1): 113-127.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep-Water
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Cuneo, K. 1978. Hayward Shoreline Marsh Restoration
Project. Prepared for East Bay Regional Park District
by Madrone Associates. Oakland, California.
Demgen, F. 1981. Enhancing California's Wetland Resource
Using Treated Effluent. Prepared for California State
Coastal Conservancy by Demgen Aquatic Biology.
Vallejo, California.
Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in San
Francisco Bay: A Critique. Prepared for California
State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California.
Faber, P. 1986. Report on the Current Status of the Muzzi
Marsh. Prepared for Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
Transportation District. San Francisco, California.
Ferren, W. 1985. Carpentaria Salt Marsh: Environment,
History, and Botanical Resources of a Southern
California Estuary. Publ. Number 4. Department of
Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Hamilton, SJF. 1984. Estuarine Mitigation. The Oregon
Process. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem,
Oregon.
Handley, L.R. and M.L. Quammen. In press. Wetland
Trend Analysis for Lower San Francisco Bay. Coastal
Zone *87 Supplemental Volume. Coastal Zone Civil
Engineers, New York.
Harvey, T.H., P. Williams, and J. Haltiner. 1982.
Guidelines for Enhancement and Restoration of Diked
Historic Baylands. Prepared for San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission. San
Francisco, California.
Harvey, T.H. and M.N. Josselyn. 1986. Wetland
restoration and mitigation policies: comment. Environ.
Management 10(5): 567-569.
Jordan, RA. and JJK. Shisler. 1988. Research needs for the
use of buffer zones for wetland protection, p. 433-435.
In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks (Eds.),
Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State
Wetland Managers Technical Report No. 3. Berne, New
York.
Josselyn, M. (Ed.). 1982. Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement in California. Proceedings of A
Conference, February, 1982, California State
University, Hayward. California Sea Grant Program
Report No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies, Tiburon, California.
Josselyn, M. 1983. The Ecology of San Francisco Bay Tidal
Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS^3/23. Washington, D.C.
Josselyn, M. 1988a. Bracut Wetland Mitigation Bank,
Biological Monitoring: 1987, Final Report. Prepared for
California State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland,
California.
Josselyn, M. 1988b. Effectiveness of coastal wetland
restoration: California, p. 246-251. In J.A. Kusler, M.L.
Quammen, and G. Brooks (Eds.), Mitigation of Impacts
and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers
Technical Report No. 3. Berne, New York.
Josselyn, M.N, and J. Buchholz 1982. Summary of past
wetland restoration projects in California, p. 1-10. In
M.N. Josselyn (Ed.), Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement in California. California Sea Grant
College Program. Report #T-CSGCP-007. LaJolla,
California.
Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz. 1984. Marsh Restoration in
San Francisco Bay: A Guide to Design and Planning.
Technical Report No. 3. Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies, San Francisco State
University, California.
20
-------
Josselyn, M., J. Duffield and M. Quammen. 1987.
Evaluation of habitat use in natural and restored tidal
marshes in San Francisco Bay, California, p.
3085-3095. In Coastal Zone '87. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York.
Josselyn, M., M. Martindale, J. Duffield. 1988. Public
Access and Wetlands: A Study of the Impact of
Recreational Use on Wetlands. Prepared for California
State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California.
Kentula, M. 1986. Wetland creation and rehabilitation in
the Pacific Northwest, p. 119-150. In R. Strickland,
(Ed.), Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation
in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our
Understanding. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Knutson, P.L. 1976. Dredge Spoil Disposal Study: San
Francisco Bay and Estuary: Appendix K. Marsh
development. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco, California.
Kunz, K., M. Rylko, andE. Somers. 1988. An assessment of
wetland mitigation practices in Washington state. Nat.
Wetlands Newsletter 10(3): 2-4.
Landin, M.C., CJ. Newling and E.J. Clairain, Jr. 1987.
Miller Sands Island: A dredged material wetland in the
Columbia River. In Proceedings of conference, Eighth
Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists,
May, 26-29,1987. Seattle, Washington.
La Roe, E.T. 1988. Mitigation research needs: summary, p.
431-432. In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G.
Brooks (Eds.), Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.
Association of State Wetland Managers Technical
Report No. 3. Berne, New York.
Macdonald, K.B. 1977. Plant and animal communities of
Pacific North American salt marshes, p. 167-191. In
VJ. Chapman, (Ed.), Ecosystems of the World. Volume
1. West Coast Ecosystems. Elsevier Scientific
Publications Co., Amsterdam.
Macdonald, K.B., (Ed.). 1986. Pacific Coast Wetlands
Function and Values: Some Regional Comparisons.
Symposium Proceedings, Western Society of
Naturalists, 63rd Annual Meeting, Long Beach,
December 1982. Prepared by KB. Macdonald &
Assoc., Inc. San Diego, California.
Marcus, M.L. 1982. Wetlands Policy Assessment: California
Case Study. Prepared for Office of Technology
Assessment, Washington, D.C. by ESA/Madrone
Consultants. Novato, California.
Meiorin, E.G. 1986. Demonstration of Urban Stormwater
Treatment at Coyote Hills Marsh: Final Report.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland,
California.
Newling, C.J. and M.C. Landin. 1985. Long-Tenn
Monitoring of Habitat Development at Upland and
Wetland Development Sites, 1974-1982. Technical
Report D-85-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg,
Massachusetts.
Niesen, T. and M. Josselyn. 1981. The Hayward Regional
Shoreline Marsh Restoration: Biological Succession
During the First Year Following Dike Removal.
Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies Technical
Report No. 1. San Francisco State University.
O'Donnell, A. 1988. The policy implications of wetlands
creation, p. 141-144. In J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend
(Eds.), Increasing Our Wetland Resource: Proceedings
of A Conference. National Wildlife Federation.
Washington, D.C.
Onuf, C.P. 1987. The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon: An
Estuarine Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol.
Rep. 85. Washington, D.C.
Onuf, C.P., M.L. Quammen, G.O. Shaffer, C.H. Peterson,
J.W. Chapman, J. Cermak, and R.W. Holmes. 1978.
An analysis of the values of Central and Southern
California coastal wetlands, p. 189-199. In P.W.
Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetlands
Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding.
American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Onuf, C. and J.B. Zedler. 1987. Pattern and process in
arid-region salt marshes, p. 570-581. In D.D. Hook,
WH. McKee, Jr., HJK. Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell,
Jr., MB. DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, LH.
Stolzy, C. Brooks, TD. Matthew, and T.H. Shear (Eds.),
The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Timber
Press, Portland, Oregon.
Peters, D., and J.T. Bohn. 1987. Wetland Mapping: San
Francisco Bay/Delta Area, California. Coastal Zone '87
Supplemental Volume. Coastal Zone Civil Engineers,
New York.
Phillips, R.C. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows in
the Pacific Northwest: A Community Profile. U.S.Fish
and WUdlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/24.
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Summary of conference and
information needs for mitigation in wetlands, p.
151-158. In R. Strickland (Ed.), Wetland Functions,
Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest:
The State of Our Understanding. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
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 Bay.
Environ. Management 9: 71-82.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission. 1988. Mitigation: An Analysis of
Tideland Restoration Projects in San Francisco Bay.
Staff Report.
Seliskar, D.M. and J.L. Gallagher. 1983. The Ecology of
Tidal Marshes of the Pacific Northwest Coast: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/3.
Shisler, JJC. and D.J. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of
Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey. New Jersey
Agricultural Station Publ. No. P-40502-01-84. Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Simenstad, CA. 1983. The Ecology of Estuarine Channels
of the Pacific Northwest Coast: A Community Profile.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services. FWS/OBS-83/05. Washington, D.C.
Sorensen, J. 1982. Towards an overall strategy in
21
-------
designing wetland restorations, p. 85-95. In M.
Josselyn (Ed.), Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
in California. California Sea Grant Program Report
No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for Environmental
Studies, Tiburon, California.
Strickland, R., (Ed.). 1986. Wetland Functions,
Rehabilitation and Creation in the Pacific Northwest:
The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of
conference, April 30 - May 2, 1986, Port Townsend,
Washington. Publ. No. 86-14. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Swift, K. 1988. Salt marsh restoration: assessing a southern
California example. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Thorn, R.M., R.G. Albright, and E.O. Salo. et al. 1985. Tidal
Wetland Design at Lincoln Street on the Puyallup
River. Unpublished report. Fisheries Research
Institute University of Washington, Seattle.
Thorn, R.M., CA. Simenstad, and E.O. Salo. 1987. The
Lincoln Street Wetland System in the Puyallup River
Estuary, Washington. Phase 1 Report: Construction
and Initial Monitoring, July, 1985 to December, 1986.
FRI-UW-8706. Fisheries Research Institute, University
of Washington, Seattle.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1983a. Engineering
and Design: Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal.
EMU 10-2-5025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1983b.
Engineering and Design: Beneficial Uses of Dredged
Material. EM1110-2-5026. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Biological
Opinion 1-1-78-F-14-R2: The Combined Sweetwater
River Flood Control and Highway Project (Project), San
Diego County, California. March 30, 1988. Portland,
Oregon.
Weller, M.W., J.B. Zedler, andJ.H. Satner. 1988. Research
needs for better mitigation: future directions, p.
428-430. In J A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks
(Eds.), Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of
State Wetland Managers Technical Report No. 3.
Berne, New York.
White, A. 1986. Effects of habitat type and human
disturbance on an endangered wetland bird: Beldings
Savannah Sparrow. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Williams, PJ3. and M. Swanson. 1987. Tijuana Estuary
Enhancement Hydrologic Analysis. Prepared for San
Diego State University. San Diego, California.
Philip Williams and Associates. 1981. Final Marsh
Management Plan for the Village Shopping Center,
Corte Madera: Phase Two, Preliminary Design. Report
No. 134. Philip Williams and Associates, San
Francisco, California.
Zedler, J.B. 1982. The Ecology of Southern California
Coastal Salt Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services.
FWS/OBS-81/54. Washington, D.C.
Zedler, J.B. 1983. Freshwater impacts in normally
hypersaline marshes. Estuaries 6:306-346.
Zedler, JJB. 1984. Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for
Southern California. California Sea Grant College
Program. Report No. 7-CSGCP-009. La Jolla,
California.
Zedler, J.B. 1988. Salt marsh restoration: lessons from
California, p. 123-238. In J. Cairns (Ed.), Management
for Rehabilitation and Enhancement of Ecosystems.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Zedler, JJJ. and P.A. Beare. 1986. Temporal variability of
salt marsh vegetation: the role of low salinity gaps and
environmental stress, p. 295-306. In D. Wolfe (Ed.),
Estuarine Variability. Academic Press, New York.
Zedler, J.B., J. Covin, C. Nordby, P. Williams, and J.
Holland. 1986. Catastrophic events reveal the dynamic
nature of salt-marsh vegetation in Southern California.
Estuaries 9(1):75-80.
Zedler, JJJ., M. Josselyn, and C P. Onuf. 1983. Restoration
techniques, research, and monitoring: vegetation, p.
63-72. In Josselyn, M. (Ed.), Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement in California. California Sea Grant
Program Report No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies, Tiburon, California.
Zedler, J.B., WJ>. Magdych, and San Diego Association of
Governments. 1984. Freshwater Release and Southern
California Coastal Wetlands: Management Plan for the
Beneficial Use of Treated Wastewater in the Tijuana
River and San Diego River Estuaries. San Diego
Association of Governments, San Diego, California.
Zedler, J.B. and C.S. Nordby. 1986. The Ecology of Tijuana
Estuary, California: An Estuarine Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and California Sea Grant Program.
Biological Report 85(7.5).
Zedler, P.H. and C. Black. (submitted). Species
preservation in artificially constructed habitats:
Preliminary evaluation based on a case study of vernal
pools at Del Mar Mesa, San Diego County.
Proceedings, Urban Wetlands Conference, Association
of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.
Zentner, JJ. 1988. Wetland restoration success in coastal
California, p. 216-219. In J. Zelazny and J.S.
Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing Our Wetland Resource:
Proceedings of A Conference. National Wildlife
Federation. Washington, D.C.
22
-------
APPENDIX I: SUGGESTED READING
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1988.
Mitigation: An Analysis of Tideland Restoration
Projects in San Francisco Bay. Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, San Francisco, California.
Field studies of success of eighteen mitigation projects
required by BCDC. Includes analysis of effectiveness of
mitigation system.
Bay Institute of San Francisco. 1987. Citizen's Report on
the Diked Historic Baylands of San Francisco Bay. L.
Treaia (Ed.). The Bay Institute of San Francisco,
Sausalito, California.
This report describes the types and extent of proposals
which effect the 80 square miles of wetlands along the San
Francisco Bay shoreline by reviewing the development
and restoration proposals of sixteen diked historic bayland
sites around the bay.
Bierly, KJF. 1987. Mitigation Bank Handbook: Procedures
and Policies for Oregon. Division of State Lands,
Salem, Oregon.
This handbook outlines the concept of mitigation
banking under Oregon state law. It describes
management and ecological terms related to mitigation,
the process of estuarine mitigation, and specifics of
mitigation banking, such as, how to establish and operate
a mitigation bank, and possible sites for mitigation banks
in Oregon.
Blomberg, G. 1987. Development and mitigation in the
Pacific Northwest. Northwest Env. Jour. 3(1): 63-91.
Briefly reviews legislative framework for mitigation,
federal and state agencies involved in mitigation, and
coastal zone management programs in Washington and
Oregon. Evaluates federal, state, and local mitigation
requirements.
Boule', M.C., N. Olmsted, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of
Wetland Resources and Evaluation of Wetland
Management in Western Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
This report presents a comprehensive inventory of
wetlands and discusses the trends in development of
wetlands in the last 100 years in western Washington
State. It also evaluates the effectiveness of Washington
State's Shoreline Management Act and recommends
improvements to the program.
Chan, E., G. Silverman, and T. Bursztynsky. 1982. San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Plan for Urban
Runoff Treatment. Volume 1: Plan and Amendments
to the Environmental Management Plan. Association of
Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, California.
This document presents the results of ABAG's 1981-82
water quality planning program including such topics as
wetlands in relation to water quality, the environmental
function of wetlands in the Bay Area, state and local
policies governing wetland development and guidelines for
wetland creation and enhancement.
Cooper, J.W. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat
mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest
Environ. Jour. 3(1): 113-127.
Analyzes mitigation projects that have been designed to
offset or compensate for estuarine losses in Washington
State in the previous four years. The projects were
designed to either: 1) create new replacement habitat, or
2) rehabilitate and upgrade existing wetlands.
Demgen, F. 1981. Enhancing California's Wetland
Resource Using Treated Effluent. Prepared for
California State Coastal Conservancy by Demgen
Aquatic Biology, Vallejo, California.
Describes existing projects in California and the
agencies with permitting authority over wastewater
wetland projects. Also contains a list and brief discussion
of coastal and estuarine dischargers in California.
Dennis, N.B. and M.L. Marcus. 1984. Status and Trends of
California Wetlands. Prepared for the California
Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and
Trends by ESA/Madrone Assoc, Novato, California.
This report documents the importance of California's
wetlands, reviews their present status and predicts the
future of the remaining wetlands.
Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in San
Francisco Bay: A Critique. Prepared for California
State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California.
This report evaluates the effectiveness of state and
federal mitigation policies for wetland creation and
restoration. Most of the 58 mitigation projects examined
were unsuccessful; recommendations were made for
improvements in mitigation policy.
Faber, P.M. 1982. Common Wetland Plants of Coastal
California: A Field Guide for the Layman. Pickleweed
Press, Mill Valley, California.
A field guide for brackish, freshwater and salt marsh
plants using photocopy reproductions of the plants for
easy identification.
Ferren, W, 1985, Carpenteria Salt Marsh: Environment,
History, and Botanical Resources of a Southern
California Estuary. Publ. Number 4. Department of
Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Inventory and evaluation of the botanical resources of a
southern California estuary in the context of its
environment and history.
23
-------
Hamilton, SJ1. 1984. Estuarine Mitigation: The Oregon
Process. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem.
The official administrative rules for mitigation in
Oregon's estuaries are presented in this publication. The
state's estuarine ecosystems are described in detail along
with a system for assigning "relative value" to different
habitat types for the purpose of providing full
compensatory mitigation.
Pollution Control: An Annotated Bibliography.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Report No. 87-7B.
Most listings refer to the use of wetlands for the
treatment of secondary sewage effluent. Entries
primarily from conference and symposia proceedings,
research reports, government publications, and scientific
journals.
Harvey, T.H., P. Williams, and J. Haltiner. 1982.
Guidelines for Enhancement and Restoration of Diked
Historic Baylands. San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, San Francisco,
California.
This technical report provides guidelines for selecting
sites and designing restoration and enhancement projects
for wetlands.
Horak, G.C. 1985. Summaries of Selected Mitigation
Evaluation Studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. Report No. WELUT-86/W03.
Presents brief summaries of past mitigation evaluation
studies followed by a critique on the effectiveness of the
studies and recommendations for improvement.
Horak. G.C. 1985. Bibliography and Selected
Characteristics of Mitigation Evaluation Studies. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Report No.
WELUT-86/W02.
A listing of all U.S. mitigation evaluation reports
organized alphabetically by author; includes a chart
listing the type of project and resources effected by the
action.
Josselyn, M. (Ed.). 1982. Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement in California. Proceedings of A
Conference, February, 1982, California State
University, Hayward. California Sea Grant Program
Report No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies, Tiburon, California.
Conference proceedings which discuss selected aspects
of wetland ecology including hydrology, sedimentation and
salt marsh fauna in addition to reviewing potential
wetland restoration sites in California, regulations
governing wetland restoration and design strategies for
restoration projects.
Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz. 1984. Marsh Restoration in
San Francisco Bay: A Guide to Design and Planning.
Technical Report No. 3. Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies, San Francisco State
University.
Evaluates the success of past marsh restoration
projects in Mann County, California and reviews several
topics important to wetland design including erosion and
sedimentation, vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Kunz, K., M. Rylko, and E. Somers. 1988. An assessment
of wetland mitigation practices in Washington State.
Nat. Wetlands Newsletter l
-------
This report describes the physiographic setting of the
eelgrass community, the distribution of the grass beds,
autecology of the eelgrass in terms of growth and
reproductive strategies and physiological requirements
and functions.
Roelle, J.E. 1986. Mitigation Evaluation: Results of a User
Needs Survey. National Ecology Center, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Results of a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Ecological Services offices on the importance of mitigation
evaluation activities and on the utility of three different
data bases.
Seliskar, D.M. and J.L. Gallagher. 1983. The Ecology of
Tidal Marshes of the Pacific Northwest Coast: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/32.
This report describes the structure and ecological
functions of tidal marshes of the Pacific Northwest coast.
It includes such topics as the physical and chemical marsh
environment, marsh distribution, biotic communities,
ecological interactions and management of tidal marshes.
Smith, S.E,, (Ed.). 1983. A Mitigation Plan for the Columbia
River Estuary. Columbia River Estuary Study
Taskforce (CREST). Astoria, Oregon.
This report evaluates the resources and habitats of the
Columbia River Estuary on an estuary-wide basis. It
provides a detailed, step-by-step description of the permit
application/mitigation planning process in order to
expedite this process.
Strickland, R., (Ed.). 1986. Wetland Functions,
Rehabilitation and Creation in the Pacific Northwest:
The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of
conference, April 30-May 2, 1986, Port Townsend,
Washington. Publ. No. 86-14. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia.
A technical review of wetland functions including
hydrology and sedimentation, water quality, nutrient
cycling, primary production and wildlife use, written for
wetland managers and policy makers. Transcripts of
conference working groups discuss successes and current
limitations in wetland rehabilitation.
life this study describes the negative effects of
sedimentation due to logging in the watershed.
Weinmann, F., M. Boule', K. Brunner, J. Malek and V.
Yoshino, 1984. Wetland plants of the Pacific Northwest.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
Fifty-nine species of wetland plants are described and
illustrated with color photographs. Definitions and a
general introduction to wetlands are also provided.
Wiedemann, AM. 1984. The Ecology of Pacific Northwest
Coastal Sand Dunes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/04.
An ecological description of Pacific Northwest coastal
sand dunes.
Zedlcr, J.B. 1984. Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for
Southern California. California Sea Grant College
Program. La Jolla, California.
This book offers technical advice for all stages of the
restoration and enhancement of disturbed salt marshes,
based on a six year study of the Tijuana Estuary.
Zedler, J.B., J. Covin, C. Nordby, P. Williams, and J.
Bolland. 1986. Catastrophic events reveal the dynamic
nature of salt-marsh vegetation in Southern California.
Estuaries 9(1): 75-80.
Reports on a sixteen year study of the effect of
hydrological disturbances including flooding, dry-season
streamflow, and drought, on cordgrass (Spartina foliosa)
distribution in the Tijuana Estuary.
Zedler, J.B., W.P. Magdych, and San Diego Association of
Governments. 1984. Freshwater Release and Southern
California Coastal Wetlands: Management Plan for the
Beneficial Use of Treated Wastewater in the Tijuana
River and San Diego River Estuaries. San Diego
Association of Governments, San Diego, California.
Presents five recommendations based on findings of
previous technical studies. Identifies various agencies
involved in administration and regulation in the estuaries
and indicates those which will be responsible for
implementation of each of the five recommendations.
Warrick, S.F. and E.D. Wilcox. 1981. Big River: The Natural
History of an Endangered Northern California
Estuary.Environmental Field Publication No. 6.
University of California, Santa Cruz.
This publication documents the geography and natural
history of the Big River Estuary, located near Mendocino,
California. By addressing such topics as the geology of
the estuary, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial
Zedler, J.B. and C.S. Nordby. 1986. The Ecology of Tjjuana
Estuary, California: An Estuarine Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and California Sea Grant Program.
Biological Report 85(7.5).
This report discusses the diverse ecological
communities of the Tijuana Estuary, analyzes data on the
vegetation, algae, invertebrates, fishes and birds found in
the estuary, their ecological interrelationships and
relationships of the biota with the physical environment.
25
-------
APPENDIX II: SELECTED PROJECT PROFILES
VERNAL POOL PROJECT IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY
Project Profile: Mitigation for destruction of vernal
pools by creating artificial pools.
Wetland Type: Vernal pool (palustrine, emergent
wetland, nonpersistent).
Location: Del Mar Mesa, just west of Interstate Highway
15 near Rancho Penasquitos, San Diego County,
California.
Size: Forty pools ranging in size from 15.3 m2 to 385.7 m2
in area. The total pool surface area created was 1,854 m2.
Goals of project:
To create artificial vernal pool ecosystems that would
replace those lost during highway construction at another
site.
The objectives were:
1.
2.
3.
Providing the correct hydroperiods by controlling
pool depth and substrate type;
Introducing vascular plant species, with special
attention given to the endangered plant, mesa mint
CPogogyne abramsiil:
Predicting long-term success from studies of plant
population dynamics through a five-year study, and
understanding reasons for success or failure of
population establishment and maintenance.
Implementation involved:
1. Creating 40 depressions approximately 10 km north
of the highway construction site in a 2-km-long area
that contained natural vernal pools. About one-third
of the pools were interspersed among natural pools
(within one soil type), and the remaining two-thirds
were located in two clusters away from natural pools
(on a different soil type);
2. Collecting seed and soil from natural pools near the
mitigation site and from the site that was later
covered by Highway 52;
3. Seeding the artificial depressions; and
4. Monitoring hydroperiods and vascular plant growth
to assess success,
Judgement of success:
It is not possible to judge the long-term success of the
ecosystem creation program, because it has been less than
two years since construction in fall 1986. Native plants
have become established in most of the artificial vernal
pools, and most support the target endangered plant.
However, the pools differ from natural pools in their basic
appearance. The peripheral vegetation is sparse, and
different soil characteristics (crusting) may be responsible.
Rainfall has been highly variable, making it difficult to
predict what the long-term success will be.
Monitoring of the total ecosystem was not required in
the mitigation agreement. Thus, it is not possible to say
whether the native aquatic community of algae,
invertebrates, frogs, and birds has been created.
Significance:
This mitigation program is significant in two respects:
(1) it is an attempt to create an entire ecosystem and its
endangered plant populations, and (2) it is linked to a
university research program that has focused on the
ecology of mesa mint for the past 10 years.
A substantial monitoring/research program has been
approved in concept. The research program is designed to
identify conditions that lead to successful establishment of
the native plants (especially the mesa mint), as well as to
explain reasons for any failure. The field work involves
detailed measurements of water levels in selected pools,
intensive surveys of mesa mint densities and distributions
of all vascular plant species across the pools, and
monitoring the phenology and reproduction of mesa mint.
The research project has helped determine measures
necessary for successful habitat creation. By using an
experimental design with planted and unplanted pools,
the necessity of providing seed has been determined. Of
the pools left unplanted, none supported mesa mint at the
end of the second growing season. Only a few other native
plants have become established in unplanted pools. Pools
provided with seed have developed native plant species,
and these will be followed to determine whether the
populations increase, remain stable, or decrease through
time. Thus, the long-term success can be predicted from
longer-term monitoring, and association of population
changes with pool characteristics (e.g., surface and
groundwater levels) will help to explain reasons for
success or failure.
Reports:
Reports are prepared annually for the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans); Zedler, P.H.
and C. Black (submitted).
Contacts:
Monitoring and research: Dr. Paul H. Zedler, Professor
of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
92182-0057.
Pj-pject
jj John Rieger, Caltrans, 2829 Juan
Street, Old Town, PO Box 81406, San Diego, CA 921 38.
SWEETWATER/PARADISE MARSH
MITIGATION IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Project Profile: Mitigation for highway construction
through salt marsh by modifying existing salt marsh and
converting upland to tidal salt marsh.
Wetland type: Tidal salt marsh, mud flat, and
freshwater wetlands.
27
-------
Location: Sweetwater/Paradise Creek marsh, west of 1-5
at State Route 54 interchange, San Diego County, Calif.
Size: Ten hectares of disturbed high salt marsh changed
to tidal channels and low marsh plus approx. 7 hectares
of uplands to be converted to tidal channels and intertidal
marsh.
Goals of project:
To create nesting habitat for the Light-Footed
Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes ) and foraging
area for the California Least Tern (Sterna albifrons
browni) by enhancing the wetland area adjacent to the
highway and flood control channel. To establish a viable
population of salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp. maritimus).
The specific objectives of Phase 1 of the restoration
project were to:
1. Create appropriate elevations for low, middle, and
high salt marsh habitat;
2. Revegetate graded sites with the appropriate salt
marsh plants;
3. Improve tidal influence by creating tidal channels in
salt marsh segments;
4. Increase habitat area for prey species of the clapper
rail (crabs and other invertebrates) and least tern
(fish) by creating mudflat and increasing deep
channel area;
5. Salvage native salt marsh plants from impacted
areas for propagation and use in later stages of
restoration;
6. Convey approximately 300 acres of marshland and
environmentally sensitive upland in perpetuity to
public ownership for the preservation of endangered
species prior to the initiation of Phase 2 construction.
Project implementation involved:
1. Grading existing (degraded) salt marsh to create the
appropriate topography for low and middle salt
marsh in the form of eight islands;
2. Creating deep channels surrounding the restored
marsh area to prevent intrusion by pests, and
creating smaller tidal channels to facilitate tidal
flushing within the marsh, enhance plant growth
and, therefore, rail habitat;
3. Opening both areas to tidal flushing (north area
completed Sept. 1984, south area in Oct. 1984);
4. Planting the islands and side banks with low-marsh
vegetation in the form of transplants (collected from
a nearby source);
5. Creating a tidal Spartina nursery and an irrigated
middle-marsh plant nursery near the restoration site
for salvaging plants removed from the project area,
to be used in subsequent and remedial plantings; and
6. Monitoring the success of the planting, remedial
planting as needed, and fencing areas that show
signs of grazing;
Judgement of success:
The project has had success in establishing cordgrass,
although the area with plants is less than the area
planted. Present and future habitat value to the clapper
rail is uncertain due to several problems incurred during
the restoration process:
1. Grading plans were not followed in the formation of
the islands and channels. This has resulted in a
reversal of planned water flows in some areas,
increasing erosion along many of the creek banks, and
significantly altering the graded wetlands. Some
channels are filling in rapidly and are fully exposed at
medium-low tide, reducing their effectiveness as
barriers to intrusion by predators and humans.
2. In the northern half of the restoration site, cordgrass
plantings had high mortality. In some places this was
due to changing hydrology and erosion of the planted
area. A tidal gate was inadvertently installed, and it
impounded water in the northern half of the
restoration site until its removal, in stages, in 1987
and 1988. The elevation of best cordgrass transplant
success was about 0.15 m higher where water
impounded than in the fully tidal area downstream.
In general, cordgrass mortality could not be explained
by soil characteristics (salinity, organic matter
content, soil texture), but a successful experimental
replanting or "ecoassay" suggested that poor
techniques, rather than site factors, were responsible
for high mortality of the initial transplants (Swift
1988).
3. Remedial planting has not occurred. A tidal gate to
the upstream restoration area was inadvertently
installed (only the frame was slated for construction
in phase 1 of the project, with the remaining
structure to be completed after the flood control
channel was completed). This has resulted in the
artificial impounding of seawater in the upstream
area and significant alteration of the hydrologic
conditions for cordgrass. Though measured and
planted at the same .absolute elevations as
downstream plantings, upstream transplants appear
to be a full foot higher in the marsh. This is largely
due to sluggish tides caused by a culvert and a tide
gate that separates the two areas. (This problem has
been recognized by the permittee and the tide gate is
slowly being disassembled). Relative tidal elevation
(including hydrological influences), therefore, may
differ considerably from absolute elevation, and
should be considered in the planting process.
4. Planting densities in some areas did not match
permit specifications (planting centers increased to
about 15cm) because of an inadequate amount of
transplanting stock. Establishment time and habitat
value both suffer because of this, and it is an
avoidable problem.
5. During the excavation and dredging operations, a
former dump site was uncovered, yielding large
amounts of broken glass and debris that complicated
the transplanting process. Toxic concentrations of
lead were also found, resulting in the need to remove
substrata to an off-site disposal.
6. Nursery areas differed in their ability to propagate
cordgrass, with elevation of excavation the most
important limiting factor. One cordgrass nursery has
filled in and is the largest monospecific stand in the
28
-------
restoration area. The other cordgrass nursery
(which has sparse cordgrass) gets little tidal flushing
and is apparently at a higher relative elevation. The
success of salvaging middle- and high-marsh plants
is difficult to evaluate at this point.
7. Significant items of trash, including a 10-m long
catamaran hull that repeatedly flattened large areas
of planted cordgrass (Swift 1988), enter the site as
floating debris and smother transplants. This
hinders the establishment process.
In addition, the hydrology of the restored area will
change significantly during later phases of the project
when tidal flows will also come through the flood control
channel between the two sites. The rate of this change
will be crucial to the final success of the project due to the
inability of many marsh plants to adjust to rapid changes
in hydrology.
In August 1988, the mitigation site will become part
of a large (approx. 120 hectare) Refuge, managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as ordered by the U.S.
District Court in settlement of a lengthy lawsuit.
Significance:
The most significant aspect of this project is the
establishment of functional goals for the constructed and
modified wetlands and the requirement of high standards
for achieving goals. Four concepts of function,
maintenance of species diversity, food chain support, and
ecosystem resilience, were adopted in the process of
setting mitigation objectives and in assessing success.
The project sponsors are required to manage the area
until these objectives are achieved. Rather than setting a
specific time limit for compliance, sponsors must monitor
the site to show that the goals have been reached and
maintained for two consecutive years. These
requirements are the strongest yet required for a coastal
wetland mitigation program, and may well set the tone for
all future projects.
This site was also chosen to flag several different
problems that can develop in the course of mitigating
wetland loss. These include:
1. Legal battles over land transfer-timing is
important and may delay the project. In some
cases, the transfer of lands is the key to a mitigation
proposal's acceptance. When the transfer agreement
is changed or comes under legal scrutiny after the
development/construction project is underway (as is
the case at Sweetwater marsh), the entire mitigation
proposal must be re-evaluated-a costly and time
consuming job. This can be avoided by requiring the
land transfer to be completed prior to the
commencement of construction or development.
2. Excessive demands on mitigation lands for
urban open space uses. The City of Chula Vista
tried to change the initial mitigation agreement by
imposing 7 easements for road crossings, utilities,
extensive public access to wetlands, public marina
construction, and for local management rights to
supersede federal mitigation goals. The Sierra Club
sued to enforce the original agreement. After three
years of litigation, a plan that was substantially
more protective of natural resources was mandated
by the court as part of the settlement agreement. The
result was an overall reduction in the amount of land
that could be developed.
3. History of the site (e.g., former dump sites) and
contingency plans. Preliminary research required
by the project should include a brief chronology of the
uses of the site. Many areas in or near wetlands have
previously been used as solid waste dump sites, and
excavation and grading operations will need to deal
with proper disposal of potential hazardous wastes. If
the history of the property is known, then proper
cleanup measures should be included in the
mitigation plan. If the historical information is not
available, then contingency plans should be included
in the plan.
4. Failure to follow plans (grading, tide gate, etc.).
By not following the grading plans specified in the
mitigation agreement, the actual topography and
hydrology of the restored marsh differs considerably
from that which was proposed. The premature
completion of the tidegate represents a potentially
damaging influence on the upstream marsh by
impounding water and slowing drainage. These
conditions are also likely to change the structure of
the marsh away from what was proposed. In either
case, if the mitigation plan was followed or
consultation (prior to change) was required by the
plan, the adverse effects could have been avoided.
5. Poor monitoring. Since the completion of the
revegetation program, there has been little
quantitative information gathered on use of the
restored area by birds or prey species or on vegetation
establishment. Because the mitigation plan did not
require an explicit monitoring program (of both plant
establishment and subsequent use by birds), the
determination of success is completely subjective. In
all projects that set specific goals, monitoring
programs must be required and enforced if they are to
be accurately judged for success. In recognition of the
need for improved monitoring, the new compensation
measures require extensive monitoring for
approximately 5 years.
6. Factors other than elevation to consider in
planting cordgrass and other marsh plants. A
project-wide planting scheme based on absolute
elevations would not be advised in most projects,
because there may be very different physical
characteristics at the same absolute elevation. Two
areas in the project site, for example, may be at the
same absolute elevation, but one is upstream and the
other downstream. These two areas may be at totally
different tidal elevations due to muted hydrology.
This demonstrates that when creating a
revegetation/restoration program, site-specific
characteristics (e.g., hydrology) should be
incorporated into the plan.
Reports:
Reports are prepared annually for the
CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans); Swift',
K. (1988); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988).
Contacts:
Project management; John Rieger, Caltrans, 2829
Juan Street, Old Town, PO Box 81406, San Diego, CA
92138.
29
-------
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK AND
LAGOON, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Project Profile: Mitigation for road construction in a
wetland, dredging and discharging fill material for
construction of a desiltation system, and damage from
utility pole movement.
Wetland type: Tidal salt marsh, brackish ponds,
freshwater marsh, riparian woodland, and upland
transition
Location: Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon at Hidden
Valley Road, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
Size: 5.6 hectares of road fill, 7.5 hectares wetland
enhancement, and over 70 hectares of land title transfer.
Goals of project:
To create and enhance wetland habitats lost or impacted
by road construction within the lagoon wetland
boundaries.
The objectives of this project were to:
1. Expand tidal wetlands with the provision of
additional salt marsh habitat;
2. Increase tidal circulation and expand tidal prism of
the lagoon;
3. Increase quality and diversity of salt marsh food
chain;
4. Enhance lagoon's water quality and salinity levels by
increasing tidal circulation;
5. Enhance functional capacity of the overall lagoon
ecosystem;
6. Create new wetland habitat from existing upland;
7. Establish a controlled interface (restricting access)
along the lagoon;
8. Assure success through specified monitoring
program;
9. Promote public appreciation of lagoon eco-
system; and
10. Acquire wetlands for wildlife preservation.
Implementation involved:
1. Constructing openings in the "fingers" area along
dikes adjacent to upland area to facilitate tidal
flushing and prevent intrusion by humans or
potential predators;
2. Lowering and recontouring the ends of three
peninsular fill areas to create one hectare of
additional salt marsh habitat (to increase tidal action
to new and existing salt marsh and mud flats, and
provide protected open water habitat for shorebirds);
3. Revegetating the recontoured (newly intertidal) area
with the proper salt marsh species at specific
densities;
4. Revegetating the transitional area with plant species
suitable for wetland/upland interface (as opposed to
solely upland) to create a dense landscape buffer zone
and natural barrier to human intrusion;
5. Extending and widening existing tidal channels at
east end of lagoon to provide increased intertidal
habitat, increasing tidal influence to the salt marsh,
and providing additional bird nesting habitat;
6. Revegetating channel banks with Salicomia salvaged
from a nearby area;
7. Removing sediments, fill, and debris at the mouth of a
storm drain and extending freshwater wetlands to a
broader area (5.5 acres). Revegetating this area with
representative freshwater marsh and willow riparian
species;
8. Lowering of an open field (3 hectares) adjacent to the
project to expand freshwater wetlands habitat.
Revegetating this area with representative marsh
and riparian woodland species;
9. Supplying sufficient water to wetland extension areas
to insure not only survival of the plants, but natural
recruitment as well;
10. Creating a 0.8 hectare "bird nesting island" with fill
material and sediment excavated from the storm
drain wetland extension;
11. Erecting a temporary fence along the north side of
Cannon Road to restrict off road vehicle use in the
flood plain during construction;
12. Creating two (0.1 hectare) small brackish pond
habitat areas to provide additional wildlife use site
away from the main lagoon area in an area not
normally vegetated with wetland plants (amended);
13. Monitoring progress of implementation and any need
for remedial action in annual reports to be sent to the
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
California Department of Fish and Game for three
years. If after the 2nd year, less than 80% survival
rate is evident, plants shall be replaced to ensure 80%
survival;
14. Creating an interpretive center (kiosk) explaining the
historical and biological resources of the lagoon; and
15. Transferring title of over 70 hectares of low lying land
from the landowner to the Wildlife Conservation
Board of the State of California.
Judgement of success:
This project involved the restoration of several
different types of wetlands throughout the lagoon, none of
which can currently be considered successful. The overall
impact of the mitigation on the lagoon ecosystem cannot
be considered beneficial. Nearly two years after initial
planting of the revegetation areas, nearly all of the
plantings have failed to produce their specified habitat
values, and "enhanced functional capacity of [the] overall
lagoon" is not apparent.
Lowering and recontouring did not increase tidal salt
30
-------
marsh habitat. Though the surrounding dikes have been
breached and tidal channels exposed, most of the area
that was revegetated lies above tidal influence. As a
result, initial revegetation plantings have either died or
failed to spread due to inadequate circulation, animal
grazing, human disturbance, and weed invasion.
Tidal channels at the east end of the lagoon have
been widened and banks have been planted with a single
row of Salicornia virginica that is spreading very slowly.
Revegetating the wetland/upland transition area with the
establishment of a controlled interface (proposed dense
landscape buffer zone) to restrict access to the lagoon is
not evident in most areas. Temporary fences along the
north side of Cannon road have fallen into disrepair and
no longer exclude off-road vehicle activity in the flood
plain or marsh areas. Uncontrolled off-road vehicle
activity has disturbed substantial portions of mud flat and
salt marsh habitat and hindered restoration efforts.
Freshwater wetland expansion efforts have been only
slightly more successful. Sediments and debris removed
from a storm drain are still piled next to the channel,
presumably awaiting use later in the project. Initial
non-irrigated riparian (willow) woodland plantings have
completely failed, and unused planting material from
initial revegetation efforts is scattered throughout the
area. Renewed efforts at revegetation with irrigation
(drip lines and sprinkler systems) have just begun in two
expansion areas that are slated for freshwater marsh and
riparian habitat. Channel clearing and recontouring in
these areas were supposed to supply sufficient water to
ensure survival of plants and natural recruitment. In
both cases, plantings are currently irrigation dependent
and sufficient water supply for natural recruitment is not
evident.
The "bird nesting island" does not appear to have
been created at all, however this is not necessarily a
detriment. The site proposed for the island (which was to
have been constructed with fill from the aforementioned
storm drain) is now Salicornia marsh, and construction of
the island at this time would result in a net loss of
wetland habitat.
Excavation of the two brackish ponds revealed a
deeper water table than was suspected, negating the
possibility of a brackish water habitat away from the
main lagoon area. One pond is now tidal and
unvegetated, and the other appears to have been filled in
(or never created).
Interpretive center (kiosk) explaining the historical
and biological resources of the lagoon has not yet been
constructed and there is no evidence of an ongoing
monitoring program. The agencies that were supposed to
receive annual progress reports have not received any
data or preliminary reports as of July 1987 (Nancy
Gilbert, USFWS, pers. comm.).
Finally, the transfer of over 70 hectares of low lying
land from the landowner to public ownership (State of
California) has not yet occurred.
Significance:
This project was chosen for the variety of
modifications and improvements promised. Its lack of
success serve to identify the following "red flags".
1. The importance of designing proper
topographic and hydrologic (inundation and
salinity) conditions for wetlands. Wetland
vegetation, by definition, is governed by the dominant
local hydrologic conditions. Without the proper
hydrologic conditions, the revegetation process will
not produce the desired habitat conditions.
2. The importance of restricting access to
wetlands. From construction/revegetation phases
until vegetated buffers have fully filled in, it is
imperative that access be limited to wetlands.
Inadequate public awareness and the degraded
appearance of wetlands during revegetation periods
often seems to invite off road vehicle activity that can
permanently disrupt existing wetland areas as well as
newly restored ones.
3. The need to create and enforce explicit
monitoring programs. In this case, the project calls
for 80% survival after two years with remedial
plantings to replace those plants short of an 80%
survival rate (at year 2). Initial plantings experienced
closer to a 20% survival rate, and remedial plantings
have just recently been initiated (as the second
anniversary of the plantings nears). The survival of
these plantings is to be monitored for one year.
4. The need to require thorough assessment of
successful compliance with project objectives.
This includes not only specific objectives such as
planting schemes and grading plans, but also overall
objectives for the ecosystem. If the project states that
a habitat of some form is to be created, then all
aspects of the restoration should be examined to
assess whether the project indeed has created habitat,
or is merely a group of plantings.
Reports:
Progress reports required by the project permit are as
yet unavailable.
Contacts:
Implementation and monitoring; Pacific
Southwest Biological Services Inc., PO Box 985, National
City, CA 92050.
Project management; Wayne Callaghan, c/o Cal
Communities, 38 Red Hawk, Irvine, CA 92714.
Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 24000
Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, CA 92656.
HAYWAKD REGIONAL SHORELINE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Project Profile: Mitigation for access road construction'
to new bridge crossing; loss of salt pond, emergent marsh,
and mudflat habitat.
Wetland type: Tidal salt marsh, mudflat, and island.
Location: Alameda County at West Winton Blvd. on
eastern shore of south San Francisco Bay.
31
-------
Size: 80 hectares.
Significance:
Goals of project:
To restore tidal action to former salt crystalllzers
and recreate tidal emergent salt marsh.
Specific objectives in plan included:
1. Creation of extensive area to be colonized by
cordgrass (Spartina foliosa):
2. Excavation of channels and deep basins that would
retain water during low tide to serve as waterbird
habitat;
3. Creation of islands for nesting habitat; and
4. Provision of public access pathways and educational
signs.
Project implementation involved:
1. Excavation and grading of site prior to
reintroduction of tidal action to create basins,
channels, and islands;
2. Construction of levees and bridges for public access;
and
3. Breaching of levees in two locations to allow tidal
flow, with a sill left to retain water within
restoration site during low tide.
Judgement of success;
A number of studies have been completed on this
site. Niesen and Josselyn (1981) reported on studies
completed the during first year following re-introduction
of tidal action. Salt and boron levels dropped dramatically
in surface layers of former crystallizer to concentrations
similar to those observed in natural marshes. However,
lower layers of soil retained high salt concentrations in
those areas formerly used in the final process of salt
production. Island areas developed cat clay problems with
extremely low pH values. Fish and invertebrate species
colonized rapidly and appeared at similar levels as nearby
mudflat areas. Extensive bird use was noted throughout
the site.
Race (1985) noted that vegetation had not become
established as expected after two years following dike
breaching. Most vegetation appeared to colonize at debris
line within wetland. A number of experimental plantings
of cordgrass were conducted on the site and appeared to
have stimulated establishment so that by 1987, cordgrass
was distributed throughout the site, though coverage was
still less than 5% overall (San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission 1988) Denser coverage by
cordgrass was noted closer to tidal breach and few plants
were observed in the former crystallizer region. Erosion
of the shoreline, both within and outside the site is
occurring.
Josselyn et al. (1987) noted that while bird use is
high, it is generally less than observed at a nearby natural
marsh. The channels and open basin that were excavated
have silted in with sediment. The "nesting islands" were
not observed to support any substantial bird utilization.
This project is an example of a site which provides
wetland functions, but in a different manner than
planned. There is high bird and fish use of the mudflats.
However, revegetation has been very slow. Some "red
flags" which should be considered are:
1. Planting of cordgrass appears to be essential in areas
of poor seed sources as in south San Francisco Bay.
Project managers place less importance on planting
as there is a general attitude of letting "nature take
its course". This may be appropriate in some
situations, but in regions of slow regrowth, may result
in reduced habitat quality for desired species while
plants are becoming established.
2. Siltation and erosion were not considered in the
planning of the site. The creation of specific habitat
features needs to consider the realistic expectations of
longevity. Channels and basins sizes should be
considered in relation to similar features in natural
marshes, not as a feature which can be designed to
suit human perceptions of appropriate habitat
distribution.
3. Soil conditions must be anticipated as limitations to
plant growth. Salt layers in former crystallizers
appear to still limit plant establishment. These areas
should have been disced or plowed to allow break up
of the salt layers. As for islands, development of cat
clays has been described by many authors and should
be anticipated in any excavation and deposition of
former bay muds at elevations above mean high water
(MHW).
4. Islands are not natural features of wetlands and their
size and configuration need to be compared to actual
habitats used by waterbirds.
Reports:
Cuneo (1978), Niesen and Josselyn (1981), Josselyn et al.
(1987).
Contacts:
Peter Koos, East Bay Regional Park District, Skyline
Blvd, Oakland, CA.
SHOREBIRD MARSH, MARIN COUNTY
Project Profile: Mitigation for fill within seasonal
wetland for construction of regional shopping center.
Wetland created for purposes of consolidation of wetland
acreage and flood storage.
Wetland type: Seasonally tidal saltmarsh with open
water, emergent vegetation, and islands
Location: Corte Madera, California.
Size: 14 hectares.
Goals of project:
To provide for flood control during winter months
and to create tidal saltmarsh during summer months.
32
-------
Specific objectives in plan included:
1. Creation of extensive area to be planted with
cordgrass (Spartina foliosal:
2. Creation of islands and channel habitat for fish and
wildlife use;
3. Provision of water control structure to pump water
out of site during flood periods and to limit maximum
tidal height during summer months to +0.3 m
NGVD, approximately 1 m lower than normal
MHHW level;
4. Creation of linear basin to provide treatment of
urban runoff from shopping center and nearby
streets; and
5. Provision of public pathways and vegetated buffers.
Project implementation involved:
1. Excavation and grading of site to create desired
topography;
2. Construction of pump station and water control
structure to provide for flood control and dampened
tidal action;
3. Excavation of outflow channel to Bay; and
4. Planting of marsh and buffer vegetation.
Judgement of success:
The site was to be managed for flood control from
October 15 to April 15 of each year and then operated as
controlled tidal marsh during remainder of year. The
town employees (Public Works) were responsible for
management. During first year following completion, no
tidal action was introduced to site as the Town did not
have a copy of the management plan. During second year
of operation, a number of problems confounded the
operation of the site as a tidal marsh:
1. Flap gates protecting local businesses leaked
allowing high water to back up into drainage ditches;
2. The electronic system used to control the water
control structure was defective and difficult to use;
3. The outfall channel had silted up and retarded flow
from the water control structure; and
4. Town employees were still not familiar with the
purposes of operation of the site.
A local citizen's committee took responsibility for
oversight of the marsh operation and a consulting firm
(Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.) was hired to
implement a biological monitoring program and develop a
planting plan. A number of steps were taken to alleviate
the problems noted above, including replacement of the
water control operating system, repair of the flap gates,
and dredging of the outfall channel and outer mudflat.
The local citizen's committee educated the responsible
Town employees on the need to properly manage the
wetland system.
Several experimental plantings were conducted by
the biological consultant, however," the success of the
plantings was limited by lack of summer tidal action. By
the third year, tidal action was implemented during the
summer and full planting of marsh vegetation is planned.
No recruitment of marsh vegetation has been noted and
there has been a substantial die-back of brackish water
vegetation that had previously grown on the site.
Buffer vegetation has been planted. Coyote Brush
(Baccharis pilularis) and marsh gumplant (Grindelia
humilia) have been successful when planted prior to
winter rains. Otherwise, irrigation is required for
successful upland plant establishment.
The effectiveness of a portion of the marsh designed
for urban runoff pollutant control has never been tested
and the weir system proposed to increase residence time
in this portion of the marsh never used. Several proposals
have been made to develop a small peninsula that extends
into the marsh, though none have been implemented.
Finally, drainage problems for a portion of the
surrounding business has necessitated the construction of
a holding basin with a pump station that will discharge
into the marsh. Since this drainage area includes mostly
automobile dealers and gas stations, it is likely to increase
pollutant discharge to the marsh.
A large number of waterfowl utilize the marsh during
the migratory season. Herons feed extensively within the
marsh during the summer. The Marin Audubon Society
has kept records of the bird species utilizing the wetland.
Several low islands receive use as a gull roosting area.
The higher, steep sloped islands receive little bird use
during daylight hours.
Significance:
This project is an example of a site which is designed
to serve multiple purposes: mitigation for fill within a
wetland, flood storage, and urban runoff pollutant control.
It points out several problems inherent in complex
projects.
1. The purpose regarded as having the greatest
economic advantage to the community will receive
highest priority. The town is primarily interested in
the flood storage function and is eager to lower the
water level in the marsh as soon as possible prior to
the rainy season and maintain it at low levels as long
as possible during the spring.
2. Most communities do not have the staff to manage
complex systems, especially those which do not have a
direct impact on the well-being of local residents.
Therefore, the urban runoff pollutant control portion
of the marsh has never been managed as planned due
to the difficulty of setting up the system and the lack
of knowledge of its function. Staff are not inclined to
"calibrate" the tidal action within the marsh for the
sole benefit of wildlife.
3. Local citizen groups and an effective biologiqal
consultant can be instrumental in stimulating the
proper implementation of a marsh design. This
interest must be sustained, however, so that problems
are handled over the long-term and not just in the
first year.
Reports:
Philip Williams and Associates.
33
-------
Contacts:
James Buchholz, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., San
Rafael, CA.
Philip Williams, Philip Williams and Associates, San
Francisco, CA.
Town Engineer, Town of Corte Madera, CA.
BRACUT MARSH MITIGATION BANK
Project Profile: Creation of a wetland to provide
mitigation for fill in a number of smaller "pocket marshes"
within an urban area.
Wetland type: Tidal salt marsh and transitional fringe.
Location: Arcata Bay in Humboldt County at Bracut on
U.S. Highway 101.
Size: 2.5 hectares.
Goals of project:
To restore tidal action to diked area that had been
partially filled with wood debris and river-run gravel.
Specific objectives in the plan included:
1. To establish as productive a marsh as possible and
maximize the habitat value of the property;
2. To provide sufficient circulation and drainage of tidal
flows to maintain a constant supply of nutrients,
sediment and oxygen to the marsh system;
3. To furnish an adequate soil substrate to promote the
growth and reproduction of marsh and upland
vegetation; and
4. To minimize future maintenance requirements.
Project implementation involved:
1. Breaching of levee at a width sufficient to allow
unrestricted tidal flow, but not wide enough to allow
wave action to erode interior levees;
2. Outer levee armoring with rip-rap to provide
protection from winds and storms;
3. Constructing inner islands immediately inside the
dike breach to reduce erosive wave action within
wetland;
4. Placing bay mud over lower portions of marsh to
provide suitable substrate for marsh plant
establishment;
5. Removing debris from upper portion of marsh; and
6. Planting ofSpartina in areas as needed.
Judgement of success:
This project has been very controversial due to lack
of establishment of marsh vegetation and possible water
quality problems. The former is due to poor substrate
conditions in the higher portions of the marsh where the
river-run gravel forms a hard surface. The marsh was
designed using an intertidal plant distribution plan taken
from San Francisco Bay (Camp, Dresser and McKee
(1980). It has been subsequently learned that the
cordgrass within Arcata Bay is a different species than
the San Francisco Bay form, has a very different
elevational distribution, and is non-rhizomatous, i.e., it
does not spread very rapidly from the initial plant shoot.
Consequently, marsh plantings on the site have not
spread significantly beyond their original location, though
natural recruitment has brought in marsh plants within
the lower portion of the mitigation site.
In the higher portions of the marsh, the hard surface
persists and few wetland plants have become established.
The exception is a rare and endangered species,
Orthocarpus castilleioidea var. humbo\dtiensis (Humboldt
Bay owl's clover) which grows around temporary pools in
the higher portions of the marsh. It is very prevalent
throughout the site.
Water quality problems have been noted in the lower
portion of the site where white filaments and strong
anaerobic odors have been noted. Wood debris is
prevalent immediately below the surface and gas bubbles
of methane are frequent. Apparently the decay of the
wood debris is resulting in poor water quality, especially
during low tide when shallow ponds heat up.
Bird use on the property is variable. Most observers
have noted abundant bird use in the high marsh during
high tides with most species moving off-site during low
tide periods. Besides roosting, no other use appears
significant. A study is underway tcf quantify the bird use.
Significance:
This project demonstrates the difficulties involved
when restoring filled wetlands. The nature of the fill can
have a long-term effect on the marsh restoration. In most
cases, the fill causes the native soil material to be
compacted and therefore, below the level desired for the
establishment of intertidal species. The problems which
occur include:
1. Leaving of high organic matter fill beneath the marsh
can result in decay and leaching of undesirable
substances; and
2. Inappropriate substrata, especially in higher portions
of the marsh where sedimentation is not significant,
will reduce the ability of marsh vegetation to become
established.
Several problems could have been corrected at the
design phase:
1. Appropriate intertidal elevations could have been
produced by over-excavating the site and filling it
with dredge spoils;
2 The rip-rap placed along the levee was
over-engineered and could have been reduced in
scope; and
3. Better knowledge of the local intertidal distribution of
plants would have produced more appropriate
elevations for various species.
Finally, one must consider that marginal wetlands
can provide important habitat for species not normally
able to compete within a mature wetland. The presence of
34
-------
Humboldt Bay owl's clover is due to the lack of other
wetland vegetation and the peculiar nature of the
substrate. This "accident" has provided an important
habitat for a rare and endangered species.
Reports:
Camp, Dresser, and McKee (1980); Josselyn (1988a).
Contacts:
Liza Riddle, State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.
LINCOLN STREET MARSH WETLAND
MITIGATION
Project Profile: Off-site mitigation for fill in a 10 acre
parcel containing both wetland and upland habitats. Site
selected for restoration was former fill site.
Wetland type: Tidal salt marsh with transitional upland
areas.
Location: Puyallup River estuary, Pierce County,
Washington.
Size: 3.9 hectares (2.2 hectares wetland and 1.7 hectares
upland).
Goals of project:
Replace a wetland/upland region within an
industrial complex at the Port of Tacoma with a mixture
of mudflats, tidal channels, marshes, trees, grassland, and
shrubland.
Specific objectives of the project were designed to:
1. Create habitat in specified ratios to support the
following groups:
GROUP AREAL PERCENTAGE
OF SITE
Juvenile salmonids 50
Waterfowl 20
Shorebirds 10
Raptors 10
Small mammals 10
2. Monitor the ecological performance of the mitigation
site; and
3. Maintain the site in perpetuity.
Project implementation involved:
1. Excavation of former fill and disposal off-site;
2. Grading to contour site to specific habitat types based
on elevation;
3. Creation of new dike and tidal entrance to site; and
4. Planting of Lyngby's sedge, Carex Ivnybvei.
Judgement of Succe
The site has been operated for too short a period
(1985 to present) to make significant conclusions on its
success. Thorn et al. (1987) reported excellent survival of
transplanted sedge shoots with a four-fold increase in the
number of plants during the first growing season.
Target species were utilizing the site to a high degree
and in far greater numbers than previously noted for the
developed site. Juvenile sahnonids were found within the
main and finger channels and there appeared to be an
abundance of prey resources to provide rearing habitat for
juvenile fish.
The provision of a long-term monitoring program is
quite important in evaluating the utilization of the
mitigation site.
Significance:
The project is important as an example of
establishment of detailed habitat features for specific
species. Secondly, the performance of biological
monitoring far exceeds that of most other initial studies.
Some problems have been reported that should be
mentioned:
1. The excavated substrate had contaminants which
required testing and disposal; and
2. Siltation is occurring in the entrance of the wetland
and may affect tidal exchange.
Reports:
Thorn et al. (1985,1987).
Contacts:
Ron Thorn, School of Fisheries, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Mary Burg, Washington Department of Transportation,
Seattle.
Kathy Kunz, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, Seattle.
35
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF TIDAL WETLANDS
OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Stephen W. Broome
Department of Soil Science
North Carolina State University
ABSTRACT. Methods of creation and restoration of tidal wetlands in the Southeastern United
States were summarized from published papers, reports, and first-hand experience.
Publications by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which report research related to marsh
habitat creation with dredged material and for shoreline erosion control were significant
sources of information.
Critical aspects which should be considered in planning and implementing a tidal marsh
creation or restoration project are:
o Initial planning - Evaluate environmental impact on existing habitat, public acceptability,
costs, and exposure to waves and currents that might cause erosion.
o Elevation in relation to tide level - A surface must be created to provide the hydrologic
regime to which the desired vegetation is adapted.
o Wave climate and currents - The susceptibility of the site to erosion should be evaluated.
o Salinity - The salinity of tidal and interstitial water determine the plant species.
o Slope and tidal range - These factors affect the area! extent of the intertidal zone, the
zonation of plant species, drainage and erosion potential.
o Soil chemical properties - Availability of plant nutrients and the possibility of toxic
contaminants should be considered.
o Soil physical properties - These affect trafficability, i.e., bearing capacity, for planting
operations and credibility.
o Timing of construction - Construction should be completed well in advance of optimum
planting dates.
o Cultural practices - Select the plant species adapted to environmental conditions at the
site, use vigorous transplants or seedlings of local origin, plant at a spacing that will
provide cover in a reasonable length of time, fertilize with N and P to enhance initial
growth.
o Maintenance - Observe the site periodically to determine the need for replanting,
fertilization, wrack removal and control of undesirable plant species, excessive traffic or
grazing.
Critical research needs include the following:
o Site selection - Improved methods for predicting the probability of success on sites exposed
to wave energy are needed. Methods of comparing the relative value of created tidal
marsh and the habitat it displaces should be developed.
o Revegetation - A better understanding of the environment required for optimum growth of
a number of plant species is needed. Methods of creating tidal freshwater marshes need
further investigation.
o Documentation of tidal marsh development - The ecological function and structure of
created or restored marshes must be more thoroughly evaluated. This information is
37
-------
needed as a basis for making decisions on mitigation. Practical and economical methods
are needed to evaluate success of individual marsh creation or restoration projects.
CHARACTERISTICS AND TIDAL WETLAND TYPES OF THE REGION
REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The geographical area discussed in this
chapter includes the coastal region of Georgia,
South Carolina, North Carolina and Southeastern
Virginia located between latitude 31° and 38°
North (Fig. 1). The area lies in the Carolinian
and Virginian provinces as defined by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979).
The climate is humid, temperate to subtropical
with mild winters, hot, humid summers and
high rainfall (Table 1). The area is a part of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain. This plain is composed of
layered marine and non-marine sediments
which were formed as the sea advanced
repeatedly over the area and then withdrew
(Oaks and DuBar 1974). The topography is
relatively flat and gently sloping toward the
ocean.
WETLAND TYPES
Tidal marshes in the region are found along
low to moderate energy shorelines of estuaries.
They range from narrow fringes, where tidal
range is narrow, to large expanses where tidal
ranges are wide and the area of intertidal land
is extensive. The majority of marshes are saline
(euhaline) or brackish (mixohaline) with a
smaller amount of freshwater marshes at the
upper reaches of tidal influence.
The regularly flooded intertidal salt
marshes are dominated by nearly pure stands of
smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The
high salt marsh extends from mean high water
to the limit of flooding by extreme storm or
spring tides. Plants that dominate the high
marsh are saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens).
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata ) and black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus).
The transition from salt to fresh marshes is
a continuum with plant species diversity
increasing as salinity decreases. Plant species
characteristic of brackish marshes include black
needlerush, saltmeadow cordgrass, big cordgrass
(S. cvnosuroides). sawgrass (Cl a di um
iamaicense) and shrubs such as groundselbush
(Baccharis halimifolia). marsh elder (Iva
frutescens) and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979), salt
and brackish water tidal marshes are classified
as follows: system, estuarine; subsystem,
intertidal; class, emergent wetland; subclass,
persistent and water chemistry, euhaline (30-40
parts per thousand (ppt) or mixohaline (0.5-30
ppt).
Tidal freshwater wetlands are located
upstream from tidal salt marshes and
downstream from nontidal freshwater wetlands.
They are characterized by salinity less than 0.5
ppt, plant and animal communities dominated
by freshwater species and daily lunar tidal
fluctuation (Odum et al. 1984). While salt and
brackish marshes are dominated by a few plant
species, tidal freshwater marshes are
characterized by a large and diverse group of
plants. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
classification system, persistent emergent tidal
freshwater marshes are in the palustrine system
and emergent wetland class. If the vegetation is
non-persistent, it falls in the riverine system
and emergent wetland class. Persistent
emergent wetlands are dominated by plant
species that remain standing through the winter
until the beginning of the next growing season.
Palustrine persistent emergent wetlands are
characterized by such plants as cattails (Typha
Figure 1. The geographical area discussed in
this chapter is the coastal region of
Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Georgia in the
Southeastern United States.
38
-------
spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), sawgrass, sedges
(Carex spp.), giant cutgrass (Zizaniopsis
miliaceae) and common reed (Phragmites
australis). Nonpersistent emergent wetlands are
dominated by plants that fall to the surface of the
substrate or are present only below the surface at
the end of the growing season so that there is no
obvious sign of emergent vegetation. Examples
of plant species present in non-persistent
wetlands are arrow arum (Peltandra virginica).
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). arrowheads
(Sagittaria spp.), and wild rice (Zizania
aquatica).
Range
Regularly flooded smooth cordgrass
marshes in the region are best developed and
most extensive in South Carolina and Georgia
where there is a wide tidal range and an
abundance of silt and clay sediments supplied
by rivers. According to estimates compiled by
Teal (1986), 68% of the east coast's regularly
flooded smooth cordgrass marshes occur in South
Carolina and Georgia. There are 115,037 ha in
South Carolina and 126,564 ha in Georgia, with
less extensive areas in North Carolina (23,634
ha) and Virginia (33,469 ha) (Table 2). Brackish
marshes make up about 33% of the total tidal
marsh in the region (Table 2).
While not nearly as extensive as salt and
brackish marshes, significant areas of tidal
freshwater marshes are found in Virginia, South
Carolina and Georgia. Tidal freshwater
marshes represent only 11% of the total tidal
marshes in the region. In North Carolina, inlets
in the barrier islands are narrow and few in
number, and the estuaries are large, resulting in
a narrow lunar tidal range. Tides are irregular
and controlled by wind direction and velocity;
therefore, there is very little tidal freshwater
marsh. The Cape Fear River in the southern part
of the state is an exception. It empties directly
into the Atlantic Ocean, has a one meter tidal
range and 1200 ha of freshwater tidal marsh
(Odum et al. 1984). Marshes bordering the
Currituck and Albemarle Sounds, which are
fresh to brackish and are flooded by wind-
dominated tides, were classified as shallow fresh
marsh by Wilson (1962). These are not tidal
freshwater marshes by the definition of Odum et
al. (1984) that specifies regular lunar tides as a
criteria. About 70% of the tidal marshes in North
Carolina are brackish and irregularly flooded.
Funntions of Tidal Wetlands
Several publications have reviewed the
extensive literature on wetland functions and
values (Greeson et al. 1979, Tiner 1984, Daiber
1986, Mitsch and Gosselink 1986, Adamus et al.
1987). Tiner (1984) divided wetland benefits into
three basic categories: (1) fish and wildlife
values, (2) environmental quality values and (3)
socio-economic values. Pish and wildlife values
listed were habitat nursery and spawning
grounds for fish and shellfish, habitat for
waterfowl and other birds, and habitat for
furbearers and other wildlife. Environmental
quality values include water quality
maintenance (such as filtering pollutants,
sediment removal, oxygen production, nutrient
cycling and chemical and nutrient absorption),
aquatic productivity and microclimate
regulation. Socio-economic values are flood
control, protection from wave damage, erosion
control, groundwater recharge, timber and other
natural products, accumulation of peat, livestock
grazing, fishing and shellfishing, hunting and
trapping, recreation, aesthetics, education, and
scientific research.
Adamus et al. (1987) listed the following key
functions and values of wetlands: ground water
recharge and discharge; floodflow alteration;
sediment stabilization; sediment and toxicant
retention; nutrient removal and transformation;
production export; wildlife diversity and
abundance; aquatic diversity and abundance;
recreation; and, uniqueness and heritage.
An often overlooked function of wetlands is
removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by
accumulation of organic carbon in saturated
soils that inhibit decomposition (Armentano
1980). The importance of this wetland function
may be more widely recognized in the future
because of increasing concern about higher
levels of atmospheric CO2-
Since Odum (1961) espoused the idea that
tidal marshes contribute to estuarine and coastal
productivity, a great deal of research has been
conducted to evaluate productivity of these
marshes and their effect on the estuarine
ecosystem (Daiber 1986). Because of regular or
irregular tidal flooding, marshes are an
integral part of the ecosystem of the adjacent
water body. Tidal marshes are also among the
most productive ecosystems in the world (Tiner
1984). Although primary production of the
vegetation is quite high, it varies from one
location to another and within a given marsh.
Turner (1976) reviewed salt marsh macrophyte
production along the east and Gulf Coasts of the
United States and found a range from 300-2000g
m-2 yr-l of annual aboveground production with
a trend of decreasing productivity from south to
north. A generally positive correlation also
exists between tidal amplitude and productivity
that is, at least in part, due to the energy subsidy
provided by the tide (Odum 1979). Other factors
such as salinity and nutrient availability can
modify the tidal amplitude effect. Production of
roots and rhizomes generally equals or exceeds
aboveground production. Belowground production
of a transplanted smooth cordgrass marsh in
39
-------
Table 1. Climatic data from locations along the Coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Norfolk, VA
Cape Hatteras, NC
Morehead City, NC
Wilmington, NC
Charleston, SC
Beaufort, SC
Savannah, GA
Brunswick, GA
Latitude
36° 54'
35° 16'
34° 44'
34° 16'
32° 47*
32° 23'
32° 8'
31° 9'
Mean
Annual
RainfalU
(in)
46
57
61
53
45
47
48
48
Mean
Annual
Temp, i
(°F)
60
62
63
63
66
66
67
68
Mean
Annual
Min. Temp2
(°F)
15-20
20-25
15-20
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
Ave.
Frost-
Free
Periods
(da)
240-270
270-300
240-270
240-270
270
270-300
270-300
>300
1 U. S. Dept. of Commerce Climatological Data, Mean Annual Rainfall and Temperature 1951-1985.
2 USDA Agric. Research Service Plant Hardiness Zones Map, 1960.
3 Based on the period 1921-1950.
Table 2. Area of tidal marshes in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in hectares
(acres).
Marsh Type Vaa
NC
SC
GA
Regional Totals of total
Freshwater 15,814(39,075) 1,214 (3,000)b 26,155(64,531)" 19,040 (47,047)b 62,147(153,653) ll.o
Tidal
Brackish 36,868(91,100) 58,418044,350)' 14,149 (34,962)d 75,010 (185,346)e 184,445(455,758) 32.6
Water
SaltWater 33,469(82,700) 23,634 (58,400)f 135,373 (334,501)* 126,564(312,736)' 319,040(788,337) 56.4
Total 86,151(212,875) 83,267(205,750) 175,637(433,944) 220,614(545,129) 565,669(1,397,748)
" Silberhom (pers. comm.), Virginia Wetlands Inventory
b Odumetal.1984
e Wilson 1962 and Odum et al. 1984 (46,900 acres of "shallow fresh marsh" reported by Wilson minus 3,000 acres
assigned to tidal fresh marsh by Odum et al. plus 100,450 acres called "irregularly flooded salt marsh" by Wilson).
d Tinerl977
e Kundelll986
r Wilson 1962
* Tiner 1977; total includes 50,249 acres of high salt marsh
40
-------
North Carolina was estimated to be 1.1 times
aboveground production (Broome et al. 1986).
A portion of the organic material produced
by marsh plants is transported by tidal flushing
to surrounding waters, providing a source of
organic detritus that becomes a part of the
estuarine food web (Teal 1962). There is
considerable evidence linking primary
production of wetlands to aquatic secondary
production, and information suggesting that
wetland destruction results in lowered production
of estuarine organisms of interest to man (Odum
and Skjei 1974). However, there is still
controversy about the actual value of tidal
marshes in estuarine ecosystems. Prom a review
of literature, Nixon (1980) concluded that the
widely accepted views of tidal marshes as large
exporters of organic matter that support
secondary production, and the role of marshes in
nutrient cycling are not well substantiated by
research. He further stated that our
understanding of the interaction between coastal
marshes and coastal waters is still incomplete.
Although there may be some debate and much
to learn about the role of tidal marshes in coastal
ecosystems, there is sufficient evidence of their
value to warrant preservation and protection by
government regulations. In spite of regulatory
protection, disturbances or destruction of
marshes may occur illegally or accidentally and
permits for various types of manipulation of
marshes are issued when benefits to the public
outweigh adverse effects to the environment.
Restoration and creation of new marshes is
conducted in an attempt to mitigate damage for
whatever reason it might occur.
EXTENT OF TIDAL WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION
TYPICAL GOALS
The goals of tidal wetland creation and/or
restoration generally fall in the following
categories: (1) dredged material stabilization or
creation of marsh habitat using dredged
material; (2) shoreline erosion control; (3)
mitigation of destruction of, or adverse impact
on, natural stands; and, (4) research. Many
projects have a combination of two or more of
these goals.
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
Historical Perspective
Marsh vegetation has been planted in some
parts of the world for many years with quite
different goals. In Europe, Spartina townsendii
(the fertile form is now known as S. anglica)
was planted extensively during the 1920's and
1930's, to reduce channel silting, for coastal
erosion protection and to reclaim land for
agriculture (Ranwell 1967). Spartina anglica
was introduced to China in 1963 and since that
time 30,000 ha have been planted, providing
important economic, social and ecological
benefits (Chung and Zhuo 1985). These benefits
were reported as bird habitat, animal fodder,
pasture, aquaculture, green manure,
amelioration of saline soil, and land
reclamation (Chung 1982). Spartina alterniflora
was introduced to China in 1979 because of its
potential for producing more biomass than ŁL
anglica. After five years, successful plantings
amounted to 260 ha (Zhuo and Xu 1985). The
concept of marsh restoration or creation to
preserve and enhance estuarine ecosystems is
relatively new. Knutson et al. (1981) surveyed
planted salt marshes in the United States and
reported that the earliest plantings documented
in the literature were in the 1950's along tidal
rivers in Virginia for the purpose of stabilizing
shorelines (Phillips and Eastman 1959, Sharp
and Vaden 1970). Some of these sites have
remained stable after more than 30 years.
Knutson also discovered one shoreline planting
in Virginia reported to have been planted in 1928.
Dredged Material
Stabilization
Shoreline
Research on the feasibility of salt marsh
development on dredged material was begun in
1969 by N.C. State University with financial
support provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center (Woodhouse et al. 1972, Woodhouse et al.
1974). This work was later extended to include
stabilization of eroding shorelines (Woodhouse et
al. 1976). The plant species investigated were ŁL
alterniflora and S. patens. Techniques of
propagation, both vegetatively and from seed,
were developed and several dredged material
islands and shorelines were successfully
vegetated.
Successful dredged material and shoreline
stabilization studies were also carried out in the
Chesapeake Bay (Garbisch et al. 1975), Galveston
Bay (Dodd and Webb 1975) and San Francisco
Bay (Knutson 1976). A comprehensive study of
wetland habitat development with dredged
material was conducted by the Dredged Material
Research Program of the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Major marsh
41
-------
development sites were located at Windmill
Point, James River, Virginia (Lunz et al. 1978);
Buttermilk Sound, Georgia (Reimold et al. 1978);
Apalachicola Bay, Florida (Krucynski et al.
1978); Bolivar Peninsula, Galveston Bay, Texas
(Allen et al. 1978, Webb et al. 1978); Salt Pond
No. 3, South San Francisco Bay, California
(Morris et al. 1978); and Miller Sands, Columbia
River, Oregon (Clairain et al. 1978). Results
from these and other projects have demonstrated
the feasibility of tidal marsh habitat development
with dredged material and provided guidelines
for implementation (Environmental Laboratory
1978, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986).
Woodhouse (1979) summarized information on
coastal marsh creation in the United States
discussing plant propagation, planting,
fertilization, and management of the major
plant species.
Knutson et al. (1982) documented the wave
damping value of smooth cordgrass along a
shoreline of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. More
than 50 percent of wave energy from boat wakes
was dissipated within the first 2.5 m of marsh
and all of the energy was dissipated within 30 m.
Conversion of Uland
Interest in mitigation of impacts on natural
marshes led to investigations of creating
marsh-creek systems on uplands graded to
suitable intertidal elevations. These were areas
previously used for borrow pits or undisturbed
uplands (Broome et al. 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Priest
and Barnard 1987). Converting upland sites to
intertidal marsh requires careful attention to
grading to the correct elevations and attention to
soil chemical properties, particularly pH and
nitrogen and phosphorus availability.
Restoration of Damaged Habitat
Mitigation of violations often involves
simple removal of fill material from marshes to
restore the surface to its initial elevation and
to allow the vegetation to reestablish naturally.
Marsh restoration efforts may also be necessary
after vegetation has been destroyed by toxic
chemical or oil spills (Seneca and Broome 1982).
This requires removing the toxic material or
delaying planting until the effects have
diminished.
FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS
OR FAILURE
The degree of success that can be achieved in
developing tidal marsh habitat at a particular
site may be limited by any one of a number of
factors or a combination of factors.
Transplanting vegetation at the correct elevation
in relation to tidal regime at the site is a
prerequisite to success. A second factor that often
affects initial establishment and long term
stability is wave stress (Knutson et al. 1981,
Allen et al. 1986). This is important for
shoreline erosion projects and where dredged
material shorelines are exposed to long fetches.
Strong currents also cause erosion and
undermining of planting sites in certain
locations such as along channels or inlets.
Other factors that may affect success include:
tidal amplitude; slope of the area to be planted;
depth of water off shore; shoreline orientation;
shape of the shoreline; large boat wakes; salinity
of interstitial and tidal water; sediment supply,
including littoral drift; fertility status of the soil;
soil physical properties, particularly texture and
degree of compaction; soil credibility; shading by
trees; excessive use by domestic or feral animals
and wildlife such as geese, muskrat, or nutria;
and foot or vehicular traffic. Management
practices also affect success.'These include using
viable propagules of a plant species adapted to the
environment of the site, proper planting time,
and fertilization. Environmental and
management factors affecting success will be
discussed in detail in the following section.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECT
PRECONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Careful and thorough planning will
increase the probability of success of wetland
habitat creation or restoration projects. Two
important considerations are location and
characteristics of the site.
Location
Location of a planting site is important with
regard to logistics of equipment, supplies, and
personnel. Marsh development sites are often in
areas accessible only by boat, which increases
the time and cost of equipment transportation.
Location is also important in terms of salinity
and tidal regime, which determine the plant
species adapted to the site. Several factors should
be taken into consideration in locating dredged
material disposal sites for marsh development
(Environmental Laboratory 1978, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1986). These include
42
-------
availability for disposal; capacity of the area to
hold the volume of material to be dredged;
proximity to the dredging project; physical and
engineering features; environmental and social
acceptability, such as impacts on existing habitat,
disturbance of water quality and flow, and public
perception of the project; and tidal fetch and
current considerations that might cause erosion.
Site Characteristics
A number of site characteristics should be
considered in determining the feasibility of
marsh establishment and in the planning
process. These are discussed in the following
sections.
Elevation, Slope and Tidal Range -
The areal extent of the intertidal zone is
determined by elevation, slope and tidal range.
These factors determine the degree of
submergence, which, in turn, affects the
elevation range and zonation of plants within the
marsh. The elevation required by marsh
vegetation at a given site is best determined by
observing and measuring the lower and upper
elevation limits of a nearby natural marsh.
Alternatively, trial plantings extending well
below and well above the estimated limits of
survival can be made to determine the elevation
range (Woodhouse 1979). In irregularly flooded
areas with old marshes and eroding peat soils,
elevations of the entire natural marsh may be
near the upper limit of transplant survival and
transplants may grow well below those
elevations (Broome et al. 1982).
Marsh vegetation grows on a wide range of
slopes. The more gentle the slope the greater the
area available for growth of intertidal
vegetation. Gentle slopes also dissipate wave
energy over a greater area, reducing the
probability of erosion. Slopes that are too flat can
result in poor surface drainage leading to
waterlogging and high salinities.
Tidal range, the vertical distance between
high and low water, is important in determining
the area of the intertidal zone, import and export
of sediments, nutrients and organic matter,
drainage and zonation of vegetation. It is
generally easier to establish a viable marsh in
an area with a wide regular tidal range than in
an area with irregular wind-driven tides. This
is particularly true on exposed shorelines where
wider fringes of vegetation are more resistant to
erosion.
Wave Climate --
Severity of wave climate is an important
factor that affects initial establishment and long
term stability of marshes. Four shoreline
characteristics (average fetch, longest fetch,
shore configuration, and grain size of
sediments) are useful indicators of wave climate
severity (Knutson et al. 1981, Knutson and
Inskeep 1982). Planting success is inversely
related to fetch, the distance over water that wind
blows to generate waves. The shoreline
configuration or shape is a subjective measure of
the shoreline's vulnerability to waves. For
example, a cove is sheltered while a headland is
more vulnerable. Grain size of beach sand is
also related to wave energy. Fine-grained sands
generally indicate low energy, while coarser
textured sand indicates high energy. This is of
course affected by the texture of sand available in
a particular environment, Knutson et al. (1981)
developed a numerical site evaluation form for
rating potential success using these four
indicators.
Boat traffic and offshore depth are two other
factors that should be considered when
evaluating wave climate. Boat and ship wakes
are particularly significant in areas along
channels. Shallow offshore water reduces
severity of waves reaching the shore (Knutson
and Inskeep 1982).
A shoreline erosion control study in Virginia
estuaries found that using the vegetative site
evaluation form effectively predicted success or
failure in establishing marsh fringes along
shorelines (Hardaway et al. 1984). Establishing
a fringe of S. alterniflora and S. patens could be
accomplished with no maintenance planting
required where average fetch was less than 1.0
nautical mile (1.8 km). Along shorelines exposed
to 1.0 to 3.5 nautical miles (1.8-6.5 km) plantings
in coves and bays had a better chance of
survival. Maintenance planting was also
necessary on shorelines with this type of
exposure. Where average fetches were 3.0 to 5.5
nautical miles (5.6-10.2 km), establishing marsh
grasses was impractical without a permanent
offshore breakwater. Marsh establishment was
unsuccessful where the fetch was greater than 5.5
nautical miles (10.2 km). Effects of fetch could
be modified by tidal range. Experience in North
Carolina has shown that the chance of success in
establishing shoreline marsh fringes increases
as the regular tidal range increases, resulting in
a wider intertidal zone for planting (Broome et
al.1981).
Salinity-
Salinity of the tidal water and the interstitial
water determines which plant species should be
planted and the type of plant community that will
eventually colonize a site. Salinities of
interstitial water may become too high for plant
growth especially in depressions that do not
drain at low tide. Clay or other restrictive layers
in dredged material may cause perched water
43
-------
tables, also resulting in concentrated soil
solutions due to evaporation. Grading old
dredged material disposal sites may expose
surfaces with high residual salt concentrations.
Residual salt may have accumulated in a ponded
area sometime in the past and then covered with
spoil during a subsequent dredging operation.
Very favorable conditions for plant growth
occur when seepage from adjacent uplands
produces low salinity in the soil water. Such
seepage may also provide a supply of plant
nutrients to enhance growth.
Soft or Substrate -
Mechanical operations such as grading,
shaping and planting are generally easier on
sandy soils than silt or clay because of the
greater bearing capacity and trafficability of
sand. The disadvantage of sandy material is its
low nutrient supplying capacity. This is usually
not a problem where tidal waters are rich in
nutrients and transport nutrient rich sediments;
but, fertilizers can increase plant growth on
sandy material during the establishment period.
Recently deposited silts and clays are often high
in nutrients but are usually soft, presenting
problems for equipment operation and in
anchoring plants until they are established. Silts
and clays along eroding shorelines may be
compact and hard, making opening and closing
planting holes difficult.
Sedimentation -
A moderate amount of sedimentation from
tidal and wave action, long shore drift or from
uplands has a stimulating effect on growth by
supplying nutrients. In the case of shorelines,
accumulation of sediments prevents erosion.
Excessive accumulation can damage plants and
increase elevations above the normal range of
intertidal vegetation. Blowing sand is often a
problem on dredged material disposal sites.
Sand fencing and/or vegetation should be used to
protect the intertidal zone to be planted from
blowing sand.
Sunlight -
Shading by trees may be a problem on some
shorelines. Hardaway et al. (1984) found
insufficient sunlight to be a limiting factor to
marsh establishment along some creeks in
Virginia.
Traffic -
Excessive foot or vehicular traffic must be
excluded from the planting site.
Wildlife Predation -
Creating wildlife habitat is a principal
objective of marsh creation; however, excessive
use and feeding can destroy a planting,
especially during the establishment period.
Canada geese as well as snow geese graze on
smooth cordgrass rhizomes and have been
known to seriously damage new plantings.
Garbisch et al. (1975) were able to minimize
damage caused by Canada geese by placing a 1.3-
m wide band of wire netting on the soil surface
along the seaward edge of a planting.
Maximizing plant density and first year
production also minimized damage since geese
prefer not to feed in dense tall stands of smooth
cordgrass.
Dense populations of muskrats may denude
large areas of brackish-water marshes
(Gosselink 1984) and nutria may also be a
problem. In North Carolina, muskrats
selectively removed smooth cordgrass from a
brackish-water planting which included big
cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, and black
needlerush. Trapping of muskrat and nutria or
exclusion by fencing may be necessary to protect
plantings in some situations.
Contaminated Sediment—
Dredged material from industrial or heavily
populated areas may contain contaminants such
as heavy metals, pesticides, and petroleum that
may be detrimental to growth of plants. An even
greater concern is the potential for plant uptake
and release of contaminants into the
environment. Toxic material may damage
organisms that feed directly on the plant
material or the toxins may be passed to other
organisms through the food web (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1986). The possibility of toxic
contaminants in dredged material should be
taken into consideration in areas where
contamination is likely.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
PLAN
Timing of Construction
Planning should allow for obtaining permits
if necessary, and construction and final grading
of planting sites well in advance of optimum
planting dates for the vegetation. Several weeks
are required for settling of areas that receive fill
material. Permitting and construction delays
are not uncommon and can often cause delays
beyond acceptable planting dates. This can be
costly if potted seedlings have been produced,
44
-------
since long holding periods may result in poor
quality or even death of the plants.
The optimum planting dates for intertidal
vegetation in the Southeast are between April 1
and June 15. Dates earlier than April 1 increase
the likelihood of storm damage before plants
have taken root and field-dug plants are more
difficult to obtain. Dates later than June 15 limit
the length of the growing season available for
plants to become established.
Construction Considerations
Perhaps the most critical aspect of creating
an intertidal marsh is grading the soil surface to
the elevation that provides the hydrologic regime
to which the plant species of interest are adapted.
This is especially critical in areas with a small
tidal amplitude. The elevation range for marsh
establishment at a site along the Pamlico estuary
in North Carolina was only 0.37 m (0.06 to 0.43 m
msl) (Broome et al. 19S2); consequently, accurate
and precise grading was necessary to produce a
viable marsh. Slopes should be as gentle as
possible while still insuring good surface runoff
at low tide. Slopes in the range of 1 to 3 percent
are preferable. Elevation zones occupied by a
particular plant species should be determined
from observation of nearby natural marshes or
from trial plantings on the site. A surveyor's
level may be used to relate the elevation limits of
a natural marsh to a planting site or water levels
on the nearest marsh may be observed. When
the water level is standing at the upper limit of
growth on the natural marsh, mark the waterline
at the site to be planted. Repeat this procedure
when the water level is standing at the lower
limit of the natural marsh. In regularly flooded
saline areas, the vertical range of smooth
cordgrass is from about mean sea level to mean
high tide and salt meadow cordgrass occupies the
zone from mean high tide to the storm tide line.
Hydrology
Mitsch and Gosselink (1986) state that
"Hydrology is probably the single most
important determinant for the establishment and
maintenance of specific types of wetlands and
wetland processes". It is obvious that attempts to
create or restore tidal marsh will fail without
proper attention to elevation, tidal flooding, and
drainage, as has been discussed previously.
Factors other than tides that influence hydrology
of tidal marshes are precipitation, surface
inflows and outflows, groundwater, and
evapotranspiration (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986).
When restoring or creating a narrow fringe
of marsh along a shoreline, the important
hydrologic considerations are wave climate and
planting at the correct elevation in relation to
tide levels. Broader and larger marsh systems
require that a drainage system of channels that
simulate natural creeks be installed for good
tidal exchange and drainage and to provide
access to fauna. Greater use by fishes, benthos,
and shorebirds were reported where tidal
channels were purposely created in man-made
marshes (Newling and Landin 1985).
A local, natural marsh-creek system should
be surveyed to determine appropriate depth,
width, and spacing of drainage channels.
Other hydrologic factors affect productivity of
marshes. Precipitation, runoff from the
watershed, and freshwater seepage increase
growth of salt marsh vegetation and affect
species composition and diversity. Functions of
marshes such as nutrient cycling, organic
matter accumulation, import and export of
organic matter and mineral nutrients, and
many other chemical and physical processes are
affected by hydrologic conditions.
Substrate
The physical and chemical properties of the
substrate or soil are important factors in tidal
marsh restoration and creation. Physical
properties affect bearing capacity and
trafficability which determine the equipment and
methods that can be used in grading, shaping,
and planting. Mechanical operations and
planting are easier on sandy soils, allowing use
of mechanical transplanters of the type used for
tobacco or vegetable plants. Soft dredged material
requires innovative planting techniques such as
planting from rafts at high tide or using
walkways for access (Environmental Laboratory
1978). The availability of plant nutrients in tidal
marshes is related to many physical, chemical,
and biological processes. Just as in upland soils,
the nutrients available to plants at a given
location and within a marsh are quite variable.
Soil differences are mitigated to some extent by
the effects of tidal inundation and the chemically
reduced state of saturated soils. Tidal exchange
affects soil chemical and biological processes,
including deposition of sediment, influx and
efflux of nutrients and flushing of toxins.
Seawater is quite high in Mg, Ca, K and S and
apparently provides adequate amounts of these
nutrients to salt and brackish water marsh
vegetation.
When soils are waterlogged, air movement
is restricted, resulting in anaerobic (reduced)
conditions. Oxidation- reduction processes in the
soil that are important to plant nutrition are
affected by anaerobic conditions (Redman and
Patrick 1965). Any nitrate nitrogen present in
the soil is subject to denitrification and loss to the
atmosphere. Organic matter decomposition is
slower and less complete and nitrogen that is
45
-------
released by decomposition accumulates in the
ammonium form. Iron and manganese
compounds are reduced to more mobile forms
and sulfur is present in the sulfide form. The
pH values of reduced soils tend to be buffered
around neutrality. Plant available soil
phosphorus is also increased by anaerobic
conditions. As ferric iron (Fe-"-1-) is reduced to
ferrous iron (Fe**), phosphorus compounds
present as ferric phosphate are released into
solution (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986).
A number of studies have shown that
nitrogen is a limiting factor in growth of smooth
cordgrass in natural marshes (Sullivan and
Daiber 1974, Valiela and Teal 1974, Broome et al.
1975). Nitrogen may also limit growth in
freshwater tidal marshes (Simpson et al. 1978).
Phosphorus is abundant in many fine textured
sediments such as those present in marshes
along the Georgia coast and provides an ample
supply for the vegetation (Pomeroy et al. 1969);
however, phosphorus is in short supply in some
salt marsh soils. Fertilizer experiments on
smooth cordgrass growing on a sandy soil at
Ocracoke Island, NC indicated that P
availability became a growth limiting factor as
N rates were increased. Applications of N and P
fertilizers produced more growth than N alone
(Broome et al. 1975).
When establishing a tidal marsh, whether
on dredged material, an eroding shoreline, or on
a graded upland site, the response to fertilization
depends on the inherent fertility of the soil and
the amount of nutrients supplied by tidal inputs
or other sources such as seepage, runoff,
precipitation, and nitrogen fixation. Fine-
textured dredged materials are often rich in
nutrients and plant growth is not limited by
nutrient supply (Environmental Laboratory 1978,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986). Plant
growth response to N and P fertilization is more
likely on sandy dredged material with little silt
or clay sediment being brought in by the tide and
where the tidal water is low in N and P
(Woodhouse et al. 1974).
Nitrogen and phosphorus are likely to be
growth limiting factors along eroding
shorelines. This is particularly true where
shorelines have migrated to the point that the soil
surface of the intertidal zone is the argillic
horizon (subsoil) of an upland soil. In the
Southeast, this type of soil material typically
has a high P fixation capacity. It is high in
hydrous oxides of iron and aluminum,
exchangeable aluminum, and kaolinitic clays
that are capable of sorption of large amounts of
phosphorus, causing it to be unavailable or
slowly available to plants (Tisdale et al. 1985).
Physical properties of subsoil material make
planting more difficult and may affect growth by
limiting root penetration.
An experiment testing rates and sources of N
and P fertilizer on transplants of smooth
cordgrass along an eroding shoreline of the
Neuse River in North Carolina demonstrated
that adequate fertilization was necessary for
successful establishment of vegetation (Broome et
al. 1983c) (Fig. 2). A soil test from the site
indicated no organic matter, a pH of 5.17, and the
following nutrient concentrations in mg dm-3:
NH4-N, 18; NO3-N, O; P, 1.3; K, 86; Ca, 700; and
Mg 291. The texture was sandy clay loam (62%
sand, 13% silt, and 25% clay). Rates of N and P
were tested using ammonium sulfate and
concentrated superphosphate banded at the
time of planting. Biomass increased with
increasing rates up to 224 kgha^N (200 Ibs
ac-iN) and 49 kg-ha-iP (100 Ibs ac-iP2Ofe) (Fig.
3). In one growing season, the unfertilized
control plants produced an average biomass of 8
grams and 5 stems per plant. The highest rate of
N and P produced an average biomass of 214 g
per plant and 32 stems per plant. The slow-
release fertilizer materials Osmocote and Mag
Amp were compared to the soluble sources,
ammonium sulfate and concentrated
superphosphate. When the two slow-release
materials were used separately, they did not
produce better plant growth than the soluble
materials at equal rates. The Mag Amp and
Osmocote applied in combination were
significantly better than the soluble materials.
The slow release materials would be expected to
have a greater advantage on sand which has a
lower capacity to retain applied nutrients.
Application of Osmocote in the planting hole has
become a common practice in marsh
establishment and is quite effective.
Effects of the initial fertilizer treatments
were also apparent in the second growing season.
Nitrogen and P were retained by the soil and/or
recycled by the plants. The effects of additional
fertilization were determined by topdressing one
block of the experiment in June. Ammonium
sulfate at the rate of 112 kg ha-IN (100 Ibs ac -IN)
and concentrated superphosphate at the rate of 49
kgha^PQOOlbsac-^Os) were spread evenly on
the soil surface at low tide. When harvested in
October the fertilized block had an aerial bio-
mass of 770 g m* and 527 stems m~2 compared to
367 gm-2 and 260 stems nr2 in the control block.
Plant nutrients are not deficient on all
shorelines and fertilization may not be
necessary for successfulmarsh establishment.
No fertilizer was applied to a smooth cordgrass
planting along the shoreline of Bogue Banks, a
North Carolina barrier island (Broome et al.
1986). The substrate was sand; however, soil test
results indicated a P concentration of 65 g dm*3,
which is much higher than the previously
discussed Neuse River shoreline. The planting
developed into a 15-meter wide fringe of marsh
that was effective in reducing shoreline erosion
46
-------
• * \.
Figure 2. An unfertilized row of smooth cordgrass Qeft) compared with a row fertilized with N only (center)
(112 kg ha'1 N) and N and P (right) (224 kg ha'1 N and 25 kg ha'1 P). The planting was done along
the Neuse River in North Carolina on June 13 and photographed August 30.
V*
v*
Figure 3. The effects of N and P rates on oven-dry weight of smooth cordgrass transplanted June 13 and
sampled September 19.
47
-------
and was comparable to a nearby natural marsh
in biomass production (Fig. 4a, 4b). Possible
sources of nutrients for the marsh were seepage
from adjacent sandy upland soils, which
included fertilized lawns and septic tank
drainage fields, tidal water, and sediments
deposited by tides and waves. Soil problems may
be encountered when mitigation projects involve
grading upland sites to elevations suitable for
intertidal habitat. Cuts into the B and C horizon
of soils in the southeast expose a new surface that
is likely to be acid and deficient in plant
nutrients. One alternative is to strip and
stockpile the topsoil, grade the site and replace
the topsoil to bring the surface to the correct
intertidal elevation. Topsoil is higher in
organic matter and has better chemical and
physical properties but also may be nutrient
deficient. Disadvantages are that replacing
topsoil adds to the expense of site preparation,
and on wooded sites roots, stumps and other
debris may be returned with the topsoil, making
planting more difficult. A second option is to
determine the nutrient status and pH of the new
surface and add fertilizers and lime if needed.
Chemical deficiencies can be corrected but
undesirable physical properties can make
planting difficult.
A series of brackish-water marshes were
established in cooperation with the phosphate
mining industry in North Carolina, first with
borrow pits (Fig. 5a, 5b) and then with two sites
graded from pine woodland (Broome et al. 1982;
1983b; 1986). These sites provided some insight
into soil fertility problems that may be
encountered. Species planted were smooth
cordgrass, big cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass
and black needl crush.
Soil test results indicated low available soil
P at all the sites even where topsoil was replaced
(Table 3). Phosphorus levels were extremely low
(1 mg dm-3) at one site graded into the subsoil.
Measurements of pH were generally in the range
of 4.5 to 5, but these levels did not adversely affect
plant growth. Fertilization with N and P was
essential for establishment and growth of marsh
vegetation at these sites. Broadcast application
and incorporation by discing before planting was
the most practical fertilization method. The best
rates were 112 kg ha- IN (100 Ibs ac-*N) from
ammonium sulfate and 98 kg ha-1 P (200 Ibs
ac-1P2C%). Aboveground biomass of the cordgrass
was equivalent to nearby natural marshes after
two growing seasons, while black needlerush
required three growing seasons.
An unexpected occurrence at one of the sites
was development of extremely acid soils (pH 2.5)
over about 25 percent of the 2.5 ha area. These
subsurface areas exposed by grading apparently
contained sulfides that oxidized when exposed,
thus reducing the pH. Yellow incrustations of
jarosite on the surface were another indicator of
acid sulfate soils, which are also known as cat
clays (Bloomfield and Coulter 1973). Marsh
plants did not survive in areas with pH values
below 3.0. Liming at the rate of 26900 kg ha-1
(24,000 Ibs ac-1, in addition to the effects of tidal
flushing and soil saturation, raised pH values
above 4.0 and marsh vegetation was successfully
established. The pH of acid soils tends to
increase when they are flooded and become
reduced (Gambrell and Patrick 1978). Problems
with these kinds of soils can be avoided by
keeping them saturated to prevent oxidation or by
liming if oxidation occurs. A decrease in pH of
soil samples upon air drying is an indicator of
potential acid sulfate soils.
Soil testing should be done during the
planning stages of marsh restoration or creation
projects.
Revegetation
All of the site characteristics previously
discussed should be taken into consideration
when establishing or encouraging establishment
of tidal marsh vegetation. Perhaps the two most
important factors are elevation with respect to
tidal regime and salinity. Elevation affects
frequency and length of time of inundation,
which, in turn, determines zonation of plants.
Only a limited number of plant species can
tolerate high salinities. Saline, regularly
flooded, intertidal areas are revegetated with
smooth cordgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass is
planted in the occasionally flooded zone
immediately above mean high water. Species
most frequently planted on brackish-water sites
include smooth cordgrass at the lower elevations,
big cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, black
needlerush and saltgrass. For initial
stabilization, smooth cordgrass may be planted at
sites with lower salinities and at higher
elevations than where it normally occurs. This
is done because of availability of plants and on
the assumption that plant communities adapted to
the environment will eventually colonize the
site.
Information and experience in freshwater
wetland creation is more limited (Wolf et al.
1986) and marsh creation sites in inland
waterways'often revegetate naturally. There is
the potential for propagation of a number of
different species since species diversity is higher
in freshwater marshes. Odum et al. (1984) state
that freshwater tidal marshes of he Mid-Atlantic
and Georgia Bight regions may contain as many
as 50 to 60 plant species at a single location.
Descriptions of propagation methods for a
number of these species are reported by Kadlec
and Wentz (1974) and the U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
(Environmental. Laboratory 1978). Garbisch
48
-------
v •
B.
Figure 4. a) A shoreline at Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina in May 1974, one month after
transplanting smooth cordgrass.
b) Pine Knoll Shores after three growing seasons.
49
-------
A.
Figure 5. a) A borrow pit, near the Pamlico estuary in North Carolina, graded and planted with
smooth cordgrass and big cordgrass in May 1980.
b) The same area, July 1, 1982.
50
-------
Table 3. Results of analyses of soil samples from two brackish-water marsh creation sites in North Carolina a.
One site was a borrow pit, the other was a pine forest upland graded to intertidal elevations.
Organic
Mg dm "3 Matter
Site
PH
NH4-N
K
Mg
Borrow Pit
topsoil
subsoil
Graded upland
4.4
4.7
4.8
72
24
3
5
3
1
66
55
58
349
267
87
106
177
189
3.5
0.1
<0.1
a Analyses were done by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Soil Testing Laboratory
using the Mehlich 3 extractant to determine P, K, Ca, and Mg and Mehlich 1 for NH4-N.
(pers. comm. 1987) has had success with
establishment of softstem bulrush (Scirpus
validus), arrow arum (Pe]tandra vireinica) and
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata ) at the lower
elevations of tidal freshwater marshes; and
common threesquare (Scirpus americanus) and
rice cutgrass (Leersia orvzoides) at higher
elevations. Methods were reported for successful
establishment of peat-pot seedlings of
pickerelweed along a shoreline in the uppermost
freshwater region of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland
(Garbisch and Coleman 1977). Tidal freshwater
marshes can become established rapidly on
suitable sites without planting. A dredged
material site at Windmill Point, James River,
Virginia became vegetated by natural
colonization 6 months after construction (Lunz et
al. 1978, Newling and Landin 1985).
Availability of plant propagules is often a
problem in creation and restoration of tidal
marshes. Ideally, seed or transplants should
come from near the planting site because of the
possibility of genetic variation. Adaptation of
plants to local conditions often results in the
formation of ecotypes, especially in populations
with wide geographic range (Kadlec and Wentz
1974). There is considerable morphological and
physiological variation among populations of
smooth cordgrass (Seneca et al. 1975) and local
populations are likely to be better adapted to their
environmental conditions than are populations
further north or south. Ecotypic variation is also
documented for Tvpha spp. (cattails) (Kadlec and
Wentz 1974). It is probably best to avoid using
planting stock from other regions for most
species until more is known about ecotypic
variation.
Several publications are available that
outline planting methods (Woodhouse et al. 1974,
Garbischet al. 1975, Woodhouse 1979, Broome et
al. 1981 and Lewis, R.R. 1982). Reference to these
publications and personal experience were used
in the summary of revegetation methods for salt
and brackish-water vegetation that follows.
Practical techniques of propagation and
revegetation have been demonstrated for the
species that are discussed and many of the
planting techniques and principles described
could be applied to other vegetation. Any species
of plant may be transplanted to a new site at
some level of effort and expense, but there are
relatively few tidal wetland plant species that are
routinely and economically propagated on a
large scale.
Smooth Cordgrass fSpartina alterniflora) —
Revegetation with smooth cordgrass has been
studied and established successfully more than
any other native intertidal vegetation of the
southeastern United States. It may be propagated
from seeds, by digging from natural stands or
produced in nurseries.
Seeding- Seed production is most abundant
in recently colonized open stands or along edges
such as creek banks. Seeds mature and are
ready for harvest in late September in the
northern part of the region. Maturity progresses
from north to south and may be as late as
November in Georgia, but may vary within
stands and from year to year. Harvesting should
be done before seeds are lost by shattering, but not
before maturity (Fig. 6). Seed heads can be
clipped with knives, clippers or any mechanical
aids available. Store the seedheads moist in
refrigeration for 3-4 weeks before threshing. This
results in easier separation of seeds from stems.
The threshed seeds should be stored in plastic
containers filled with seawater or artificial
51
-------
Figure 6. Mature smooth cordgrass seed heads.
52
-------
seawater so that the seeds are submerged. This
inhibits germination during storage and loss of
viability that occurs if the seeds are allowed to
desiccate. Even when seeds are stored properly,
storage life is only about one year; consequently,
annual seed harvests are necessary.
Smooth cordgrass can be established by
direct seeding on sites protected from waves, but
successful germination and growth is generally
limited to the upper half of the intertidal zone.
Before planting, a seedbed should be prepared
using a rototiller, harrow, rake or other tillage
implement. Sow seeds evenly at the rate of 100
viable seeds per square meter and till again to
incorporate to a depth of 2 to 3 cm. When seeding
is successful, complete cover is attained by the
end of the first growing season.
Direct seeding is usually the most
economical method of propagation, but is
impractical on sites that receive even moderate
wave energy. Another negative aspect of this
method is that the quantity of seeds needed for
large areas are often not available. If seed
supply is limited, the seeds are more effectively
utilized by growing potted seedlings.
Field dug plants — Excellent transplants
can be dug from recently established stands on
sandy material such as dredged material
disposal sites, around inlets where sand is
accumulating, or along the edges of marshes.
Avoid old marshes which have a dense root mat.
Plants from new stands are more vigorous, have
larger stems and are easier to dig and separate.
Plants are dug by loosening with a shovel and
separating individual stems by hand. Good
plants have large stems, with small, actively
growing shoots and rhizomes attached and a well
developed root system. Ideal height is about 30
cm but a wide range may be used. An
individual can dig 200 to 500 plants per hour
depending on conditions at the site. Removal of
plants from young stands on sandy soils causes
minimal damage since the areas revegetate
quickly from remaining rhizomes and shoots.
After plants are dug, it is important to prevent
drying. Boots should be kept packed in moist
sand until transplanted. A nursery site may be
established if a suitable sandy, unvegetated,
intertidal area in available. Such an area
transplanted on one-meter centers in the spring
produces good transplants for the following
year's planting season.
Plugs, planting units including a soil core,
root mass and associated stems, are in most
cases less desirable than single stem
transplants. More labor is required to harvest,
transport and transplant plugs but this may be
the best alternative if planting stock must be
obtained from old marshes growing on peat, clay
or silty soils.
Seedlings « A good method of producing
planting stock is to grow seedlings in pots or
flats either in a greenhouse or outdoors during
warm weather (Fig. 7). Plastic tray pack liners
with 36, 5-cm square compartments are good
containers for plant production (Fig. 8). Plastic
is better than peat pots because roots and
rhizomes are confined in individual planting
units. Roots and rhizomes grow through peat
pots, creating a solid mat. Seedlings may be
grown in a commercial potting mix or a mixture
of equal parts sand, peat and sterilized topsoil.
Treating seeds with a fungicide before
planting is a good practice. One effective method
is soaking the seeds in a solution of 25%
household bleach for 10 to 15 minutes and
rinsing with tap water. Plant 5 to 10 seed per pot
or compartment and keep the potting soil wet with
daily watering. Flooding is not necessary.
Three to four months are required to grow
seedlings in a greenhouse to the appropriate size
for planting in the field. Seeding in February
produces good seedlings for transplanting in
April or May. Fertilize as needed with
Hoagland's solution or a commercial liquid or
granular fertilizer according to rates
recommended on the package. Diseases may be
a problem when seedlings are small,
particularly during long periods of cloudy
weather. Fungicide sprays such as Banrot are
effective in preventing disease damage to
seedlings.
It has been recommended that seedlings to be
transplanted in areas with salinities above 15 ppt
be pre-conditioned by growing in or applying
solutions of salt water (Garbisch et al. 1975).
However, results of recent experiments indicated
no advantage of preconditioning with salt water.
Seedlings were grown in solutions of O, 10, 20,
and 30 ppt sodium chloride in a greenhouse and
transplanted to a dredged material site with
interstitial water of 25-30 ppt and tidal
inundation with water of about 30 ppt. Survival
of transplants was near 100% and there was no
difference in appearance and growth of plants
due to the salinity pre-treatments (Broome,
unpublished data).
There are several advantages to using pot-
grown seedlings: (1) there is very little planting
shock since an intact root system is transferred
to the field and growth resumes quickly.
Survival is virtually 100% on favorable sites; (2)
disturbance of natural stands is avoided; (3) pot-
grown seedlings provide a source of plants when
suitable digging sites are not available; and (4)
seedlings can be held longer than dug plants if
there are delays in site preparation.
Disadvantages are: (1) cost (40 to 60 cents per
plant); (2) advance planning is necessary to
allow time to grow plants; (3) plants growing in
pots or flats are bulky and inconvenient to
53
-------
Figure 7. Greenhouse production of three species of cordgrass.
Figure 8. Big cordgrass seedlings approximately three months from time of seeding.
-------
transport. Racks or shelves in a covered trailer
or truck are required for hauling large numbers
of plants and transportation by boat is also
inconvenient; and (4) the potting media does not
contain the marsh soil flora and fauna that
would be present on the roots of field-dug
transplants. This may delay development of a
marsh as a total ecosystem.
Transplanting techniques — Techniques of
transplanting field-dug or pot-grown plants are
very similar and depend on site conditions.
Mechanization is feasible on large accessible
sites with soil material that will support
equipment and is relatively free of stumps, roots
or other debris. A farm tractor with a
transplanter used for tobacco or vegetable plants
is quite efficient, particularly on sandy soils
(Fig. 9). Some machines may require
modification of the row openers to work on
certain soil materials. Models are available that
accommodate potted seedlings as well as field-
dug plants and fertilizer distributors may also be
attached. Mechanical planters produce a more
uniform planting and are much faster and more
economical than hand planting.
Hand planting, however, is the method most
often used for intertidal vegetation. A hole is
opened with a spade or dibble to a depth of about
15 cm, the plant is inserted by a second worker,
and the soil firmed around the plant (Fig. 10).
As with machine planting, a better job can be
done at low tide when there is no water on the
surface. Portable power augers are useful for
opening holes on compact soils (Garbisch et al.
1975). If slow-release fertilizer is being used, it
should be placed in the hole before the plant is
inserted. Adequate planting depth and firming
the soil around the plant are important to prevent
plants from floating out or being dislodged by
wave action.
Spacing of transplants is an important
consideration because it affects numbers of
plants required, probability of success on exposed
sites and how rapidly cover is achieved. The
number of plants, cost of plants and labor
requirements increase as density is increased.
For example, to plant one hectare on 1 m spacing,
10,000 plants are required (4,047 plants per acre),
while planting on 0.5 m spacing requires 40,000
plants per hectare (16,196 plants per acre). On
exposed sites such as eroding shorelines, closer
spacing increases the chance of successful
establishment. Spacing of 45 to 60 cm (1.5 to 2 ft)
has been found to be adequate. On favorable,
protected sites, a 1-meter spacing is adequate to
provide complete cover of smooth cordgrass
approximately one year after transplanting. On
large protected sites where rapid cover is not
critical, even wider spacing may be acceptable to
reduce planting costs. Seeds produced by the
transplants, in addition to spread by rhizomes,
are often an important factor in producing a
complete cover when plants are widely spaced.
Optimum planting dates for smooth
cordgrass are from April 1 to June 15, however,
earlier or later planting dates may be necessary
due to extenuating circumstances. Earlier
planting increases the chances of storm damage
and field dug plants are more difficult to obtain.
Later dates shorten the growing season available
for initial establishment and spread of plants,
making them more susceptible to winter erosion
on exposed sites.
The benefits of fertilization vary from site to
site depending on the availability of nutrients in
the soil. Analysis of a soil sample by the state
agricultural soil testing lab is useful in
determining the need for phosphorus fertilization
and the pH, but soil tests are generally not
effective in predicting the need for nitrogen.
Transplants will benefit from fertilization
during the first growing season on most sites,
which is important on sites that are subject to
erosion. The method of fertilization that has
become most widely used (and is very effective)
is placement of the slow release fertilizer
Osmocote in the planting hole at the rate of about
1 oz (30 g) of material per plant. The 14-14-14
analysis with a 3-month release time is most
often used, although several other analyses are
available. If conventional soluble fertilizer
materials are used, do not place them in direct
contact with the plant root because of the salt
effect. Open a hole about 5 cm from the plant for
the fertilizer. Conventional fertilizer is much
cheaper, but the nitrogen is available over a
shorter period of time. With proper management
and repeat applications conventional fertilizers
can be as effective as slow release materials.
Suggested amounts of fertilizer are listed in
Table 4.
An alternative to fertilizing individual
plants is broadcasting fertilizer before planting
and incorporating it into the soil by discing.
Apply 112 kg ha-1 (100 Ibs ac-l) N in the ammon-
ium form (ammonium sulfate or urea) and 50 to
100 kg ha-iP (100 to 200 Ibs ac-iP205) as
concentrated superphosphate (45% P2Os). The
nitrate form of N is subject to denitrification and
loss under flooded conditions and it is likely that
plants adapted to flooded soils are better adapted
to utilizing the ammonium form of N.
Additional fertilization later in the growing
season or in subsequent growing seasons may be
needed until the stand is established and
recycling of nutrients within the marsh system
is adequate. The need for additional fertilization
can be determined by general appearance, color
and growth of the plants. Apply the fertilizer by
broadcasting evenly to the soil surface at low tide
at the rate of 112 kg ha-i (100 Ibs ac-i )N and 49 kg
ha-1? (100 Ibs ac-i P2O5). If additional
55
-------
Figure 9. Planting smooth cordgrass on a dredged material disposal area with a small tractor and
mechanical transplanter.
Figure 10. Hand planting field-dug smooth cordgrass transplants.
-------
Table 4. Suggested rates of fertilizer to apply in the planting hole (slow release fertilizers) or in a hole
several inches from the plant (soluble fertilizer materials).
Analysis
Fertilizer Material
N
K20
amount per plant (g)
a OSMOCOTE (7-9 month release)
* OSMOCOTE (3 month release)
8 Mag Amp+
a OSMOCOTE
b ammonium sulfate*
b concentrated superphosphate
b mixed fertilizers
18
14
7
14
21
0
10
6
14
40
14
0
46
10
12
14
6
14
0
0
10
15-30
15-30
15
15
15
10
25-50
a Slow-release materials
b Soluble materials
applications are needed only the N may be
necessary since P is adsorbed and retained by
the soil.
Salt meadow cordgrass f S. patens) ~
Field-dug transplants or potted seedlings are
suitable for transplanting. Vigorous plants
should be dug from relatively young, open stands
and held in moist sand until planted. The Soil
Conservation Service has also successfully
produced saltmeadow cordgrass transplants in
upland field nurseries,! The Cape May, New
Jersey plant materials center now has trials in
progress to select and release a superior cultivar.
Direct seeding is usually not a viable
alternative for saltmeadow cordgrass; however,
seedlings can be produced in pots or flats.
Collect seeds when mature in late September,
thresh and store dry in a refrigerator or cold
room. Grow the seedlings in flats using the
same methods as described for smooth cordgrass.
Seeds tend to take longer to germinate than
smooth cordgrass.
Use the same transplanting techniques as
described for smooth cordgrass except for
fertilization. Placing Osmocote in the planting
hole is certainly effective but is not necessary
because of the location of saltmeadow cordgrass
above mean high water. Conventional sources of
N and P can be broadcast on the soil surface at
the same rates as described for smooth cordgrass.
This can be done immediately before or after
transplanting, or preferably, several weeks after
planting when a root system has developed to
utilize the nutrients more efficiently.
Saltmeadow cordgrass responds vigorously to N
fertilization and may benefit from several
applications during a growing season.
Big Cordgrass (S. cvnosuroides) -
Production of potted seedlings is the best
method of propagating big cordgrass. Field-dug
plants are difficult to obtain and survival of
transplants is poor unless a site can be found
with young seedlings 20 to 30 cm in height.
These make good transplants but are rarely
available. Seed should be collected when mature
in mid to late September. Big Cordgrass seeds
mature 2-3 weeks earlier than smooth cordgrass.
Store the seed refrigerated in estuarine water or
artificial seawater diluted to 10 ppt. Grow
seedlings using the methods described for smooth
cordgrass. Big cordgrass seedlings germinate
quickly, grow rapidly and are quite vigorous.
Use the planting techniques described for
smooth cordgrass. One exception is spacing if a
quick cover is needed. The rhizomes of big
cordgrass are shorter, resulting in slower spread
and a bunchy growth habit. A spacing of 60 cm
is the maximum that should be used to
insure complete cover in the second growing
season.
Black Needlerush f.Tmicus roemerianus) —
Survival of field-dug transplants is usually
unsatisfactory. If this method is used, include at
least one growing rhizome tip in the planting
unit. Pot-grown seedlings are, however, an
excellent method of propagating black
needlerush. Collect clusters of seeds when
mature in mid to late June and store refrigerated
in paper bags. The seeds are very small and the
seedlings grow slowly. Sow the seeds in
November on the surface of potting soil in a flat
in a greenhouse. Cover with a thin layer of
potting soil. When seedlings are 3-5 cm in
height, transfer individual seedlings to tray
pack type flats. Fertilize and care for the
57
-------
seedlings as described for smooth cordgrass.
They should be ready for transplanting in May
or June.
Follow planting techniques as described for
smooth cordgrass. Use a maximum of 60 cm
spacing since black needlerush grows and
spreads slowly. It responds to fertilization on
soils that are very low in N and P, but its
nutrient requirements for optimum growth are
apparently lower than the Spartina species.
Saltgrass rDisticMis spicata) —
Saltgrass may be established by transplants,
rhizomes, seeds and plugs (Environmental
Laboratory 1978). Optimum transplanting dates
are January through March. Seeds are harvested
in the fall when mature and should be stored
refrigerated because of a low-temperature-
after-ripening requirement (Amen et al. 1970).
Seedlings may be grown in pots or flats as
described for smooth cordgrass.
ReintroductioTi nf Fauna
It is logical to predict that, if tidal marsh
habitat is created with a physical environment,
hydrology and vegetation similar to natural
marshes in the area, fauna that utilize such
habitat will colonize the new marsh. The time
required to accomplish this is unknown and
undoubtedly would vary with marsh type and
species of fauna. Tidal flooding is one transport
mechanism which expedites and facilitates
introduction of fauna to a new marsh. The roots
and attached soil of field-dug transplants are a
source of microbes, meio- and macrofauna.
Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals can
migrate to the new habitat.
One can always successfully argue that
there are differences between a marsh that is
hundreds of years old and a recently created
marsh. One obvious difference is organic matter
in the soil, which may be high in nearby natural
marshes and near zero in the created marsh.
This difference may or may not affect the value
and function of the created marsh.
One criticism of marsh creation and
mitigation is that very little is known about
whether created marshes function like natural
marshes (Race and Christie 1982). In their
review, Race and Christie found limited data
comparing fauna of created and natural
marshes. Cammen (1976a, 1976b) found greater
macroinvertebrate biomass in natural marshes
than three-year old planted marshes and there
were differences in species composition. Those
planted marshes were sampled after 15 years
and results showed that numbers and species of
infauna were similar to natural marshes.
Reimold et al. (1978) recorded increases over
time in numbers of crab burrows in a planted
marsh in Georgia. Microbial biomass at the
same site was 2 to 6 times lower than at natural
areas two years after planting.
A study in Texas comparing abundance of
macrofauna in transplanted marshes 2-6 years
old with natural marshes, found consistently
lower densities of brown shrimp, grass shrimp,
pinfish, and gobies in the planted marshes.
Juvenile blue crab densities were the same in
both marsh types (Minello et al. 1986).
Abundance and species composition of fish
and mobile invertebrates are being compared in
planted and natural marshes in North Carolina
as part of current research by the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Sampling during the
first year after planting S. alterniflora on
dredged material indicated that species
composition was different and the organisms
were less abundant than in natural marshes.
Similar results were found in a three-year-old S^
alterniflora marsh created by grading an upland
to inter tidal elevations and transplanting.
However, no difference was found in abundance
or species composition of fish and mobile
invertebrates utilizing a twelve-year-old planted
marsh when compared to nearby natural
marshes (Thayer, National Marine Fisheries
Service, pers. comm.).
Newling and Landin (1985) reported results
of long-term monitoring of seven Corps of
Engineers marsh creation sites. The created
marshes were found to be equal to nearby natural
marshes in faunal species diversity and
abundance, including aquatic organisms.
The structure of a man-made marsh-creek
system was compared to three natural creeks in
the Pamlico estuarine system in North Carolina
by determining temporal changes in species
composition of finfish and benthic invertebrate
communities (West and Rulifson 1987). The
man-made system was 2 to 4 years old over the
study period. Finfish communities and benthic
invertebrate communities (species composition
and seasonal changes in species abundance)
were also similar in the man-made and control
creeks. To provide some measure of marsh
function, growth and survival of spot
(Leiostomus xanthurys) held in cages in each
system was measured. Increase in weight of the
caged spot in the man-made marsh system
equalled or exceeded that of the control creeks.
More research is needed on the rate at which
the faunal component colonizes created marshes
and the need for introduction of certain fauna.
Wave protection structures are
58
-------
beneficial where wave energy is a limiting
factor in establishment and long-term stability of
vegetation. Temporary protection during the
establishment period, when the planting is most
vulnerable to wave energy, is critical to success
in many cases. Wave protection has been
successfully accomplished with earthen dikes,
sandbags, tire breakwaters, erosion-control mats,
and plant rolls (Webb 1982; Allen et al. 1986; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1986).
A sandbag dike was effective in protecting a
4-ha marsh planting site at Bolivar Peninsula,
Texas, but it was recommended that more cost
effective alternatives be considered (Allen et al.
1978). A sand dike around the perimeter of an
8-ha freshwater marsh site at Windmill Point,
Virginia provided protection for development of a
freshwater tidal marsh (Environmental
Laboratory 1978).
Floating or fixed tire breakwaters have been
found to provide protection for vegetation. In
Mobile Bay, Alabama, Smooth cordgrass sprigs
behind a floating tire breakwater had a 56%
survival rate, those behind a fixed breakwater a
24% survival rate, and those with no protection, a
4.0% survival rate (Allen and Webb 1982). A
horizontal mat of floating tires with foam
flotation was ineffective in protecting a shoreline
planting of smooth cordgrass along the Neuse
River in North Carolina (Broome, unpublished
data). The draft, or emersed depth, of the
horizontal mat was too shallow to be effective
during high storm tides when most erosion
occurred, while the water was too shallow for
tires in the vertical position under normal
conditions. The effectiveness of a floating tire
breakwater is determined by its length, width
and draft. The draft should be greater than half
the height of significant waves (Ross 1977). A
major disadvantage of using tires is that they
are aesthetically undesirable and provision must
be made for removal when they have served their
purpose. Properly designed floating breakwaters
can be towed to another site for re-use.
One effective method of protecting shoreline
plantings is construction of a wooden breakwater
parallel to the shore. Distance from the shore
and height of the breakwater depend on water
depth.
Other types of plant protection include
various types of matting anchored to the soil
surface and burlap plant rolls (Allen et al. 1984).
Plant rolls, burlap bundles and plants sprigged
through Paratex mat were found to be promising
methods of erosion control by holding plants
in place on dredged material in Mobile Bay,
Alabama. However, a replicated experiment on
three dredged material islands in North
Carolina showed no benefit to using plant rolls
as compared to conventionally transplanted
smooth cordgrass (personal observation).
Other hazards that might require protective
action include human foot and vehicular traffic,
grazing animals and blowing sand. Signs and
fences can be used to discourage human use and
fencing or trapping and removal can be used to
exclude some animals. Sand fencing and
transplanting dune vegetation are effective in
intercepting blowing sand.
Long-Term Management
The goal of marsh creation is to establish a
wetland that is like the natural system it is
designed to emulate; or, one that will become like
that system through succession of the flora and
fauna. Ideally such a system should be self
sustaining and maintenance free. However,
maintenance is often necessary to insure
success, particularly in the first few years after
transplanting. One of the first maintenance
requirements on shorelines exposed to wave
action is replacement of plants that may be
washed out. Wrack or litter along drift lines
should be removed if there is danger of
smothering plants. Additional fertilization may
be necessary on infertile sites even during the
second or third growing season. Response to
fertilization and rate required can be determined
on a small scale on test plots before fertilizing
an entire planting.
Invasion by undesirable plant species may be
a problem on fresh and brackish water sites.
One of the most ubiquitous weeds is common reed
(Phragmites australis) (Daiber 1986). It is an
aggressive plant found throughout the world in
freshwater marshes and it is able to withstand
moderate to high salinities. Common reed can
quickly invade spoil or other areas where
vegetation has been disrupted by mechanical or
other means. Its ability to out compete and
eliminate other vegetation and its low wildlife
value has made it undesirable and unpopular.
One means of discouraging invasion of
unwanted vegetation on marsh creation sites is
to insure rapid cover of the transplanted
vegetation by close spacing and other good
management practices. Other control methods
are cutting, draining, saltwater flushing and
herbicides. Work by the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources has demonstrated that the
herbicides Rodeo and Roundup (glyphosphate)
are effective .in controlling common reed.
Because of lack of specificity and the potential of
environmental damage, herbicides should be
used in a tidal marsh only if no other
alternatives are available (Daiber 1986).
59
-------
MONITORING
Monitoring created or restored marshes can
range from periodic visual observations to
detailed scientific measurements of structure
and function of the system and comparison with
similar natural systems. Monitoring is
desirable to measure success of a project and to
determine additional needs or inputs such as
replanting, fertilization control of undesirable
plants, removal of debris, control of wildlife
pests, and human traffic. Choosing appropriate
methods for monitoring depend on the
characteristics of the site, type of vegetation, the
objectives to be accomplished and time and
resources available. The degree of success
reported for a project is likely to affect permitting
decisions on other similar projects.
A photographic record is an effective, low-
cost method of monitoring a planting site.
Permanent stations should be marked at the site
for photographs at each visit to record growth and
development of the vegetation. Aerial
photography is generally more difficult and
expensive to obtain, but is quite useful. Remote
sensing methods have also been used to estimate
biomass of wetland vegetation by correlation
with spectral radiance (Daiber 1986). Photo-
graphs provide a perspective of the scope and
nature of a project with which to supplement
numerical data. Videotape might also provide a
useful means of recording development of a
planted site.
Growth measurements of vegetation are
important in recording development. Zonation of
vegetation in tidal marshes due to elevation with
respect to tidal inundation adds to sampling
problems. For example, with smooth cordgrass
planted along shorelines, there are often three
zones with different height and biomass. The
seaward edge typically has poor growth, then a
zone of good growth in the middle of the planting
and a zone of poor growth at higher elevations.
The pattern of growth may be reversed at other
locations but there is usually some type of
zonation. Because of the effects of zonation,
stratified random sampling is often more
appropriate than random sampling over an
entire vegetation type. The stratified method
involves sampling within each elevation zone
that can be delineated visually. In the case of the
shoreline described above one might choose to
sample only the zone of maximum growth or all
three zones depending on the objectives. Before
deciding on any sampling scheme, consult a
statistician.
The first measurement might be an estimate
of survival rate four to six weeks after
transplanting. This provides a measure of
initial planting success, including quality of the
planting material, planting methods, and the
effects of wave action. It also determines the
need for replanting. On large areas selected
lengths of rows may be randomly chosen and
counted to estimate survival.
Growth measurements at the end of the
growing season are often used as a measure of
success. Useful parameters include height,
number of stems, cover, basal area, aboveground
biomass (clipped plots), and digging and coring
to measure belowground biomass. At the end of
the first growing season, individual hills may
still be identifiable and sampled as such. When
cover is evenly distributed quadrat sampling
should be used. Quadrats 0.25, 0.50 or 1.0 m2 are
often used depending on the homogeneity of the
vegetation. Destructive sampling (clipping and
weighing) probably provides the most accurate
measure of growth. For Spartina species, clipping
samples at the end of the growing season
apparently has very little effect on subsequent
growth; however, it should be minimized on
exposed areas subject to erosion. Sampling
belowground biomass can be very damaging to
stands on exposed sites. Clipping does affect
growth of black needlerush. Plots clipped in
autumn often remain bare or are invaded by
saltgrass during the next growing season.
The following measurements of plant growth
were adopted by Woodhouse et al. (1974) to
characterize success of plantings of Spartina:
1. Aerial dry weight - For first year growth,
individual hills were randomly selected,
plants were clipped at the sediment surface,
dried in a forced air oven at 70° C and
weighed to the nearest gram. At the end of
the second growing season and thereafter,
samples consisted of quadrats 0.25 m2 in size.
Only the live material (current year's
growth) was retained. If other plants
(invaders) are present in the samples, they
should be separated by species, identified,
dried and weighed. This provides a measure
of plant succession over time. Peak
standing crop biomass is an underestimate of
net annual primary productivity (NAPP)
because it does not account for mortality,
decomposition, or growth occurring after the
peak. Several more time consuming methods
have been utilized to more accurately
estimate NAPP (Shew et al. 1981).
2. Belowground dry weight - For first year
transplants, roots and rhizomes attached to
the clipped plants were simply dug from the
soil and washed on a 2 mm screen. The plant
60
-------
material remaining on the screen was oven-
dried and weighed. After complete cover
was achieved, belowground material was
sampled by taking cores from the clipped
quadrats. Cores were taken to a depth of 30
cm with a stainless steel coring tube, which
had an inside diameter of 8.5 cm. Cores
were separated into 0-10 and 10-30 cm
lengths, washed on a 2 mm sieve, the plant
material was oven-dried and weighed. Some
researchers attempt to separate live and dead
material.
3. Number of stems - The number of stems in a
clipped sample was counted.
4 Number of flowering stems - The number of
flowers or seed heads in each sample was
recorded.
5. Height - The height was measured either
before or after clipping. First year
transplants were measured from the base of
the plant to the highest point. The five tallest
stem heights were measured in quadrat
samples.
6. Basal area - The area occupied by stems at
ground level was determined by holding the
clipped stems tightly bunched and
measuring their cross sectional diameter.
Cross sectional area was calculated and
reported per hill or per unit area.
Other useful measurements include percent
cover, percent cover by species, number of
colonizers, and qualitative observations such as
vigor and color (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1986).
The number of samples required to
adequately represent a given area or vegetation
type varies. A general rule-of-thumb is a
minimum of 15 samples. Interpreting the results
requires sampling a nearby reference marsh
with similar vegetation or relying on reported
literature values for comparison.
The length of time to sample varies with type
of vegetation and location. A three to five year
time frame is reasonable to determine if growth
of vegetation on a planted site is comparable to
similar natural marshes. A ten-year study of a
planted smooth cordgrass marsh in North
Carolina showed that the aerial standing crop
was greater than an adjacent natural marsh by
the end of the second growing season and was
equal to the natural marsh throughout the
remainder of the study period. Pour growing
seasons were required for belowground standing
crop to equal the natural marsh (Broome et al.
1986).
The broader question of whether created or
restored marshes have equal value and perform
the same functions as natural marshes is more
difficult to evaluate. In addition to primary
production, development of fauna! communities
and chemical and physical characteristics of the
soil and nutrient cycling must be evaluated. A
long-term monitoring effort has been conducted
by the U.S.'Army Corps of Engineers on corps-
built wetlands (Landin 1984, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1986).
RESEARCH
Information and research needs related to
creation and restoration of tidal wetlands in the
southeastern United States can be divided into the
following general categories: (1) site selection,
design and preparation; (2) plant propagation
techniques and cultural practices; and (3)
documentation of development of biological
communities and functional processes in created
systems- This includes determining the time
required for development to occur, the
successional patterns, and comparison of
communities and processes with similar natural
systems.
Site Selection. Design, and Preparation
A primary need in site selection is improved
methods of predicting the probability of success of
plantings exposed to wave energy. A better
understanding is needed of how the effects of
fetch on planting success are modified by depth
of offshore water, tidal range, and physical
properties and erodibility of the sediments. Cost
effective methods for protecting plantings from
wave energy need further study. These include
structures such as breakwaters (floating or fixed)
and design of dredged material disposal sites.
Habitat displacement is an important issue to
consider. Marsh creation results in the loss of
upland habitat when grading is done to produce
intertidal elevations. Bottom or mud-flat habitat
is lost when fill is used to create marsh.
Plant Propagation Techniques and Cultural
Practices
Methods for propagation and planting of
smooth cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, big
61
-------
cordgrass and black needlerush are well
documented. These methods can be found in
published reports and have been applied over a
wide geographic area and range of conditions.
There is less published material and apparently
less information and experience in creating
tidal freshwater marshes.
Topics that warrant further investigation are
listed below:
1. Plant propagation techniques and planting
methods should be improved to reduce costs.
2. A better understanding of the physical
environment required for optimum growth of
big cordgrass and black needlerush is
needed. The elevation in relation to tidal
inundation, soil conditions, and nutrient
requirements are not well understood.
3. More work on source and rate of nitrogen
fertilization is needed over a variety of
locations and soil types. The effectiveness of
urea when applied at planting and as a
topdressing needs to be tested. Sulfur-coated
urea might be a lower cost alternative to
Osmocote as a source of slow-release N for a
starter fertilizer.
4. The role of mycorrhizae in mineral
nutrition and growth of marsh vegetation
should be investigated. The growth of
greenhouse-grown seedlings may be affected
by the absence of mycorrhizae when
transplanted on soils created by grading
upland sites.
. 5. The necessity of pre-conditioning pot-grown
smooth cordgrass with salt water before
transplanting to field conditions where
salinities are 20-30% should be tested further.
This is a recommendation found in the
literature; however, preliminary tests in
North Carolina, both in the field and
greenhouse have shown that seedlings grown
without salt treatment survived well when
transferred to a high-salinity environment.
6. Restrictive layers in dredged material, such
as old marsh surfaces or clay layers, often
cause salinities of planting sites or parts of
planting sites to exceed the tolerance of
marsh vegetation. This occurs when
drainage is restricted and
evaporation concentrates salts. Means of
recognizing and correcting this problem
should be investigated.
7. Methods and the necessity for
planting freshwater tidal vegetation should
be further investigated. Freshwater tidal
marsh constitutes only 11% of the total tidal
marsh in the region; consequently, less
experience has been gained with this type of
vegetation. Lunz et al. (1978) concluded from
results at the Windmill Point, Virginia site
that tidal freshwater marshes establish
rapidly on suitable sites without planting. Is
this generally the case, or do certain sites
need to be planted to prevent invasion by
undesirable species or erosion? The best
plants from the standpoint of ease of
propagation, planting and desirability,
should be determined.
Develoment
The feasibility of creating tidal marshes has
been adequately demonstrated although
techniques continue to be refined and improved.
Despite this feasibility, the question of how these
marshes compare structurally and functionally
to similar natural systems has not been
answered to the satisfaction of many scientists
and policy makers. Many authorities take the
position that new or restored wetlands ought to
meet a functional test (Larson 1987) since
wetlands are not only plant communities, but
ecosystems that provide specific functions.
Evaluating functions of created tidal wetlands is
difficult in light of the controversy that still
exists over the contribution of natural marshes to
estuarine processes (Nixon 1980). Variability
among natural marshes of the same type and
between different types of marshes also makes
comparisons difficult. For example, a smooth
cordgrass stand established on sand in an area
where natural marshes are relatively young will
likely be comparable to the natural marsh for
most measurements in a few years. In contrast,
in areas where natural marshes are old and
have accumulated peat several meters thick, a
marsh created by grading an upland mineral
soil or a borrow pit will lack such peat and differ
from the natural marshes. Soil organic matter
concentrations, soil physical and chemical
properties, and hydraulic conductivity
will remain measurably different for many
years.
If differences between created and natural
marshes are observed or measured, the question
remains, are these differences important?
Comparative data is important in assessing the
impact of replacing natural marshes with
created marshes, but decisions on permitting
mitigation projects will ultimately require value
judgments.
Comparative studies of created and natural
marshes are needed to provide data to be used as
a basis for making mitigation decisions.
Perhaps of even greater importance, such studies
can provide insights into the broader role of both
natural and created tidal marshes in estuarine
ecosystems. Created marsh systems can be used
for studies beginning at time zero and following
62
-------
over time the development of primary production,
successional changes, changes in the flora and
fauna, and changes in soil chemical and
physical properties. Comparisons can be made
with bare unplanted areas as well as with
natural marshes.
Some research topics that would provide
interesting comparative data and valuable basic
information are listed below:
1. Evaluating plant productivity and
succession over significant time periods (5-
10 years) for different marsh types and
locations.
2. Determination of nutrient flux, accretion of
sediments, accumulation of mineral
nutrients and organic carbon, nutrient
cycling, and soil development.
3. Study of the abundance and production of
benthic micro- meio- and macrofauna.
4 Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of
marsh soils and the exchange of interstitial
water with estuarine water.
5. Evaluation of habitat value, particularly for
fishes.
6. Develop methods for practically and
economically evaluating the success of
marsh creation and restoration projects by
identifying key indicator species and
processes to be measured.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET); Vol. n Methodology. Operational Draft
Technical Report Y-87. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Allen, H.H., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.J. Diaz, A.W. Ford,
L.J. Hunt, and B.R. Wells. 1978. Habitat
Development Field Investigations, Bolivar
peninsula. Marsh and Upland Habitat Development
Site, Galveston Bay, Texas. Summary report. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-
78-15.
Allen, H.H. and J.W. Webb, Jr. 1982. Influence of
breakwaters on artificial salt marsh establishment
on dredged material, p. 18-35. In FJ. Webb (Ed.),
Proc. of the Ninth Annual Conf. on Wetland
Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Allen, H.H., J.W. Webb, and S.O. Shirley. 1984.
Wetlands development in moderate wave-energy
climates, p. 943-955. Proc. Conf. Dredging '84,
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division
ASCE/Nov. 14-16,1984. Clearwater Beach, Florida.
Allen, H.H., S.O. Shirley, and J.W. Webb. 1986.
Vegetative stabilization of dredged material in
moderate to high wave-energy environments for
created wetlands, p. 19-35. In F.J. Webb (Ed.), Proc.
of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Wetland
Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Amen, R.D., G.E. Carter, and R.J. Kelly. 1970. The
nature of seed dormancy and germination in the
salt marsh grass Distichlia spicata. New Phvtol.
691005-1013.
Armentano, T.V. 1980. Drainage of organic soils as a
factor in the world carbon cycle. BioScience 30:825-
830.
Bloomfield, C. and J.K. Coulter. 1973. Genesis and
management of acid sulfate soils, p. 265-336. In N.C.
Brady (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, Vol 25.
Academic Press, New York.
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.
I. Nutrient status of plants and soils in natural
stands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39(2):295-301.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr.
1982. Establishing brackish marshes on graded
upland sites in North Carolina. Wetlands 2:152-
178.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr.
1981. Planting Marsh Grasses for Erosion Control.
UNC Sea Grant College Publication UNC-SG-81-09.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr.
1983a. Creating brackish water marshes for
possible mitigation of wetland disturbance, p. 350-
369. In J. Hernandez (Ed.), Proceedings: First
Annual Carolina Environmental Affairs
Conference of the Univ. of North Carolina. Institute
for Environmental Studies, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse,
Jr. 1983b. Creation of brackish water marsh
habitat, p. 319-338. In D.J. Robertson (Ed.),
Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry. Florida
Institute of Phosphate Research, Clearwater Beach,
Florida.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr.
1983c. The effects of source, rate and placement of
N and P fertilizers on growth of Spartina
alterniflora transplants in North Carolina.
Estuaries 6212-226.
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr.
1986. Long-term growth and development of
transplants of the salt-marsh grass Soartina
alterniflora. Estuaries 9:63-74.
Broome, S.W., C.B. Craft, and E.D. Seneca. 1988.
63
-------
Creation and development of brackish-water marsh
habitat, p.197-205. In JL Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend
(Eds.), Proceedings of a conference: Increasing
ourwetland resources. Nat. Wildl. Fed.,
Washington, D.C.
Cammen, L.M. 1976a. Abundance and production of
macroinvertebrates from natural and artificially
established salt marshes in North Carolina. Am.
Midi. Nat. 96:487-93.
Cammen, LM. 1976b. Macroinvertebrate colonization
of Spartina marshes artificially established on
dredge spoil Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 4:357-72.
Chung, H.C. 1982. Low marshes, China, p. 131-145. In
R.R. Lewis (Ed.), Creation and Restoration of
Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Inc., Boca
Raton, Florida.
Chung, H.C. and Zhuo Rongzong. 1985. Twenty-two
years of Spartina anplica Hubbard in China.
Journal of Nanjiny University. Research Advances
in Spartina p. 31-35.
Clairain, E.J., Jr., R-A. Cole, RJ. Diaz, A.W. Ford,
R.T. Huffman, LJ. Hunt, and BJR. Wells. 1978.
Habitat Development Field Investigations, Miller
Sands Marsh and Upland Habitat Development Site,
Columbia River, Oregon. Summary report. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta. Tech.
Rep.D-77-38.
Cowardin, CM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Daiber, F.C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Dodd, J.D. and J.W. Webb. 1975. Establishment of
Vegetation for Shoreline Stabilization in Galveston
Bay. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Misc. Paper 75-
6.
Environmental Laboratory. 1978. Wetland Habitat
Development with Dredged Material: Engineering
and Plant Propagation. Technical Report DS-78-16,
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gambrell, RJ>. and WH. Patrick, Jr. 1978. Chemical
and biological properties of anaerobic soils and
sediments, p. 375-423. In D.D. Hook and R.M.M.
Crawford (Eds.), Plant Life in Anaerobic
Environments. Ann Arbor Sci. Pub. Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr., P.B. Woller, and RJ. McCallum.
1975. Salt Marsh Establishment and Development.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical
memorandum 52.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr. and L. B. Coleman. 1977. Tidal
freshwater marsh establishment in Upper
Chesapeake Bay: Pontederia cordata and Peltandra
Viryinica. p. 285-298. In EIt. Good, D.F. Whigham,
and R.L. Simpson, Freshwater Wetlands:
Ecological Processes and Management Potential.
Academic Press, New York.
Gosselink, J.D. 1984. The Ecology of Delta Marshes of
Coastal Louisiana: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/DBS-84/09.
Greeson, PJE., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark. 1979.
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. American Water Resources
Assoc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, A.W. Zacherle, and
B.K. Fowler. 1984. Vegetative Erosion Control
Project: Final Report. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Kadlec, JA. and W.A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural.
Vol. I: Report of Research. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Expt. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-74-9.
Knutson, P.L. 1976. Development of Intertidal
Marshlands upon Dredged Material in San
Francisco Bay, p. 103-118. In Proc. of Seventh World
Dredging Conference, San Francisco, California.
Knutson, P.L., J.C. Ford, and M.R. Inskeep. 1981.
National survey of planted salt marshes (vegetative
stabilization and wave stress). Wetlands 1129-157.
Knutson, P.L., RA. Brochu, W.N. Seelig, and M.
Inskeep. 1982. Wave damping in Sjarljipa
altemiflora marshes. Wetlands 2:87-104.
Knutson, P.L. and M.R. Innskeep. 1982. Shore Erosion
Control with Salt Marsh Vegetation. U.S. Army
Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical
Aid 8203.
Krucynski, W.L., R.T. Huffman, and M.K. Vincent.
1978. Habitat Development Field Investigations,
Apalachicola Bay Marsh Development Site,
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Summary Report. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report. D-78-
32.
Kundell, J.E. and S.W. Woolf. 1986. Georgia
Wetlands: Trends and Policy Options. University
of GA. Carl Vinson Institute of Government,
Athens, Georgia.
Landin, M.C. 1984. Habitat development using
dredged material, p. 907-917. In R.W. Montgomery
and J.W. Leach (Eds.), Dredging and Dredged
Material Disposal Vol. 2. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York.
Landin, M.C. and CJ. Newling. 1987. Habitat
Development Case Studies: Windmill Point Wetland
Habitat Development Field Site, James River,
Virginia, p. 76-84. In M.C. Landin (Ed.), Beneficial
Uses of Dredged Material: Proceedings of the North
Atlantic Regional Conference 12-14 May 1987,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Larson, J.S. 1987. Wetland Creation and Restoration:
An outline of the Scientific Perspective, p. 73-79. In
J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing
Our Wetland Resources, Proc. of a Conference held
October 4-7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
64
-------
Lewis, R.R. (Ed.). 1982. Creation and Restoration of
Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press Inc. Boca
Raton, Florida.
Lunz, J.D., T.W. Zeigler, R.T. Huffman, R.J. Diaz, EJ.
Clairain, and LJ. Hunt. 1978. Habitat Development
Field Investigations Windmill Point Marsh
Development Site James River, Virginia. Summary
report. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta.
Tech. Rep. D-77-23.
Minello, TJ., R.J. Zimmerman, and E.J. Klima. 1986.
Creation of fishery habitat in estuaries, p. 106-120.
In M.C. Landin and H.K. Smith (Eds.), Beneficial
Uses of Dredged Material. U.S. Army Waterways
Expt. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-87-1.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Wetlands.
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.
Summary Report. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Expt. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-78-57.
Newling, C.J. and M.C. Landin. 1985. Long-term
Monitoring of Habitat Development at Upland and
Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites, 1974-1982.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta. Tech.
Rep. D-85-5.
Nixon, S.W. 1980. Between coastal marshes and
coastal waters - A review of twenty years of
speculation and research on the role of salt marshes
in estuarine productivity and water chemistry, p. 437-
525. In P. Hamilton and K.B. MacDonald (Eds.),
Estuarine and Wetland Processes with Emphasis on
Modeling. Plenum, New York.
Oaks, R.Q., Jr. and J. R. Dubar. 1974. Post-Miocene
Stratigraphy Central and Southern Coastal Plain.
Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah.
Odum, E.P. 1961. The role of tidal marshes in
estuarine production. New York State Conserv .
1612-15.
Odum, E.P. 1979. The value of wetlands: a
hierarchical approach, p. 16-25. In PJE. Greeson, J JR.
Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding.
American Water Resources Assoc., Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Odum, W.E. and S.S. Skjei. 1974. The issues of
wetlands preservation and management: A second
view. Coastal Zone Manage. J. 1(2):151-163.
Odum, W.E., TJ. Smith, in, J.K. Hoover, and C.C.
Mclvor. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater
Marshes of the United States East Coast: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
FWS/DBS-83/17.
Phillips, W.A. and F.D. Eastman. 1959. Riverbank
stabilization in Virginia. J. of Soil and Water
Cons. 14257-259.
Pomeroy, L.R., R.E. Johannes, E.P. Odum, and B.
Roffman. 1969. The Phosphorus and Zinc Cycles
and Productivity in a Salt Marsh, p. 412-419. In D J.
Nelson (Ed.), Proc. of the Second National
Symposium on Radioecology, U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D.C.
Priest, W.I., HI and T.A. Barnard, Jr. 1989. Plant
community dynamics in a recently planted wetland
bank. Wetlands in press.
Race, M.S. and D.R. Christie. 1982. Coastal zone
development: mitigation marsh creation and
decision making. Environ. Management 6:317-328.
Ranwell, D.S. 1967. World resources of Spartina
townsendii (sensu lato) and economic use of
Spartina marshland. J. Appl. Ecol. 4:239-256.
Redman, F.H. and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1965. Effect of
submergence on several biological and chemical
soil properties. Louisiana State Univ. Agric. Exp.
Sta. Bull. No. 592.
Reimold, R.J., MA. Hardisky, and P.C. Adams. 1978.
Habitat Development Field Investigations,
Buttermilk Sound Marsh Development Site, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia. U.S. Army,
Waterways Expt. Stat. Tech. Rep. D-78-26, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Ross, N.W. 1977. Constructing Floating Tire
Breakwaters. Proc. Am. Chemical Soc. Sym.
Conservation in the Rubber Industry, Chicago, HI.
Seneca, E.D., W.W. Woodhouse, Jr., and S.W. Broome.
1975. Saltwater marsh creation, p. 427-437. In L.E.
Cronin (Ed.), Estuarine Research Vol. II. Geology
and Engineering, Academic Press, New York.
Seneca, E.D. and" S.W. Broome. 1982. Restoration of
Marsh Vegetation Impacted by the Amoco Cadiz Oil
Spill and Subsequent Cleanup Operations at He
Grande, France. Interim Rept. to Dept. of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Sharp, W.C. and J. Vaden. 1970. Ten-year report on
sloping techniques used to stabilize eroding tidal
river banks. Shore and Beach 38:31-35.
Shew, D.M., R.A. Linthurst, and E.D. Seneca. 1981.
Comparison of production computation methods in a
southeastern North Carolina, Spartina alterniflora
salt marsh. Estuaries 4:97-109.
Simpson, R.L., D.F. Whigham, and R. Walker. 1978.
Seasonal patterns of nutrient movement in a
freshwater tidal marsh, p. 243-257. In R.E. Good,
D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.),
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and
Management Potential. Academic Press, New York.
Sullivan, M.J. and F.C. Daiber. 1974. Response in
production of cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora. to
inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer.
Chesapeake Sci. 15(2):121-123.
Teal, J.M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh
ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43(4): 614-624.
Teal, J.M. 1986. The Ecology of Regularly Flooded Salt
Marshes of New England: A Community Profile.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rept. 85(7.4).
65
-------
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1977. An Inventory of South
Carolina's Coastal Marshes. S.C. Wildl. and Mar.
Res. Dept. Tech. Rep. No. 23. Charleston, South
Carolina.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C.
Tisdale, S.L., L.N. Werner, and J.D. Beaton. 1985. Soil
Fertility and Fertilizers. MacMillan, New York.
Turner, RJE. 1976. Geographic variations in salt
marsh macrophyte production: A review. Marine
Science 20:47-68.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. Engineer Manual 1110-2-5026.
Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Valiela, I. and J.M. Teal. 1974. Nutrient limitation in
salt marsh vegetation, p. 547-563. In R.J. Reimold
and W.H. Queen (Eds.), Ecology of Halophytea.
Academic Press, New York.
Webb, J.W., Jr. 1982. Salt marshes of the western Gulf of
Mexico, p. 89-109. In R.R. Lewis HI (Ed.), Creation
and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC
Press Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Webb, J.W., J.D. Dodd, B.W. Cain, WH. Leavens, L.R.
Hossner, C. Lindau, R.R. Stickney, and H.
Williamson. 1978. Habitat Development Field
Investigations, Bolivar Peninsula Marsh and Upland
Habitat Development Site, Galveston Bay, Texas.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material
Research prog. Tech. Rept. D-78-15.
West, T.L. and R.R. Rulifson. 1987. Structure and
function of man-made and natural wetlands in the
Pamlico River estuary, North Carolina. (Abstract)
Amer. Fish. Soc. Annual Meeting, Sept. 14-18, 1987.
Winston Salem, North Carolina.
Wilson, K-A. 1962. North Carolina Wetlands Their
Distribution and Management. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland
creation and restoration in the United States from
1970 to 1985: An annotated bibliography. Wetlands
61-88.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1979. Building Salt Marshes
along the Coasts of the Continental United States.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Special Report No. 4.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.
1972. Marsh Building with Dredge Spoil in North
Carolina. North Carolina State Univ. Agric. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 445.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.
1974. Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for
Substrate Stabilization and Salt Marsh Development.
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.
1976. Propagation and Use of Spartina alterniflora
for Shoreline Erosion Abatement. U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
Zhuo Rongzong and Xu Guowan. 1985. A note on trial
planting experiments of Soartina alterniflora.
Journal of Nanjing University. Research Advances
in Spartina. p. 352-354.
66
-------
APPENDIX t RECOMMENDED READING
Daiber, F.C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Complete up-to-date information on management,
restoration and maintenance of tidal marshes is
presented with emphasis on temperate North American
east coast marshes and those of western Europe.
Subjects covered include natural processes of tidal
marshes, water management using dikes, ditches and
impoundments, vegetation management, waste
treatment, dredged material for restoration, pollution
and legal concerns and management concepts of the
future. There is an extensive list of references that is
useful for finding additional information.
Environmental Laboratory. 1978. Wetland Habitat
Development with Dredged Material: Engineering
and Plant Propagation. U.S. Army Waterways
Expt. Sta. Vicksburg, Miss. Tech. Rep. DS-78-16.
This report is a summary of literature and research
related to marsh development that was conducted by the
Waterways Experiment Station. Engineering aspects
presented are protective and retention structures,
substrate and foundation characteristics, dredging
operations, and elevation and drainage requirements.
Vegetation aspects discussed are selecting plant
species, collecting and storing plant materials,
selecting propagules, planting, maintenance and
monitoring, natural colonization, and costs. Tables of
115 plant species showing propagation methods, growth
requirements, and other information are useful,
although they are too superficial for application without
further reading.
Greeson, PJE., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (Eds.). 1979.
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of our
Understanding. American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis.
This book is the proceedings of the National
Symposium on Wetlands held in Lake Buena Vista,
Florida, Nov. 7-10, 1978. It is a comprehensive and
useful volume covering the following wetland topics:
conservation, management and evaluation, food
chains, habitat value, hydrology, effects on water
quality, aesthetic values and harvest value of wetland
products.
Herner and Company. 1980. Publication Index and
Retrieval System. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Exp. St., Vicksburg Miss. Tech. Rep. DS-78-23.
Abstracts of more than 200 reports resulting from
the Dredged Material Research Program are presented.
The publication is useful in selecting and retrieving
reports relevant to a particular project. National
Technical Information numbers are provided for
obtaining publications from NTIS, Springfield, VA.
22161.
Kadlec, J.A. and WA. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-Art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural,
Volume 1: Report of Research. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Information on the establishment of marsh and
aquatic vegetation was reviewed by searching
literature and contacting knowledgeable individuals.
The following topics were covered: plant species
distribution, site requirements, habitat tolerances of
plant species, ecotypic variation, natural
establishment, propagation methods, water manage-
ment, and site selection and preparation.
Knutson, P.L. and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1983. Shore
Stabilization with Salt Marsh Vegetation. U.S.
Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center Special Report No. 9.
Guidelines for using coastal marsh vegetation as a
shore erosion control measure are presented. Criteria
are provided on determining site suitability, selecting
plant materials, planting procedures and specification,
estimating costs, and assessing impacts.
Lewis, R.R. m. (Ed.). 1982. Creation and Restoration
of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press Inc.,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Contains detailed information on planting and
management of coastal vegetation. Subjects covered by
the nine chapters are as follows: coastal sand dunes of
the United States,/ Atlantic coastal marshes, salt
marshes of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, salt
marshes of the western Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coastal
marshes, low marshes of China, low marshes of
peninsular Florida, mangrove forests, and seagrass
meadows.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
This is a comprehensive textbook covering the
scientific and management aspects of freshwater and
coastal wetlands, with emphasis on wetlands of the
United States. The book presents a general view of
principles and components of wetlands that has broad
application to many wetland types and a detailed
ecosystem view of dominant wetland types. Topics
presented include: wetland types of the United States;
hydrology, biogeochemistry, biology and ecosystem
development of wetlands; tidal salt marshes; tidal
fresh marshes; mangrove wetlands; freshwater
marshes; northern peatlands and bogs; southern
deepwater swamps; riparian wetlands; and
management of wetlands. The book is a useful
reference and contains an extensive list of literature
cited.
Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith III, J.K Hoover, and C.C.
Mclvor. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater
Marshes of the United States East Coast: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
FWS/OBS-83/17.
67
-------
This report provides a thorough review of the
ecology of tidal freshwater marshes from southern
New England to Northern Florida. Topics discussed
are plants, ecosystem processes, invertebrates, fishes,
amphibians and reptiles, birds, mammals, values and
management practices, and a comparison of tidal
freshwater marshes and salt marshes. The report is a
very useful reference for anyone interested in
freshwater tidal marshes or wetlands in general.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. EM 1110-2-5026. Office, Chief
of Engineers, Washington, B.C.
The manual contains a section on both engineering
and biological aspects of wetland development on
dredged material. There is detailed information on
stabilization, propagation, planting costs, project
design and site preparation.
Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland
creation and restoration in the United States from
1970 to 1985: an annotated bibliography. Wetlands
61-88.
This is an annotated bibliography that deals with
creation and restoration of wetlands. Emphasis is on
site engineering and preparation and plant
propagation. Topics covered by the articles include site
selection, planning, engineering and design, seeding,
plant material selection, transplanting, harvest,
fertilization, costs and maintenance. Methods for
propagating about 150 plant species can be found in the
articles cited.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1979. Building Salt Marshes
along the Coasts of the Continental United States.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Spec. Rep. No. 4.
The report is a summary of available information
on salt marsh creation. Topics discussed are the value
and role of marshes, the feasibility of marsh creation
and the effects of salinity, slope, exposure and soils on
marsh establishment. Plants suitable for marsh
building are described for each region. Plant
propagation, planting, fertilization, and management
techniques are discussed.
Zelazny, J. and J. S. Feierabend (Eds.). 1988.
Proceedings of a conference: Increasing our
wetland resources. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
The proceedings of a conference held October 4-7,
1987 in Washington, D.C. covering a wide range of
wetland topics including the following: wetlands
policy and management; creation and restoration;
mitigation; stormwater, municipal and mine waste
treatment; design and planning of restoration projects;
and biological monitoring.
68
-------
APPENDIX IL PROJECT PROFILES
VIRGINIA WETLAND BANE,
GOOSE CREEK
Wetland Type: A regularly flooded brackish-water
marsh planted with smooth cordgrass, big cordgrass,
saltmeadow cordgrass, saltgrass, wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera). marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and sea myrtle
(Baccharis halimnifolia).
Date planted and type of Propagule: Summer 1982;
field-dug and some nursery grown plants.
Location: Goose Creek, Elizabeth River, Chesapeake
Virginia off Route 191 (Jolliff Road) west of Bowers
Hill interchange.
Size: 914 acres (3.7 ha).
Goals of Project:
The goal of the project was to establish a wet-
land bank for the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT). An accounting system was set
up for the VDOT to draw on the banks resources when
highway construction destroys wetlands. The
accounting system was started with a credit of 7 acres
(approximately 2/3 of the total area). When wetland
vegetation is affected by highway construction, and
mitigation is required, an equal area is subtracted
from the bank.
Judgement of Success:
The project is successful. The vegetation has
developed and the banking system is in use.
Significance:
The project is an apparently successful application
of the mitigation banking concept. Studies of the
structural and functional ecology of the marsh are
being done by scientists at the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science.
Reports: Priest and Barnard 1987.
Contacts: Walter I Priest, HI or
Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
Tel 804-642-7385
E. Duke Whedbee, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Tel 804-786-2576
WINDMILL POINT, VIRGINIA
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: July, 1974.
Sprigged and seeded with a number of freshwater
marsh plants.
Location: James River, 0.4 km west of Windmill
Point, Prince George County, Virginia.
Size: 9.3 ha.
Goals of Project:
Goals of the project were to investigate methods of
creating freshwater tidal marsh with dredged material
and to conduct studies on benthic invertebrates, fish,
wildlife, plants and soil characteristics.
Judgement of Success:
The initial study was successful; however, most of
the site was subsequently lost to erosion and
subsidence. A combination of emergent marsh and
shallow water habitat remains.
Significance:
The site is an example of creation of a large scale
tidal freshwater marsh. The study is thoroughly
documented in several reports by the Waterways
Experiment Station. Most of the planted wetland
vegetation was grazed and destroyed by wildlife
(particularly Canada geese) and the upland seeded
vegetation was displaced by native plant invasion.
Wetland plants became well established by natural
colonization leading to the conclusion that planting
intertidal freshwater sites is not necessary in that
area.
Reports: Landin, M.C. and C.J. Newling 1987.
Lunzetal. 1978.
Contact: Dr. M.C. Landin
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station
P. O. Box 631
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
VIRGINIA VEGETATIVE EROSION
CONTROL PROJECT
Wetland Type: Smooth cordgrass and saltmeadow
cordgrass.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Late Spring of
1981 and 1982. Potted seedlings of smooth cordgrass
and saltmeadow cordgrass produced by the Soil
Conservation Service National Plant Materials Center
in Beltsville, MD, and the Soil Conservation Service
Plant Materials Center in Cape May, New Jersey.
Location: Twenty four sites along the shoreline of
Virginia Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Size: Various sizes.
Wetland Type: Freshwater tidal.
69
-------
Goals of Project:
Judgement of Success:
1. To supplement previous research with detailed site
analysis of the early stages of marsh development.
2. To more precisely define the physical limits of
marsh planting in terms of wave stress.
3. To provide demonstration.
Judgement of Success
The project was successful in achieving its goals.
Significance:
The study added to information needed to determine
the limits of tolerance of marsh plantings to wave
stress.
Report: Hardaway et al. 1984
Contact: Scott Hardaway
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
School of Marine Science
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
NORTH CAROLINA PHOSPHATE
PROJECT AREA H
The project was successful after correcting soil
problems. The pH was below 2.5 over about 25% of the
area and soil phosphorus levels were very low.
Significance:
It is an example of a large-scale mitigation project
using pot-grown seedlings of brackish-water marsh
vegetation. The marsh is in an irregularly flooded
area with a narrow elevation range in which marsh
vegetation grows. It is not threatened by erosion and
offers an opportunity for long term studies of flora,
fauna, structure and function of a created marsh.
Reports Broome, Craft, and Seneca 1988.
West and Rulifson 1987
Contacts Mr.William A. Schimming
Texasgulf Chemicals Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Tel-919-322-1111
Steve Broome
Department of Soil Science
Box 7619
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
Tel-919-737-2643
This marsh creation site was constructed by North
Carolina Phosphate Corporation (Agrico) and
subsequently acquired by Texasgulf Chemicals Co.
Wetland Type: Irregularly flooded (wind dominated
tides) Brackish water (0-15 ppt. depending on rainfall,
runoff, season, etc.). Natural marsh vegetation in the
area is dominated by black Needlerush, big cordgrass,
saltmeadow cordgrass and saltgrass.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Planted in April
and May 1983 with pot-grown seedlings of big
cordgrass, smooth cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass
and black needlerush.
Location: Near Aurora, NC adjacent to South Creek, a
tributary of the Pamlico River. The drainage system
of the created marsh is connected to the estuary at the
mouth of Drinkwater Creek.
Size: 2 ha.
Goals of the Project:
The goal of the project was to investigate the
feasibility of creating brackish water marsh habitat by
grading an upland site to an intertidal elevation and
planting with marsh vegetation. The purpose of
creating marsh was to mitigate losses of natural
marsh that might occur in association with phosphate
mining. The ultimate objective of North Carolina
Phosphate Corporation was to obtain permits to mine
through the headwaters of small tributaries, which
occur as small inclusions in the mining area, in
exchange for creating new marshes.
PINE KNOLL SHORES, NORTH
CAROLINA
Wetland Type: A regularly flooded intertidal salt
marsh that is a pure stand of smooth cordgrass below
mean high water. Saltmeadow cordgrass dominates a
narrow band of high marsh. The smooth cordgrass
occurs as a marsh fringe about 15 m wide along the
shoreline of Bogue Sound. Salinity of the estuarine
water varies from 20-35 ppt. The interstitial water is
often around 10 ppt. due to seepage from the upland.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Planted in April
1974 with field-dug transplants of smooth cordgrass.
Location: The site is along the shoreline of the barrier
island of Bogue Banks in the town of Pine Knoll
Shores.
Size: The marsh is about 15 m wide and extends 500 m
along the shoreline. Total area is about 0.75 ha.
Goals of the Project:
Goals of the project were to test planting techniques
and to determine the value of smooth cordgrass for
shoreline erosion control.
Judgement of Success
The project was very successful in preventing
shoreline erosion. It has been observed over a period of
13 years.
70
-------
Significance:
The planting has prevented erosion of a shoreline
over a long period of time and records of biomass
production and elevation of the shoreline have been
maintained.
Reports Woodhouse et al. 1976
Broome et al. 1986
Contact: Steve Broome
Department of Soil Science
Box 7619
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
Tel 919-737-2643
EVALUATION OF MARSH VEGETATION
PLANTED ON DREDGEDMATERIAL IN
NORTH CAROLINA AS FISHERY
HABITAT
Wetland Type: Salt water, regularly flooded (&.
alterniflora) and high marsh (S. patens). The
seagrasses Halodule wrightii and Zostera marina
were also planted.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: March through
June 1987. Field-dug and greenhouse grown seedlings
of S. alterniflora and S. patens were planted in
experimental plots designed by personnel of the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Location: Three dredged material disposal sites in
North Carolina were planted using the same
experimental design: the Marker's Island dredge spoil
island in Core Sound off marker 34 along Bardens
Inlet Channel, the westernmost dredge spoil island at
Swansboro, and the large dredge spoil island at New
River Inlet near Sneads Ferry.
Size: The marsh planting was 185 x 30 meters at each
site. The total area for the three sites is 1.67 ha.
Goals of the Project:
1. To evaluate techniques for establishing salt marsh
habitat to reduce erosion and channel refilling at
dredged material disposal sites.
2. To generate fishery habitat and evaluate its
utilization by certain target fishery species.
Judgement of Success: Too early to determine.
Significance:
It is a statistically designed, replicated experiment
that should be useful in comparing the value of planted
and unplanted plots to certain target fishery species.
The seagrass plantings are also an interesting feature
of the project.
Contacts Dr. Gordon Thayer or Dr. Mark Fonseca
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Tel 919-728-8747
Mr. Frank Yelverton
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Tel 919-343-1640
Dr. Stephen W. Broome
Department of Soil Science
Box 7619
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7619
Tel 919-737-2643
WINYAH BAY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Wetland Type: Smooth cordgrass.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: No planting was
done. Complete cover by natural colonization of
smooth cordgrass is achieved approximately three
years after disposal of dredged material at the proper
elevation (Steve Morrison pers. comm.). The project
was started in 1974 with dredging every 12-18 months.
Location: Winyah Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.
Size: 100 acres.
Goals of Project:
The goal was to create salt marsh from open water
by disposal of dredged material to replace salt marsh
lost in Winyah Bay due to diking for rice fields.
Judgement of Success: Successful.
Significance:
The project is an example of salt marsh creation by
disposal of dredged material at the correct elevation
with no planting of vegetation. Controversy now exists
over the displacement of shallow water habitat with salt
marsh.
Contacts: Steve Morrison or John Car-others
Charleston District Corps of Engineers
Tel 803-724-4258
BUTTERMILK SOUND, GEORGIA
Wetland Type: Brackish water; regularly flooded.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Planted in June
1975. Field dug sprigs and seeds of seven plant species
were planted in an experimental design. These were:
Borrichia frutescens. Distichlis spicata. I v a
fmtescens. Juncus roemerianus . Spartina alterniflora.
Spartina cvnosuroides and Spartina patens.
Location: In the Atlantic tntracoastal Waterway near
the mouth of the Altamaha River, Glynn County,
Georgia.
Size: 2.1 ha.
71
-------
Goals of Project:
The goals of the project were to determine the
feasibility of establishing the seven plant species tested
on dredged material. The effect of fertilizer and
inundation on plant growth was determined. Water
chemistry, soil chemistry, soil microbiology, invading
plants, and crab burrows were monitored.
Observations were made on use of the area by aquatic
organisms and wildlife.
Judgement of Success: Successful.
Significance:
It is a brackish-water marsh development site with
a number of experimental variables imposed. The
results of the work are well documented and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station continues to follow the site.
Reports Reimoldetal. 1978.
Newling and Landin 1985.
Contact; Dr. Mary C. Landin
Department of the Army
Waterways Experiment Station
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
KINGS BAY, GEORGIA
Wetland Type: Regularly flooded salt marsh; smooth
cordgrass.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: To be
determined.
Location: Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, St.
Marys, GA.
Size: 30 acres.
Goals of Project:
The goal of the project is to create salt marsh to
mitigate losses of natural marsh related to dock
construction, dredging and dredged material disposal
required for construction of a submarine base.
Significance;
It is a large scale mitigation project involving
creation of a smooth cordgrass marsh from an upland
borrow pit. It has potential as a research site for
comparing created and natural marshes.
Contact: Mr. Bob Peavy
Regulatory Branch (CESAS-OP-F)
U.S. Army Eng. District, Savannah
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
72
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF
COASTAL PLAIN WETLANDS IN FLORIDA
Roy R. Lewis
Lewis Environmental Service, Inc.
ABSTRACT. Despite hundreds of mangrove and tidal marsh restoration and creation efforts in
Florida over the last fifteen years, current efforts are largely more art than science. Adequate
monitoring and reporting are rare, and no institutional memory exists to improve the review and
monitoring process.
Based on a critical review of actual projects and the sparse literature, five factors appear most
important to successful wetland establishment; these are:
1. Correct elevations for the target plant species;
2. Adequate drainage provided by gradual slopes and sufficient tidal connections; and
3. Appropriate site selection to avoid wave damage.
4. Appropriate plant materials.
5. Protection from human impacts.
OVERVIEW OF THE REGION
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION
Reoloev
The state of Florida is the emergent portion of a
large plateau called the Floridian Plateau which is
a projection of the North American continent
dividing the Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of
Mexico. The plateau is about equal land area and
submerged plateau with depths to 100 m.
The land area of the state consists of two
sedimentary provinces. The North Gulf Coast
province is largely characterized by clastic sands
produced by erosion of the North American
continent and includes the panhandle and Big Bend
areas of the state. The Florida Penisular province is
characterized by a higher percentage of nonclastic
sediments with increasing proportions of
biologically or chemically produced carbonate
materials to the south. Overlying these pleistocene
sediments are holocene features derived from warm
subtropical plant community growth and hardening
of exposed limestone (Drew and Schomer 1984).
These plant derived sediments include wetland
organic peats that may reach two meters or more in
depth.
Climate '
Florida's climate is characterized by relatively
high mean annual rainfall (122-152 cm/yr) and a
humid subtropical temperature pattern (daily
maximum in July of 32 °C). Mean daily maximum
temperatures in the winter average 20 °C. Mean
daily low temperatures range from 5°C to 16°C,
depending upon the portion of the state measured.
Winter is the driest period with most of the rain
falling in the summer months of June-September.
Hard freezes are rare, normally occurring only once
or twice per century. Snow occurs very rarely as
flurries in the north part of the state, and even here
rarely remains on the ground.
Hurricanes are common, but more frequently
strike the shore in southern Florida rather than the
Panhandle. Tornadoes are also common but are not
as destructive as in other areas since most are of
the relatively weak waterspout type (Fernald and
Patton 1984).
Ecoregions
Bailey (1978) divides Florida into three coastal
ecoregion provinces: Louisianian, West Indian,
73
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROVINCES
CAROLINIAN
Figure 1. The marine and estuarine provinces of Florida (modified from Bailey 1978).
and Carolinian (Figure 1). The Carolinian province
includes all the Atlantic coast of Florida south to
Cape Canaveral and is characterized by extensive
marshes, well developed barrier islands, turbid
waters, small to moderate tidal ranges (0.3-2.0 m),
and winter minimum temperatures of 5°C. The
West Indian province extends from Cape Canaveral
on the Atlantic Coast to Cedar Key on the Gulf
coast and is characterized by more tropical flora
and fauna, winter minimum temperatures of 16°C,
and small tidal ranges (0.6-1.0 m). The Louisianian
province extends from the mid-Gulf coast at Cedar
Key to beyond the state line in the Panhandle, and
includes Louisiana and much of coastal Texas. It is
characterized by low wave energy, extensive
marshes, generally temperate fauna, and small
(0.6-1.0 m) tidal ranges (Cowardin et al. 1979).
WETLAND TYPES
Four estuarine or marine emergent wetland
types occur in Florida. These are mangrove forest,
tidal marsh, oligohaline marsh, and salt barren. In
general the major mangrove forests are limited to
the southern half of the state (the West Indian
province area of Bailey 1978 [Figure 1]), while the
major tidal marsh areas are found in the northern
half of the state (the Louisianian and Carolinian
provinces of Bailey 1978). This is due to the
sensitivity of mangroves to freezing temperatures
which limits their northern distribution (Odum et
al. 1982). The cold resistant herbaceous marsh
species are the dominant species is areas where
mangroves are not present, but other factors such
as salinity play an important role, and extensive
tidal marshes are found mixed with mangroves in
central and southern Florida (Durako et al. 1985).
The other two wetland types have received
little study and neither their distribution around
the state nor their areal cover has been determined.
It is likely they are found statewide where
conditions allow.
Key functions performed by these wetlands
include shoreline protection, fisheries and wildlife
habitat, water quality maintenance, and sources of
primary production (Seaman 1985). Each of the
wetland types is briefly described below to
characterize major differences in functions.
Mangrove Forests
Mangrove forests in Florida are composed of
four species of trees: Rhizophora mangle L. (red
mangrove), Avicennia germinans (L.) L. (black
mangrove), Laguncularia raccmosa Gaertn. f.
(white mangrove), and Conocarpus erecta L.
(buttonwood). The tree species are generally
-------
distributed along a gradient in the intertidal zone
with the red mangrove at the lowest elevations and
the buttonwood at the highest. Forest structure in
Florida is, however, not uniform and many
variations on the classic zonation pattern first
described by Davis (1940) occur (Snedaker 1982,
Lewis et al. 1985). In addition, due to factors such
as local topography, time since the last freeze event,
changes in freshwater discharge, and other periodic
disturbances, a given intertidal plant community
can include marsh species at elevations lower or
higher than the forest itself, and within windfalls or
lightning strike areas of the forest. As noted, man-
groves are cold sensitive tropical plants, and for this
reason exhibit latitudinal zonation dependent on
their cold tolerance (Lot-Hergueras et al. 1975,
McMillan 1975, Lugo and Patterson-Zucca 1977,
McMillan and Sherrod 1986). The black mangrove
is the most cold tolerant species and extends
northward along the Gulf coast to Louisiana as
scattered shrubs within the predominant tidal
marsh vegetation. There are approximately 273,000
ha of mangrove forest remaining in Florida, a
reduction of 23% since World War II (Lewis et al.
1985).
An important characteristic of all mangroves is
that their reproduction includes seedling dispersal
by water and by vivipary. Vivipary means that
there is no true or independent "seed", but
continuous development from embryo to seedling
while attached to the parent tree (Gill and
Tomlinson 1969). For this reason the final
reproductive unit released from the parent tree is
often referred to as a "propagule" (Rabinowitz
1978).
Ecologically, mangroves are considered
important as fisheries habitat (Lewis et al. 1985),
as sources of detritus to support estuarine food
chains (Odum et al. 1982), and as shoreline
stabilizers (under limited conditions; Carlton 1974).
Tidal
Atlantic coastal marshes in Florida are
dominated by Spartina alterniflora Loisel. (smooth
cordgrass), while Gulf coast marshes are dominated
by Juncus roemerianus Scheele (black needlerush).
Several other plant species are common minor
components of the marshes including Spartina
patens (Ait.) Muhl. (saltmeadow cordgrass),
Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene (saltgrass), and Batis
maritima L. (saltwort). Tidal marshes are widely
distributed around the coast of Florida and often
intermingle with mangrove communities (Durako et
al. 1985). There are approximately 155,000 ha of
tidal marsh in Florida (Lewis et al. 1985).
Reproduction takes place by waterborne seeds
and asexually produced rhizomes. Due to their
rhizomatous method of asexual propagation and
ability to rapidly expand and anchor, some tidal
marsh species such as smooth cordgrass are often
pioneer colonizers of disturbed habitats and are
replaced as other species such as mangroves
naturally invade such habitats (Davis 1940, Lewis
and Dunstan 1976, Lewis 1982a, 1982b).
Oligohaline Marshes
Though often not recognized as a distinct plant
community (Durako et al. 1985), these marshes are
unique in both their floral composition and their
ecological role, and thus are treated here as a
distinct plant community. Oligohaline is defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979) as referring to "water with a
salinity of 0.5 to 5.0 ppt due to ocean-derived salts"
(p. 43). In Florida, oligohaline marshes are
herbaceous wetlands located in tidally influenced
rivers or streams where the plant community
exhibits a mixture of true marine plants and typical
freshwater taxa (Typha, Cladium) that tolerate low
salinities. The predominant plant species of
oligohaline marshes include black needlerush,
Acrostichum aureum L. (leather fern), Typha
dominqrensis (brackish water cattails), Cladium
jamaicense Crantz (sawgrass), Scirpus robustus
Pursh. (bulrush), and Hymenocallis palmeri S.
Wats, (spider lily).
Ecologically, oligohaline marshes (Rozas and
Hackney 1983) and low salinity mangrove forests
are becoming recognized as critical nursery habitat
for such species as the Callinectes sapidus (blue
crab), Centropomus undecimalis (snook), Megalops
atlanticus (tarpon), and Elops saurus (ladyfish)
(Odum et al. 1982, Gilmore et al. 1983, Lewis et al.
1985 [Figure 2]). Because recognition of this key
role in estuarine life cycles has come only recently,
much of this habitat has been lost or highly
modified. The reduced amount of this habitat type
may represent a limiting factor in total population
sizes of some estuarine-dependent species.
Salt Barrens
The salt barren represents the upper intertidal
flat which is inundated typically only by spring
tides once or twice a month. This results in
hypersaline conditions with seasonal expansion of
typically low-growing succulent salt tolerant
vegetation with lower interstitial salinities during
the rainy season, and retreat with less frequent
inundation and rainfall. This produces the
characteristic open unvegetated patches of the salt
barren substrate. These areas are also referred to
as salt flats or salinas. The salt barren is typically
located behind a mangrove forest or tidal marsh at
a somewhat higher elevation and often occurs on
exposed rock outcrops with shallow sand sediments.
Although technically oligohaline marshes, salt
barrens are treated here as a distinct plant
community due to their unique flora and ecological
value. Common plant species consist of saltwort,
saltgrass, Salicornia bigelovii Torr. (annual
glasswort), Salicornia virginica L. (perennial
glasswort), M°noanthochloe littoralis Engelm. (key
75
-------
SNOOK LIFE CYCLE
TIDAL
FRESHWATER
STREAM
RECREATIONAL
FISHERMEN
LIFE CYCLE OF THE TARPON
DCS OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
LC LEPTOCEPHALU3
Figure 2. Life cycle of snook (top) and tarpon (bottom) in Florida, illustrating the role of oligohaline
wetlands (from Lewis et al. 1985).
76
-------
grass), Limonium carolinianum (Walt.) (sea
lavender), Blutaparon vermiculare (L.) Mears
(samphire), and Sesuvium portulacastrum L. (sea
purslane).
These areas have unique ecological values as
seasonal feeding areas for wading birds when the
lower elevation mudflats are more routinely
inundated (Powell 1987), and as night feeding
habitat on spring tides for snook, tarpon, and
ladyfish (G. Gilmore pers. comm.). However, due to
their low structural complexity and apparent lack of
numerous fauna, these areas are often assumed to
have low ecological value. Data now being
generated strongly contradicts this assumption.
EXTENT TO WHICH CREATION/RESTORATION HAS OCCURRED
INTRODUCTION
Of the four types of wetlands discussed above,
the historical emphasis of creation and restoration
has been first on mangrove forests and on tidal
marshes second. There are no published reports of
attempts to create or restore oligohaline marshes or
salt barrens, although several projects have been
undertaken. In 1982, Lewis (1982b) listed 14
mangrove planting projects in Florida and
Kruczynski (1982) listed two tidal marsh plantings
on the Gulf coast of Florida. Since these early
publications, hundreds of projects have been
undertaken. Most of them have been regulatory
agency or court ordered restoration projects due to
illegal filling of wetlands, or mitigation projects for
wetland fill or excavation allowed by permits.
Lewis and Crewz (in prep.) have undertaken an
analysis of the data available about these numerous
projects as part of a Florida Sea Grant sponsored
project (No. R/C-E-24) entitled "An analysis of the
reasons for success and failure of attempts to create
or restore tidal marshes and mangrove forests in
Florida". A major conclusion of their two year effort
has been that the database from which to draw any
quantitative conclusions as to actual number of
projects completed, types of plants used, and the
general success of these projects is too widely
scattered and unorganized to allow proper analysis.
No agency contacted during the study keeps an
organized file of wetland restoration and creation
projects undertaken under their jurisdiction. The
principal investigators were required to interview
individual knowledgeable persons even to partially
identify the many projects.
Following preliminary identification of projects,
the available data were reviewed and 35 specific
project sites were chosen for site visits and detailed
analyses (Figure 3). These interviews, site analyses
and the experience of the author form the bulk of
the information upon which the following
discussions are based. Frequent reference will be
made to the available literature but it is important
to understand that hundreds of "experiments" in
the form of restoration and creation projects in the
ground have not been subject to even routine
"success" analyses (i.e., did the plants live?). This
situation must be corrected and a central database
created if we are to learn from our mistakes and be
able to prepare adequate guidelines to assure
success, and to define situations in which success is
not possible.
TYPICAL GOALS OF PROJECTS
Offset Adverse Environmental Impacts
Through Mitigation
Since 1969, Florida statutes have required a
permit from the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation [FDER] in order to
excavate or fill certain wetlands (Chap. 403 F.S.).
The original statute did not require mitigation.
Mitigation has been required on an informal basis
in permit negotiations since the mid-1970s without
any guidelines or performance criteria.
In 1984 the Florida Legislature passed a new
wetlands protection act (Chap. 403.91)
consolidating some previously scattered provisions
and with new language stating that the
Department of Environmental Regulation shall
"consider measures ... to mitigate adverse effects".
No further statutory guidance was provided.
Following extensive hearings, on June 11,1987, the
FDER adopted detailed criteria outlining
circumstances and conditions for mitigation. The
rules have been subject to several legal challenges,
which have delayed their implementation, now
anticipated for September 1988. Because of this
law, mitigation to offset adverse impacts of wetland
loss has become the prime goal of wetland
restoration and creation efforts, but the state still
lacks detailed criteria as to when such effort does in
fact accomplish that goal.
Create Additional Habitat or Enhance
Existing Habitat
Aside from the permit system which has been
the driving force behind the wetland restoration
team and creation in Florida, some efforts have
been made to reverse trends of habitat loss through
restoration and creation only for the sake of
creating additional fishery and wildlife habitat.
These efforts have been limited by lack of funds.
When a permit to fill a wetland is involved, there is
often significant financial reward due to the
improved development potential; the cost of
mitigation is just part of the cost of doing business.
77
-------
HARBOUR ISLAND (3)
BAYPORT (5)
FM 92 RADIO TOWER
LAS FONTANAS
FEATHER SOUND (2) FEATHER COVE
GANDY BRIDGE BOAT RAMP
SUNKEN ISLAND
GARDINIER, INC. (2)
CONNIE MACK ISLAND
FLORIDA KEYS LAND TRUST, INC.
CORAL SHORES ESTATES
LOGGERHEAD LANE-
CROSS STREET
COSTA DEL SOL
FOUNTAIN COVE
MELBOURNE HARBOR. LTD.
SEAGROVE
CAMPEAU CORP.
BELLA VISTA, INC.
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT
AUTHORITY
SEXTON COVE
ROCK HARBOR
HAMMER POINT
Figure 3. Field inspection sites of tidal creation/restoration locations in Florida (from Lewis and Crewz, in
prep.).
In Florida, examples of marine or estuarine habitat
restoration or creation not related to a permit
decision are rare. Lewis et al. (1979) reported on
several mitigation projects, but also included a
description of the use of dredged material from a
harbor deepening project in Tampa Bay to create an
emergent island with an intertidal lagoon as
habitat enhancement. Hoffman and Rodgers
(1981 a, 1981b) described in detail, the successful
volunteer efforts to plant a smooth cordgrass marsh
in the created lagoon of this island. Hoffman et al.
(1985) listed seventeen restoration or creation
projects in Tampa Bay between 1971-1981, and
noted that only the one described above was for
habitat restoration. Banner (1983) and Anonymous
(1984) described the development of a $550,000
restoration trust fund for the Florida Keys as part
of a legal settlement which, to date, has restored 4
ha of tidal wetlands at 12 sites.
More recently, the State Legislature passed a
law requiring a special $300/yr license to use a
gillnet for commercial fishing in certain coastal
counties in Florida (Pasco, Pinellas, Manatee,
Hillsborough). The money is specifically earmarked
for "marine habitat restoration and research". The
Florida Department of Natural Resources is
managing the funds and over $200,000 is presently
being spent on experimental habitat restoration of
tidal marshes, mangrove forests, and seagrass
meadows in Tampa Bay.
Some habitat restoration work has been
attempted in Biscayne Bay, but, due to the lack of
success in most attempts (Alleman 1982), current
work is largely directed toward preserving existing
wetlands and creating artificial reefs (Department
of Environmental Resources Management 1985).
Stabilize Eroding Shorelines
Most of the shoreline erosion problems in
Florida occur along the Atlantic and Gulf beaches in
areas where wave energy is too high to allow for the
use of intertidal vegetation for stabilization.
Knutson et al. (1981) report on a national survey to
identify tidal marsh planting sites for erosion
control and list a total of 84 sites in 12 states. Only
two of these (unspecified locations) were in Florida.
Courser and Lewis (1981) report the successful
stabilization of 60 m of eroding shoreline in Tampa
Bay using smooth cordgrass. Teas (1977) reports
that mangroves planted on an eroding shoreline in
Biscayne Bay were unable to survive due to
78
-------
erosional forces. Smith (1982) describes attempts to
control erosion at two sites in the Indian River.
Some survival of herbaceous plantings of smooth
cordgrass, salt hay, and seaside paspalum occurred
but essentially all attempts to establish mangroves
failed.
Achieve A Preset Percentage Survival
FftF Installed Plant Materials
The goal most commonly listed as a condition
for defining success of a restoration or creation
project is survival of the installed plant materials at
the end of a specified period. The percent survival
specified is usually between 70% and 85%, although
on occasion 100% survival is required. However,
the method of determining such a percentage is
usually not specified. Preestablished plots of
varying sizes are used and are typically established
in a haphazard rather than a truly random manner.
An important requirement to the validity of such an
approach is the preparation of an accurate
description of the immediate pre- and post-planting
("time zero") conditions. It is often assumed that
these conditions are identical to those outlined in a
proposal or required in permit conditions. It has
been the author's experience that this is rarely the
case. Changes in the site due to construction
problems or delays, and problems in plant material
availability and timing of planting, are the norm.
Because of these problems, it is impossible to say
with any accuracy whether 10% or 90% of the
projects achieve their preset survival goals. It is
also questionable if percent survival alone is the
best single criterion to measure.
Imrove Wat
Improvement in water quality is often a verbal
or written general goal of such projects, but to this
author's knowledge, it has never been quantified
prior to construction (e.g., increase dissolved oxygen
by 10%) and then measured after construction
and/or planting to determine if the goal was
achieved.
Establish Similar "Habitat Values" in
Wetlands Created or Restored
For Mitigation
Establishment of "equivalent habitat values"
are the most recent "buzz words" in goals for
wetlands restoration and creation. They are meant
to signify the integration of successful plant
material establishment with fishery and wildlife
habitat establishment and water quality
improvements. In the literature, equivalency has
most often been measured by qualitative measures
such as species presence in conjunction with plant
cover (Reimold and Cobler 1986, Dial and Deis
1986). More quantitative measures of fauna have
been made by Cammen (1976) and Cammen et al.
(1976) in created tidal marshes in North Carolina,
and by Minello et al. (1987) in Texas. Based on the
interest placed in "functional equivalency" of
wetlands created or restored for mitigation and
their natural counterparts (see National Wetlands
Newsletter Vol. 8, No. 5,1986), it is likely that this
goal will be more frequently specified and included
in permit conditions. However, problems will
probably arise from the lack of uniform sampling
techniques and data analysis. This will hamper
comparisons between studies and determination of
the "best" sampling strategy. It is hoped that the
ongoing work of the National Marine Fisheries
Service's Habitat Restoration Program will reduce
some of these problems.
REASONS FOR SUCCESS/FAILURE
Excessive Wave Energy
Savage (1972,1979) was one of the first to note
the problems created by wave energy in preventing
either volunteer or planted mangroves to survive on
exposed shorelines. He felt that of all the mangrove
species, the black mangrove was perhaps the best
candidate for attempted shoreline stabilization
projects because of its greater cold tolerance and its
cable root and pneumatophore network. Carlton
(1974), in summarizing the work to date, noted the
repeated failures of mangrove plantings on exposed
shores as reported earlier by Autry et al. (1973) and
others; he questioned the value of mangroves as
land builders, but left the door open for some use of
mangroves as "accumulators of sediment" and
possible land stabilizers. Teas (1977), following on
the work of Kinch (1976) and Hannan (1976), also
attempted transplanting of red, black and white
mangroves to an exposed causeway site in Biscayne
Bay but none survived after 24 months. He also
revisited the site of a 32-year old planting of 4,100
red mangrove propagules that had initially
achieved 80% survival after one year. The planter
had stated that "...it seems probable that many will
survive to maturity" (Davis 1940, p. 382). The
inspection revealed none had survived. It is thus
well documented that mangroves are not generally
suitable plant materials for exposed or eroding
shorelines unless some offshore protection is
provided. Reark (1983) describes the planting of
mangroves in constructed planters (Figure 4) where
wave protection is provided. Rivers (pers. comm.)
Crewz, in prep.), reports that approximately 3,000 m
of exposed shoreline in the Florida Keys have been
planted with mangroves behind a low riprap wall to
provide protection. Both techniques appear to be
effective.
A similar approach was followed by Lewis and
Dunstan (1976) in studying secondary succession in
disturbed mangrove areas and the natural ability of
smooth cordgrass to colonize dredged material
deposits and act as nurse plants (sensu MacNae
1968) to assist in the colonization of unstable or
shifting sand areas. Because of the previous work
of Woodhouse et al. (1974,1976) and Garbisch et al.
(1975), smooth cordgrass appeared to be better
79
-------
Figure 4. Mangrove planter constructed and
planted in front of existing seawalled fill,
north Biscayne Bay, Dade County,
Florida.
plant material than mangroves for installation on
unstable shorelines in Florida (Lewis 1982a).
Consequently, smooth cordgrass has since been
more broadly used while mangrove plantings are
limited to warmer parts of the state in more
protected waters (Lewis and Crewz, unpublished
data). Guidelines for evaluating potential sites for
their suitability for smooth cordgrass plantings,
given existing wave energy and exposure, are
described by Knutson et al. (1982).
Improper Planting Elevation
Savage (1972,1979) does not mention elevation
as a critical element in the establishment of
mangroves. Teas et al. (1976) state that "elevation
with respect to tidal levels was a significant factor
in mangrove establishment" and indicate that the
red mangrove seedlings would successfully
establish in low energy areas "... at elevations
ranging from mean high water to mean low water",
while black and white mangrove volunteers did not
establish below +0.3 m mean sea level (MSL). The
suggested range of red mangrove establishment is
in disagreement with later work. Teas (1977)
emphasizes the importance of "tidal depth of
planting" as an important factor in the successful
establishment of planted mangroves but offers no
specifics, only repeating the advice of Pulver (1976)
to plant in the usual tidal range occurrence of the
species. Woodhouse (1979) incorrectly states that
all three mangrove species "are found growing at
elevations from slightly below mean tide level
(MTL) to well above MHW [mean high water].
Where both mangroves and salt marsh occur
together, the mangroves extend seaward of the salt
marsh" (p. 42). Teas (1981) recommends
appropriate tidal levels of "generally between mean
sea level and mean high water" (p. 98), or 0.0 m to
+0.4 m National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
Lewis (1982b) again notes the importance of
elevation but offers no specific guidelines beyond
those of Pulver (1976) and the data of Goforth and
Thomas (1980) indicating higher survival of planted
red mangroves above mean sea level.
This lack of specificity and errors in
interpreting data has led to the incorrect conclusion
by many that mangroves could be successfully
planted anywhere within the intertidal zone. Good
experimental evidence which establishes the best
zone of planting is rare. Stephen (1984) (Figure 5)
published the first data clearly showing that at the
specific site location examined (Naples, Florida), the
optimum tidal elevation of planted red mangroves
was +0.4 m NGVD, and that volunteer black
mangroves were abundant only above an elevation
of +0.4 m NGVD. These data are further supported
by the previously published elevation range
information of Detweiler et al. (1976) from Tampa
Bay, where the mean elevation of red mangroves
naturally colonizing a disturbed area was +0.3 m
NGVD. For white mangroves it was also +0.3 m
NGVD and for black mangroves it was +0.4 m
NGVD. Elevations of mangroves in an undisturbed
area were very similar. Provost (1973, 1976) also
emphasized the normal occurrence of tidal plants in
the upper tidal range. Beever's (1986) recommended
tidal ranges for planted mangroves correctly start
at mean high water (about +0.3 m NGVD) but
extend too high (up to +0.9 m NGVD).
Similar work is currently underway for an
80-hectare mangrove mitigation project in Broward
County on Florida's east coast (Mangrove Systems,
Inc. 1987). The agreed target elevation for
excavation areas, in order to encourage red
mangrove establishment, was +0.2 m NGVD.
Ongoing experimental work indicates that a range
of elevations between +0.3 and +0.5 m NGVD is
more appropriate (Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1987).
The inappropriate +0.2 m NGVD tidal elevation
had been written into permits issued by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (FDER #060942909,
COE #84J-2528) in spite of evidence provided by the
author during permit drafting indicating that such
an elevation was too low for optimum mangrove
growth. Based on the experimental work cited
above, the regulatory agencies agreed (in 1987) to
allow modification of the permit to provide for
excavation of uplands to a range of elevations
between +0.3 m and +0.4 m NGVD for natural
mangrove seedling recruitment. If such natural
recruitment does not result in the presence of one
mangrove seedling for each 4 square meters (2 m
centers) over at least 50% of the area within a year,
then actual planting of mangroves must take place
in the bare areas. Based on the natural
colonization rates observed in the test plot area
(Figure 6), this density should be achieved within
the allowed one year from excavation.
Salt marsh vegetation occurs throughout a tidal
range similar to that of mangroves. Planted smooth
cordgrass will survive and expand at a slightly
-------
FEET C.M.
1.9 •
1.8 -
(0
O
tC 1.5 -I
O
* 13 4
u.
O I.2H
40
I- I.I
X
2 i.o-I
UJ
I 0.9
0.8
0-7
0.6
LIMIT OF
OYSTERS
50
-30
PREDOMINATE HEALTHY
RED MANGROVES
BLACK MANGROVE X
• N
. 20
FEET 0.8 0.9 1.0
1.2 1.3 1.4 I .5 1.6 1-7 1.8 1.9
CENTIMETERS
30
40
50
2.0
1
60
OYSTER GROWTH RANGE
BASED ON 16 SURVEY
DATA POINTS
ELEVATION
Figure 5. Mangrove occurrence and height related to tidal elevations (datum NGVD). From Stephen (1984).
•••PK. . :-"«•• -i i\
Figure 6. Volunteer mangrove colonization 8 months after site excavation in West Lake, Broward County, Florida.
81
-------
lower elevation than mangroves (+0.2 m NGVD)
and is commonly found growing in deeper water in
front of a mangrove fringe (Lewis 1982a). It will
not survive planting at 0.0 NGVD as stated by
Beever(1986),
No Provision for Slope and Drainage
It has been common practice in the past to
design sites to be graded to specified elevations as
flat, uniform areas. The normal vagaries of
excavation often leave pockets at lower elevations
within which tidal waters stand after the tide
recedes. These undrained areas are typically
difficult to plant, and volunteer seedlings do not
survive, probably because of hypersalinity due to
evaporation and high water temperatures.
For these reasons, all sites should be designed
with a positive slope towards open tidal waters, and
drainage ditches or swales should be placed at
regular intervals to eliminate stagnant pockets. An
added benefit of ditches or swales is that they
provide access routes for forage fish species such as
Cyprinodon and Fundulus. These are important as
wading bird food supplies and serve as links in the
mangrove food chain as prey species for larger
commercially and recreationally important fishery
species such as snook, tarpon, redfish, and spotted
seatrout.
The value of these tidal streams is being tested
by the National Marine Fisheries Service with
paired plots of smooth cordgrass, half with and half
without tidal streams. The utilization of these areas
by fish will be compared, Minello et al. (1987) have
recommended the addition of such access channels
to restoration/creation projects based on their
work in Texas. Unfortunately, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation's draft
mitigation technical manual (Beever 1986) does not
recognize slope and drainage as significant factors
in wetlands creation and restoration.
Nursery-Grown Plant Materials Not
Properly Acclimated to Site Conditions
Although both mangroves (Teas 1977) and
smooth cordgrass (Garbisch et al. 1975) can be
grown in freshwater, the direct planting of
freshwater nursery material in areas where the
salinity exceeds 15 ppt is not recommended. Prior
acclimation of the nursery stock to water with
gradually increasing salinities should occur over a
period of several weeks.
Another problem is the use of plant materials
from a different ecological zone. McMillan (1975)
has reported on the different tolerances to cold of
black mangroves from different latitudes. The
differences are such that some strains survive a
given low temperature, while others do not.
Clearly, plant materials should come from stock
native to the region.
Human Impacts
Humans can cause intentional and
unintentional direct damage to installed plant
materials or indirect damage due to the creation of
footpaths or off road use by 4-wheel drive vehicles.
Teas (1977) and Alleman (1982) report problems
with vandalism, and the author has observed
similar problems at restoration sites in urbanized
areas. Provision for fences, locked gates, or natural
water barriers should be made in such areas.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
PRECONSTRUCTION
CONSIDERATIONS
Location
The location of a potential site is important
because of three considerations: logistics, cost, and
habitat value.
Logistically, sites accessible by land are easier
(and cheaper) to build and monitor than those only
accessible by water. They are accessible
year-round, while bad weather may increase costs
associated with sites accessible only by water. The
cost of a project is directly related to accessibility by
the necessary heavy equipment and personnel.
Land-accessible sites where excavation is necessary
can cost as much as $62,000/ha to construct and
plant. Costs can double or triple where only water
access is available.
Sites where freshwater drainage is sufficient to
produce reduced salinities in the created/restored
wetland may be preferable, if the goal is to produce
oligohaline estuarine nursery habitat.
Site Characteristics
Exposure to Waves-
As discussed in the section on reasons for
success/failure, excessive wave energy is a common
problem with survival of planted mangroves.
Savage (1972) suggested that black mangroves may
be more suitable than other species for controlling
erosion, but no experimental evidence exists to
82
-------
support this hypothesis. If mangroves are the
desired species, the construction of linear
breakwaters or planters (Figure 4) can reduce the
wave energy enough to allow plant survival. There
are no published maximum fetch values for
successful unprotected mangrove plantings,
although Goforth and Williams (1984) describe
three sites with varying degrees of exposure, and
note greater success at a protected site than at an
exposed one.
For tidal marsh plantings, the general
guidelines of Knutson et al. (1981) and Broome (this
volume) as to site selection for plantings of smooth
cordgrass can be used in Florida until more specific
information is available.
Tidal Range and Planned Elevation of
Planting-
As described, studies have shown that the
optimum planting range for both mangroves and
tidal marsh plants is 1) similar to their natural
range of elevations, and 2) generally falls between
+0.3 m and +0.6 m NGVD in most of Florida. Local
variations of tidal amplitude and type (Figure 7) are
sufficiently significant to require confirmation of
the range of elevation occupied by fully grown
representatives of the plant species in question as
close to the proposed creation/ restoration site as
possible. Even then, it is best to be conservative in
designing planting elevations. The lowest and
highest points should be disregarded and only the
middle range used. When any doubt exists, a test
program similar to that of Mangrove Systems, Inc.
(1987) should be instituted prior to specifying the
target elevations.
Also as noted, the site should not be of uniform
elevation. A design slope with drainage features
(access channels) is a key to an ecologically
functional project.
Salinity-
Interstitial salinities above 90 ppt are lethal to
mangroves (Cintron et al. 1978). These conditions
are likely to arise if proper drainage is not provided
and standing pools of shallow tidal waters occur on
site. Also, if the elevation of the site is such that
only spring tides flood it once or twice a month, a
salt barren may result due to high interstitial
salinities. Based on the data of Detweiler et al.
(1976), an elevation of +0.8-1.0 m NGVD would
probably result in such conditions. Beever's (1986)
recommendations for black mangrove plantings at
MHW +0.3 m and white mangroves at MHW +0.6 m
(assuming MHW at +0.5 m NGVD) are thus too
high.
Another important aspect of salinity is the
ecological importance of lower salinity (oligohaline)
wetlands, as previously discussed. If such a habitat
is planned, careful review of salinity data is
essential to ensure that target salinities result in
the oligohaline wetland.
Shading-
Existing terrestrial vegetation that causes
shading can create problems when attempting to
stabilize shorelines by planting native vegetation.
In much of Florida, the introduced exotics Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi) and
Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia Forst)
occupy disturbed shorelines. These exotics can cut
off the light needed by volunteer propagules,
preventing their colonization of shoreline areas.
Courser and Lewis (1981) describe a successful
shoreline stabilization program involving removal
of Brazilian pepper.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
PLAN
Timing of Construction
For all plant materials except mangrove
propagules, the optimum installation period is April
through mid-June. The availability of red mangrove
propagules in the numbers needed typically limits
the window of planting from mid-August to
mid-October. Sites being prepared to accept
volunteer mangrove propagules also need to be
planned for completion around this time period.
Red mangrove propagules cannot be successfully
stored in a dormant condition and therefore must
be planted immediately after collection.
These requirements dictate that creation/
restoration sites requiring construction need to be
planned for completion prior to the planting
window. In addition, orders for nursery-grown
plants need to be placed far enough in advance to
allow for proper growth (120 days in the winter, 60
days in the summer). A "glitch factor" of at least 30
days should be factored into any construction and
planting plan. A routine problem with success in
creation/restoration plans is the completion of site
preparation outside the optimum planting window.
Pre-Constniction Quality Control
Even when accurate plans are prepared, actual
site construction may not achieve the required
tolerances. It is important that an as-built survey
be completed before construction equipment is
moved off site, so that corrections can be made
quickly and inexpensively. Returning equipment to
the site often produces delays, if the equipment can
be brought back at all. A quick inspection of the
site to check for proper drainage can be
accomplished by simply watching the tide rise and
fall across the site.
83
-------
8
TIDAL TYPES
DIURNAL - One high and
one low water
each tidal day
SEMIDIURNAL - Two nearly
equal high waters
and two nearly equal low waters
each tidal day
MIXED - Two unequal high
waters and/or two
unequal low waters each
tidal day
TIDAL RANGES
—*| — Corange lines of equal spring tide range (in feet)
Figure 7. Tidal ranges and types in Florida. Modified from Fernald (1981).
-------
Substrate
At a minimum, the substrate composition
should be verified by simple soil auger checks. If
rock or clay layers are encountered at the proposed
excavation depth, the site may be unacceptable.
The need to add fertilizer to improve plant
survival and growth has not been adequately tested
in Florida. The general guidelines of Woodhouse
and Knutson (1982) and Broome (this volume)
should be used when deciding whether to use
fertilizers in tidal marsh plantings. Fertilizers
appear to be particularly useful in plantings on
exposed shorelines where rapid growth is desirable
to minimize vulnerability of new plants to wave
action.
The value of adding fertilizer to mangrove
plantings is not well documented. Zuberer (1977)
documents the presence of nitrogen fixation activity
in the roots of mangroves, while Reark (1983)
argues that fertilizers were essential to the
successful outcome of his project. Teas (1977) states
that "Nursery mangroves of all three species were
found to respond to fertilizer. Because open-water
fertilization is ordinarily not practical,
pre-transplanting fertilization may prove useful."
(p. 56). Reark (1984) describes the addition of a
soluble fertilizer to nursery-grown mangroves, but
there were no controls. In fact, no controlled
experimentation has been reported to demonstrate
any value of added fertilizer, although Snedaker
(University of Miami pers. comm.) describes
experimental use of fertilizer (Agriform) on
marginal sites with better survival rates.
Plant Material
Four types of mangrove plantings are
available: propagules, 1-2 year old seedlings, 3-5
year old nursery-grown trees, and field-collected
transplants. The 1-2 year old seedlings are most
often recommended or required as plant material.
They are grown from propagules harvested in the
wild. In fact, Beever (1986) recommends using only
one year old (one foot minimum height) nursery
grown seedlings, with no reference to other plant
materials.
The direct installation of red mangrove
propagules (Figure 8) has been popular due to low
cost and general success in protected sites. Goforth
and Thomas (1980) compared red mangrove
propagules and field-dug seedlings 12 to 18 months
old. At the end of five years, "survival of
transplanted seedlings was no more successful than
that of propagules" while "the average vertical
growth of seedlings ... was significantly (p<0.001)
less than propagules" (p. 221). Stephen (1984)
reports 97% survival of planted red mangrove
propagules after 8 months at a large project in
Naples, Florida.
Direct installation of propagules of the other
three species is not practical due to their need to
shed a pericarp and rest on the surface of a damp
substrate for several days prior to anchoring.
Broadcasting of these propagules might be
successful in some projects, but Lewis and Haines
(1981) report low overall successful anchoring of
broadcast propagules.
The use of larger plant materials greatly
increases the cost of a project (Teas 1977, Lewis
1981) and should be used only where absolutely
necessary. Goforth and Thomas (1980) note that in
exposed sites, transplanted 2-3 year old trees are
the only successful plant material. Teas (1977)
reports that all attempts to transplant large (6 m
tall) mangroves failed. However, Gill (1971)
reported transplanting red mangroves up to 6.5 m
in height that Carlton (1974) indicates had high
survival. Pulver (1976) provides guidelines for the
transplanting of mangroves up to 2 m tall and
reports good success.
Finally, there may be instances in which no
installation of mangrove plant materials is
necessary if volunteer floating propagules are
numerous. The largest (80 ha) mangrove
restoration project in Florida was designed to
require no installed mangroves at all, and
preliminary testing appears to confirm the success
of this technique where the natural floating
propagules are sufficiently available (Figure 6;
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1987). Given the limited
availability of funds for restoration, the elimination
of planting could provide extra money for more
excavation and restoration of larger areas.
However, each site has unique characteristics that
require pilot projects to confirm the utility of this
alternative.
Tidal marsh plant materials available in Florida
include field-dug bare root units and plugs, and culti-
vated 2" pots. Unlike the situation farther north,
seeds of the most frequently used species, smooth
cordgrass, have not been available in large numbers
in Florida due to insect and fungal damage to seed
heads (Lewis, pers. obs.). Future work may reveal a
viable source but one does not now exist.
Woodhouse and Knutson (1982) and Broome (this
volume) provide details of cultivation of nursery units
and use ofbare root and plug units of smooth cordgrass
that are generally applicable in Florida. Hoffman et
al. (1985) describe specific projects in the Tampa Bay
area in more detail.
Lewis (1983) describes one of the few projects
attempting to restore a black needlerush marsh. In
areas where the elevations were correct,
transplanted 15 cm plugs of needlerush were
generally successful. Where elevations were too low,
competition from white mangrove volunteers
resulted. Where elevations were too high,
transplants died and more salt-tolerant (salt
85
-------
Figure 8. Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle)
propagule.
barren) types of vegetation appeared. Needlerush
is slower to expand than smooth cordgrass and
when installed on one meter centers, appears to
require 3-5 years to produce a closed stand.
Other species often transplanted in specific
projects include leather fern and sawgrass. These
are used in oligohaline situations. Leather fern can
be transplanted well as plugs, but not as cut stems,
as described by Beever (1986, p. 7). Sawgrass is
available from some nurseries as cultivated units
but is most often dug from the wild. Bare root units
have exhibited poor survival in oligohaline
environments, and plugs of 3-5 intact shoots with
soil cores are recommended.
Introduction of Fauna
The establishment of a new faunal community
in a created/restored system connected to tidal
waters has historically been left to incidental
movement of individual organisms with plant
material, the natural settlement of planktonic life
forms that become sessile, epibenthic or infaunal
after metamorphosis (meroplankton), and the
immigration of fauna, particularly fish, from
adjacent wetlands. There is no evidence that active
introduction of fauna would accelerate the
colonization process, but controlled experimentation
to answer this question has not been carried out.
Based only on personal observations, the author
sees no obvious need to introduce fauna because
natural colonization of created/restored systems
appears to be quite rapid. Nonetheless, good
experimental evidence should be generated to
confirm this conclusion.
Buffers. Protective StrnrtuT*ps
Beever (1986) recommends that a buffer zone
equivalent to the width of the planted area be
cleared of exotic species. The author's experience
has been that rapid invasion by these species will
occur and that such a buffer zone, if not maintained
free of exotics, will cease to be a buffer within five to
ten years. In addition to clearing the leaves and
stems of exotic plants, creation of a buffer zone
should include destruction of the root systems with
a systemic herbicide (e.g., Garlon IV) and the
planting of native vegetation such as wax myrtle
(Mvrica cerifera L.) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens
L. and Iva imbricata Walt.) to outcompete invading
exotics. It is not the width of the buffer zone but
the intensity of maintenance that will prevent
invasion of exotics.
Foot traffic and vehicle access problems have
been previously noted as problems. If a site is in an
urban area where public access can be expected, the
site should be fenced and legally posted.
Long Term Management
Control of exotics over the long term will
require implementation of a control program as
outlined above. Ownership changes are common
over the long term. Future threats to
restored/created sites from such changes are
addressed in Florida by the routine requirement of
conservation easements. The property owner
retains title to the land but restricts the future use
of the property by a county recorded easement. Fee
simple transfer of ownership to the state is also
possible for that portion of the property not needed
for development.
MONITORING
What to Monitor and How
Prior to implementing a monitoring program, it
is essential that measurable goals be defined. The
goals should be reasonable and based on published
literature values of parameters or on values
reported in monitoring reports readily available to
all parties. Because of the haphazard nature of the
86
-------
methods of obtaining and reporting data on
wetlands in Florida, it is virtually impossible to
utilize criteria for determining success much
beyond percent survival, growth measurements,
and areal cover measurements. This should
improve as more data are obtained and centralized
for review.
Problems with efforts to apply more specific
criteria are illustrated by a target goal of specific
numbers of invertebrate species and their density
in a created/restored wetland. Baseline data from
tidal wetlands in Florida is minimal and thus
denning a criterion such as 30,000 organisms/m2 as
"successful" is impossible. An alternative is the
comparison of a control wetland to the
created/restored one. However, due to natural
variations in wetlands that appear identical to an
observer, variances in faunal densities as great as
50% are not uncommon. The Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation's new mitigation rule
establishes the use of "reference" wetlands for
comparison with wetlands created/restored to meet
mitigation needs. Numerical criteria of similarity
have deliberately been omitted from the rule after
attempts to include them received strong criticism
in public hearings. Only by careful study of existing
created/restored wetlands in comparison with
adjacent control areas can any general criteria be
established. Because this has not been done in
Florida, we must work with what we have until
such data is available.
What do you monitor and how? First, it is
important to describe in detail, using maps and
photographs, what was done at the site. How big
was it? What were the slopes and elevations?
What tidal benchmark was used? What types and
numbers of plants were installed, and where and
when? As a result of normal construction problems,
the as built specifications are frequently not the
same as specified in the permit. Thus, a "time zero"
report detailing exactly what was done when and
where is essential.
Second, some sampling regime needs to be
established that will be repeated over a period of
time. The typical standard for tidal marsh systems
is quarterly sampling for two years. This results in
reports issued at time zero (completion of
construction and planting), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21
and 24 months for a total of nine reports. Longer
times may be required for monitoring forested
wetlands; a five-year minimum is recommended,
and sampling intervals may lengthen as the
monitoring period increases.
Third, a sampling program involving either
pre-established plots or random plots determined at
each monitoring inspection needs to be described
and justified. Broome (this volume) supports
stratified random sampling with sampling in each
elevation zone. The sampling program should begin
at the completion of construction and/or planting
(time zero).
Fourth, each sampling should include
photographs taken from the same position and
angle during each monitoring episode to illustrate
to the report reviewer what is happening at the site
(Figure 9).
Finally, the last report should summarize all
the results with appropriate graphs, and compare
the results with 1) the previously established goals,
and 2) literature values of parameters measured.
This monitoring program is most easily
accomplished by making it a condition of the permit
and requiring the permittee to pay for it. Few
regulatory agencies have the staff or funds to
conduct detailed compliance monitoring themselves.
Simply inspecting the site once or twice during the
life of the permit is an accomplishment for agency
personnel, and the reports with photographs are an
important compliance monitoring tool.
With regard to the parameters to be measured,
percent survival of installed plant materials and/or
volunteer recruitment within plots should be
measured and extrapolated to describe the
conditions across the surface of the created/restored
area. Sample plots are important because, except
in small planting areas, counting hundreds or
thousands of units individually can be tedious,
expensive, and error-prone. One meter square plots
are typically sufficient for tidal marsh plantings.
Four meter square (2 m x 2 m) plots may be better
for tree species. The absolute number of plots will
depend on site size; Broome (this volume) suggests
fifteen as a minimum.
Each planting unit or volunteer in the plot
should be measured for height and the percent
cover in the plot estimated. If random units are
chosen each time for measurement, a quadrat can
be centered over them for measurement. For
herbaceous species like smooth cordgrass, culm
(stem) density can be measured using 10 cm x 10
cm quadrats. For mangroves, plant height and prop
root or pneumatophore number can be noted.
Above-ground and below-ground biomass of
herbaceous species can be measured by clipping at
ground level, taking core samples, and separating
out plant material for drying and weighing (see
Broome, this volume). It is not practical to measure
biomass of mangroves because this involves
destructive sampling and loss of planting units.
Percent survival alone should not be the sole
criterion of success. Low percent survival of rapidly
expanding smooth cordgrass units may still provide
100% cover of the desired area. With mangroves,
mortality of young plants is normal with
competition. Pulver (1976) measured the density of
mangroves in natural forests and found that as the
stand height (and age) increased, the number of
87
-------
•
B
Figure 9. Time sequence photographs of a planted smooth cordgrass marsh on a dredged material island (Sunken
Island Extension) in Tampa Bay, Florida. A - time zero; B -12 months.
-------
Figure 9. C - 24 months; D - 84 months, showing mangrove invasion of marsh.
-------
trees decreased. For example, the mean density of
red mangroves decreased from 26.8 trees/in2 for 1.2
m tall trees to 8.3 trees/m2 for 1.9 m tall trees. This
represents a survival rate of only 31%. Would that
be called "successful" in a created/restored system?
Percent cover should supplement percent
survival as a measurement of expansion of leaf
area. Combined with growth and stem density
measurements, it provides a good indication of
whether a system is healthy and expanding in plant
height and cover. Data are generally absent on
good rates of growth and coverage, but Lewis and
Crewz (in prep.) will provide some typical target
values.
Fauna! sampling in created/restored systems is
more of an art than a science at present. A number
of studies are underway in created/restored tidal
wetland systems in Florida, under the auspices of
the National Marine Fisheries Service (Beaufort,
North Carolina), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station (Vicksbug,
Mississippi) and Florida Department of Natural
Resources (St. Petersburg). None of the results
have been published at this time. Readers are
encouraged to contact these agencies directly for
updated publications on the subject.
Mid-Course Corrections
If, during the course of monitoring, it becomes
obvious that project goals will not be met, there are
two choices. One is to determine the cause of the
problem and to correct it. It may be elevation,
drainage, source of plant materials, etc. The other
choice is to evaluate the habitat value of the system
as it exists, and determine if that is sufficient to
satisfy regulatory agencies. It is possible that the
wetland was a failure but the project was otherwise
successful. Dial and Deis (1986) describe a
mitigation site on Tampa Bay where plant survival
was less than 10%, yet the authors state that "the
combination of mangrove, S. alternifloraf shallow
subtidal and intertidal habitats ... supported the
most diverse assemblages of birds observed during
this study" (p. 34). In this case, the state regulatory
agency decided not to require any modification of
the site to improve plant survival. But when a
mitigation project fails to meet specified goals, an
agency may require additional creation/ restoration
at another site to compensate for the lost habitat
values.
If the first course of action is taken, the cost of
the modifications may cause the permittee to
challenge the regulatory agency's right to ask for
changes in a plan it originally approved. Such
questions have been raised in the case of
unsuccessful creation/restoration attempts in
Florida and usually, the agency has acquiesced.
Careful preparation of permit conditions to provide
for mid-course corrections is essential.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Centralized Data Bank
As has been stated, Lewis and Crewz (in prep.)
note that the lack of a centralized database
concerning historical as well as current
creation/restoration projects usually hamper data
analyses, and prevents comparisons of projects.
Although the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation has maintained a
computerized permit tracking system for a number
of years, the system has not historically recorded
data on creation/restoration projects. Changes in
the data entry format are now being implemented
that will include a description of pgrjnjJt
requirements. This will help provide a
creation/restoration database over time, but
compliance monitoring data and monitoring reports
by the permit applicant will still be filed as before,
at regional offices. Retrieval of this data may still
be a significant problem. Equally important is the
lack of data concerning previously permitted
creation/restoration projects. No plans are
underway to add this information to the new
system, thus limiting retrieval of information about
older projects, some now ten years old.
Natural Propagiile Recruitment versus
Planting or Transplanting'
The natural recruitment rates, survival and
growth of volunteer propagules needs to be tested
against various sizes and densities of installed
plant materials to determine the optimum densities
needed for certain target coverage rates and habitat
utilization. For example, it has been assumed that
volunteer mangrove propagule recruitment could
not match the growth or success rates of planted
nursery-grown mangroves. With costs of $1,000 to
$200,000 per hectare for planted mangroves (Teas
1977, Lewis 1981), significant savings could occur if
natural recruitment proved effective. With limited
public funds available for habitat restoration, the
cost-effectiveness of particular plant materials
needs to be documented.
Transplanting Larger Mangroves
As noted, the success of transplanting larger (>2
m tall) mangroves has generally not been good. The
90
-------
salvage of larger mangroves destined for
destruction might prove valuable if larger trees
could be moved successfully.
Comparable Growth Rates of Mangrove
Propagules and Seedlings
Is it necessary to plant 1-2 year old
nursery-grown seedlings in order to achieve more
rapid cover, or will natural propagule recruitment,
or planted or broadcast propagules, achieve
equivalent growth? The previously described data
of Goforth and Thomas (1980) needs amplification.
Rate qf Fflunal Recruitment
A comparison of sites of different ages in a
synoptic manner is needed to determine how
rapidly faunal recruitment takes place, and
whether supplementing the process is necessary.
J*yfictional Equivalency
A multi-parameter comparison of created/
restored systems with several natural areas is
needed to determine which functional values
(habitat, water quality, primary production, etc.)
can be re-established, and over what time frame.
Regional Creation/Restoration Plans
Wetland creation and/or restoration need to be
examined in the context of the regional ecosystem,
with the possible outcome that out-of-kind or
off-site creation/restoration may be deemed
acceptable due to the regional loss and scarcity of a
distinct habitat type such as oligohaline marshes.
A regional approach would also be useful in
designing mitigation banks.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of this chapter were developed under the
auspices of the Florida Sea Grant Program with
support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Grant No. R/C-E-24.
LITERATURE CITED
Alleman, R.W. 1982. Biscayne Bay: A Survey of Past
Mitigation/Restoration Efforts. Department of
Environmental Resources Management, Dade County,
Florida.
Anonymous. 1984. Now you see it... Fla. Naturalist. Fall
1984:16-17.
Autry, A.S., V. Stewart, M. Fox, and W. Hamilton. 1973.
Progress report: mangrove planting for stabilization of
developing shorelines. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 36 (Suppl.
toNo.l)a7(abst).
Bailey, R.G. 1978. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S.
Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
Banner, A 1983. Florida Keys environmental mitigation
trust fund, p. 155-165. In F.J. Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc.
9th Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Beever, J.W. 1986. Mitigative Creation and Restoration
of Wetland Systems-A Technical Manual for Florida.
Draft Report. Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Cammen, LJkt. 1976. Microinvertebrate colonization of
Snartina marsh artificially established on dredge spoil.
Est. Coast. Mar. Sci. 4(4):357.
Cammen, LJd., EJX Seneca, and BJ. Copeland. 1976.
Animal Colonization of Salt Marshes Artificially
Established on Dredge Spoil. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers TP 76-7. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Carlton, J. 1974. Land building and stabilization by
mangroves. Environ. Conserv. l(4):285-294.
Cintron, G., A.E. Lugo, D.J. Pool, and G. Morris. 1978.
Mangroves of arid environments in Puerto Rico and
adjacent islands. Biotropica 10:110-121.
Courser, W.K. and R.R. Lewis. 1981. The use of marine
revegetation for erosion control on the Palm River,
Tampa, Florida, p. 125-136. In DJ>. Cole (Ed.), Proc.
7th Ann. Conf. Restoration and Creation of Wetlands.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Cowardin, LAI., V. Carter, F.G. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Davis, J.H. 1940. The Ecology and Geologic Role of
Mangroves in Florida. Pps. from the Tortugas Lab.,
Vol.32. CarnegieInst.Wash.Pub.NN517.
Department of Environmental Resources Management.
1985. Biscayne Bay Today-A Summary of its Physical
and Biological Characteristics. Metro-Bade County,
Miami, Florida.
Detweiler, T.E., P.M. Dunstan, R.R. Lewis, and W.K.
Fehring. 1976. Patterns of secondary succession in a
mangrove community, Tampa Bay, Florida, p. 52-81.
In R.R. Lewis (Ed.), Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration
of Coastal Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
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. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol Rep. 86(6).
Drew, R.D. and N.S. Schomer. 1984. An Ecological
Characterization of the Caloosahatchee River/Big
91
-------
Cypress Watershed. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,
FWS/OBS-82/58.2.
Durako, MJ., JA. Browder, W. L. Kruczynski, C.B.
Subrahmanyam, and R J2. Turner. 1985. Salt marsh
habitat and fishery resources of Florida, p. 189-280.
In W. Seaman, Jr. (Ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and
Fishery Resources. Fla. Chapter, American Fisheries
Society, Kissimmee, Florida.
Fernald, E A. (Ed.). 1981. Atlas of Florida. Florida State
University Foundation, Inc. Tallahassee, Florida.
Fernald, E.A. and DJ. Patton (Eds.). 1984. Water
Resources Atlas of Florida. Florida State University
Foundation, Inc. Tallahassee, Florida.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr., P.B. Woller, and R.J. McCallum.
1975. Salt Marsh Establishment and Development.
U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research
Center Tech. Mem. no. 52. Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Gill, A.M. 1971. Mangroves—is the tide of public opinion
turning? Fairchild Trop. Card. Bull. 26(2):5-9.
Gill, AJld. and P.B. Tomlinson. 1969. Studies on the
growth of red mangrove flthizophora mangle L.): 1.
Habitat and general morphology. Biotropica 1(1)1-9.
Gilmore, R.G., CJ. Donohoe, and D.W. Cooke. 1983.
Observations on the distribution and biology of
east-central Florida populations of the common snook,
Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch). Fla. Scientist
46:313-336.
Goforth, H.W. and J Jl. Thomas. 1980. Planting of red
mangroves fTttiignpttora manyle L.) for stabilization of
marl shorelines in the Florida Keys, p. 207-230. In
DP. Cole (Ed.), Proc. 6th Ann. Conf. Restoration and
Creation of Wetlands. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Goforth, H.W. and M. Williams. 1984. Survival and
growth of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle L.)
planted upon marl shorelines in the Florida Keys (a
five year study), p. 130-148. In FJ. Webb, Jr. (Ed.).
Proc. 10th Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and
Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
Florida.
Hannan, J. 1976. Aspects of red mangrove reforestation
in Florida, p. 112-121. In R.R. Lewis (Ed.), Proc. 2nd
Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in
Florida. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
Florida.
Hoffman, W.E., MJ. Durako, and R.R. Lewis. 1985.
Habitat restoration in Tampa Bay, p. 636-647. In Sf.
Treat, J.L. Simon, RJl. Lewis, and R.L. Whitman, Jr.
(Eds.), Proc. Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium [May 1982]. Burgess Publishing Co.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hoffman, WJG. and JA. Rodgers. 1981 a. A cost/benefit
analysis of two large coastal plantings in Tampa Bay,
p. 265-278. In DP. Cole (Ed.), Proc. 7th Ann. Conf.
Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Hoffman, WJJ. and JA. Rodgers. 1981b. Cost-benefit
aspects of coastal vegetation establishment in Tampa
Bay, Florida. Env. Conserv. 8(l):39-43.
Kinch, J.C. 1976. Efforts in marine revegetation in
artificial habitats, p. 102-111. In R.R. Lewis (Ed.),
Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal
Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Knutson, P.L., RA. Brochu, WJJ. Seelig, and M. Inaskeep.
1982. Wave damping in Spartina alteroiflora marshes.
Wetlands 2:87-104.
Knutson, P.L., J.C. Ford, M.R. Innskeep, and J. Oyler.
1981. National survey of planted salt marshes
(vegetative stabilization and wave stress). Wetlands
1:129-157.
Kruczynski, W.L. 1982. Salt marshes of northeastern
Gulf of Mexico, p. 71-87. In RJl. Lewis (Ed.), Creation
and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lewis, RJl. 1981. Economics and feasibility of mangrove
restoration, p. 88-94. In P.S. Markpouts (Ed.), Proc.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Workshop on Coastal
Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States.
Washington, D.C.
Lewis, RJt. 1982a. Low Marshes, Peninsular Florida, Ch.
7, p. 147-152. In RJt. Lewis (Ed.), Creation and
Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lewis, R.R. 1982b. Mangrove forests, Ch. 8, p. 154-171.
In R. R. Lewis (Ed.), Creation and Restoration of
Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Lewis, RJt. 1983. Restoration of a needlerush (Juncus
Toemerianus Scheele) marsh following interstate
highway construction. U. Results after 22 months, p.
69-83. In FJ. Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 9th Ann. Conf.
Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, RJl. and D. Crewz. In preparation. An Analysis of
the Reasons for Success and Failure of Attempts to
Create or Restore Tidal Marshes and Mangrove
Forests in Florida. Florida Sea Grant, Univ. of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Lewis, R.R. and F.M. Dunstan. 1976. Possible role of
Spartina alterniflora Loisel. in establishment of
mangroves in Florida, p. 81-100. In RJt. Lewis (Ed.),
Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal
Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, R.R., R.G. Gilmore, 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. Kissimmee, Florida.
Lewis, RJt. and KG. Haines. 1981. Large scale mangrove
planting on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands: second year,
p. 137-148. In DP. Cole (Ed.), Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. on
Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, RJl., C.S. Lewis, WJL Fehring, and J.R. Rodgers.
1979. Coastal habitat mitigation in Tampa Bay,
Florida, p.. 136-149. In W.C. Melander and G.A.
Swanson (Eds.), Proc. of the Mitigation Symposium.
92
-------
General technical report RM-65. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Lot-Hergueras, A., C. Vazques-Yanes, and F. Menendez L.
1975. Physiognomic and floristic changes near the
northern limit of mangroves in the Gulf coast of
Mexico, p. 52-61. In G. Walsh, S. Snedaker, and H.
Teas (Eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. Biol. Management of
Mangroves. Inst. Food. Agr. Sci., Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville.
Lugo, AJ2. and C. Patterson-Zucca. 1977. The impact of
low temperature stress on mangrove structure and
growth. Trap. Ecol. 18:149-161.
MacNae, W. 1968. A general account of the fauna and
flora of mangrove swamps and forests in the
Indo-Western Pacific region. Adv. Mar. Biol. 6:74-270.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1987. Test Area Monitoring
Report no. 3. Quarter HE. [West Lake Mitigation
Project]. Report to Breward County Parks and
Recreation Department, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
McMillan, C. 1975. Adaptive differences to chilling in
mangrove populations, p. 62-68. In G. Walsh, S.
Snedaker, and H. Teas (Eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. Biol.
Management of Mangroves. last. Food Agr. Sci., Univ.
of Florida, Gainesville.
McMillan, C. and C.L. Sherrod. 1986. The chilling
tolerance of black mangrove, /\vjr?HF'fl g?Trrnnanar
from the Gulf of Mexico coast of Texas, Louisiana and
Florida. Coatr. Mar. Sci. 29:9-16.
Minello, TJ., RJ. Zimmerman, and EJ1. Klima. 1987.
Creation of fishery habitat in estuaries, p. 106-120. In
M. C. Landin and HJC. Smith (Eds.), Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. Tech. Rep. D-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Odum, W. E., C.C. Mclvor, and TJ. Smith HI. 1982. The
Ecology of the Mangroves of South Florida: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office of
Biol. Services. FWS/OBS-81/24. Washington, D.C.
National Wetlands Newsletter, 8(5), 1986. Environmental
Law Institute, Washington D.C.
Powell, G.V.N. 1987. Habitat use by wading birds in a
subtropical estuary: implications of hydrography. He
Auk 104:740-749.
Provost, M.W. 1973. Mean high water mark and use of
tidelands in Florida. Fla. Scientist 36(1 ):50-66.
Provost, M.W. 1976. Tidal datum planes circumscribing
salt marshes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(4):558-563.
Pulver, T.R. 1976. Transplant Techniques for Sapling
Mangrove Trees, Rlmophora mangle. Lapincularia
racemoaa. and Avicennia germinana , in Florida. Fla.
Dept. Nat. Resources Mar. Res. Publ. 22.
Rabinowitz, D. 1978. Dispersal properties of mangrove
propagules. Biotrooica 10:47-57.
Reark, J.B. 1983. An in situ fertilizer experiment using
young Rhizophora. p. 166-180. In F J. Webb, Jr. (Ed.),
Proc. 9th Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and
Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
Florida.
Reark, J.B. 1984. Comparisons of nursery practices for
growing of Rhizophora seedlings, p. 187-195. In F J.
Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 10th Ann. Conf. on Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Reimold, R J. and S A. Cobler. 1986. Wetland Mitigation
Effectiveness. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rozas, L.P. and C.T. Hackney. 1983. The importance of
oligohaline wetland habitats to fisheries resources.
Wetlands 3:77-89.
Savage, T. 1972. Florida Mangroves as Shoreline
Stabilizers. Fla. Dept. Natural Resources Prof. Pap.
Ser.No.19.
Savage, T. 1979. The 1972 experimental mangrove
planting—an update with comments on continued
research needs, p. 43-71. In R.R. Lewis and DP. Cole
(Eds.), Proc. 5th Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal
Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Seaman, W., Jr. (Ed.). 1985. Florida Aquatic Habitat and
Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter, American
Fisheries Society. Kissimmee, Florida.
Smith, D.C. 1982. Shore erosion control demonstrations
in Florida, p. 87-98. In R.H. Stovall (Ed.), Proc. 8th
Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Snedaker, S.C. 1982. Mangrove species zonation: why?
In D.N. Sen and K Rajpuorhit (Eds.), Contributions to
the Ecology of Halophytes. Dr. Junk Publishers, The
Hague.
Stephen, MJ1. 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples,
Florida, p. 201-216. In F J. Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 10th
Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Teas, H J. 1977. Ecology and restoration of mangrove
shorelines in Florida. Environ. Conaerv. 4(l):51-58.
Teas, HJ. 1981. Restoration of mangrove ecosystems, p.
95-102. In Proc. Coastal Ecosystems Workshop, U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/59.
Teas, HJ., W. Jurgens, and M.C. Kimball. 1976.
Plantings of red mangroves f Rhizophora manple L.) in
Charlotte and St. Lucie counties, Florida, p. 132-162.
In R.R. Lewis (Ed.), Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration
of Coastal Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1979. BuUding Saltmarshes Along
the Coasts of the Continental United States. Special
Report No. 4, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Woodhouse, W.E., Jr., and P.L. Knutson. 1982. Atlantic
coastal marshes, p. 45-109. In R.R. Lewis (Ed.),
Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant
Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.
1974. Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for
93
-------
Substrate Stabilization and Salt Marsh Development. Zuberer, D. 1977. Biological nitrogen fixation: a factor in
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort the establishment of mangrove vegetation, p. 37-56.
Belvoir, Virginia. In R.R. Lewis and DP. Cole (Eds.), Proc. 3rd Ann.
Conf. Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in Florida.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
1976. Propagation and Use of Spartina flitenifffo'lff for
Shoreline Erosion Abatement. U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
94
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READING
Carlton, J. 1974. Land building and stabilization by
mangroves. Environ. Conaervr l(4):285-294.
One of the earliest comprehensive papers discussing
both the new questions about mangrove land-building
capabilities and planting of mangroves for shoreline
stabilization.
Chapman, UJ. 1976. Mangrove Vegetation. J. Cramer,
Vaduz, Germany.
Davis, J.H. 1940. The Ecology and Geologic Role of
Mangroves in Florida. Carnegie Inst., Washington,
Pap. Tortugas Laboratory 32(16):303-412.
The "bible" on early ecological theories about
mangroves, coupled with many on-site observations and
experiments, including early planting experiments and
discussion of smooth cordgrass/mangrove interactions.
Hoffman, W.E., M.J. Durako, and R.R. Lewis. 1985.
Habitat restoration in Tampa Bay, p. 636-657. In S J*.
Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis and R.L. Whitman, Jr.
(Eds.), Proc. Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium [May 1982]. Burgess Publishing Co.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
A localized listing and discussion of marine wetland
restoration/creation projects on Tampa Bay with many
recommendations for improving future projects and
looking at restoration as a management as well as
mitigation tool.
Lewis, R.R. 1981. Economics and feasibility of mangrove
restoration, p. 88-94. In Proc. Coastal Ecosystems
Workshop. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/59.
A summary of work through 1980 on the role of
smooth cordgrass in mangrove succession and including
cost estimates of planting mangroves of various sizes.
Detweiler, T., F.M. Dunstan, R.R. Lewis, and W.K.
Fehring. 1976. Patterns of secondary succession in a
mangrove community, Tampa Bay, Florida, p. 51-81.
In R.R. Lewis (Ed.), Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration
of Coastal Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Durako, M.J., J.A. Browder, W.L. Kruczynski, C.B
Subrahmanyam, and RJ5. Turner. 1985. Salt marsh
habitat and fishery resources of Florida, p. 189-280.
In W. Seaman, Jr. (Ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and
Fishery Resources. Fla. Chapter, American Fisheries
Society, Kissimmee, Florida.
Getter, C.D., G. Cintron, B. Dicks, RJl. Lewis, and E.D.
Seneca. 1984. The recovery and restoration of salt
marshes following an oil spill, Ch. 3, p. 65-113. In J.
Cairns, Jr. and A. Bulkema, Jr. (Eds.), Restoration of
Habitats Impacted by Oil Spills. Butterworth
Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gill, A.M. and P.B. Tomlinson. 1969. Studies on the
growth of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.). I.
Habit and general morphology. Biotropica l(l):l-9.
Goforth, H.W. and J.R. Thomas. 1980. Plantings of red
mangroves (Rhizophora mangle L.) for stabilization of
marl shorelines in the Florida Keys, p. 207-230. In
D.P. Cole (Ed.), Proc. 6th Ann. Conf. Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Hamilton, L.S. and S.C. Snedaker. 1984. Handbook for
Mangrove Area Management. United Nations Env.
Program and East-West Center, Environment and
Policy Institute. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lewis, R.R. 1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal
Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
A comprehensive treatment of methods of plant
establishment for nine plant community types, including
Gulf of Mexico marshes, peninsular Florida marshes,
Atlantic coast marshes, and mangroves.
Lewis, R.R. and F.M. Dunstan. 1976. Possible role of
Spartina alterniflora Loisel in establishment of
mangroves in Florida, p. 82-100. In R.R. Lewis (Ed.),
Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal
Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, R.R. and F-M. Dunstan. 1975. Use of spoil islands
in re-establishing mangrove communities in Tampa
Bay, Florida, p. 766-775. In G. Walsh, S. Snedaker,
andH.Teas (Eds.), Proc. International Symp. Biol. and
Management of Mangroves, Vol. II. Gainesville,
Florida.
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, Kissimmee,
Florida.
Lewis, RJl. and C.S. Lewis. 1978. Colonial bird use and
plant succession on dredged material islands in
Florida. Vol. El, Patterns of Vegetation Succession.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
95
-------
Lewis, RJl., C.S. Lewis, WJK. Fehring, and J.R. Rodgere.
1979. Coastal habitat mitigation in Tampa Bay,
Florida, p. 136-149. In W.C. Melander and G.A.
Swanson (Eds.), Proc. Mitigation Symp. General tech.
rep. RM-65. U.D. Dept. of Agriculture, Ft. Collins,
Colorado.
Lugo, AJE. and S.C. Snedaker. 1977. The ecology of
mangroves. Ann. Bgv. Ecol. Svst. 5:39-64.
Odum, W.E., C.C. Mclvor, and T.J. Smith m. 1982. The
Ecology of the Mangroves of South Florida: a
Community Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/
OBS-81/24.
Detailed review of the literature with emphasis on
and understanding of the basic biology of mangrove
ecosystems in order to manage them properly.
Pulver, T.R. 1976. Transplant Techniques for Sapling
Mangrove Trees, Rhizopfrpr* mangle. Layuncularia
racemoaa and Avicennia yerminana. in Florida. Fla.
Dept. Natural Resources Mar. Research Publ. No. 22.
The only detailed description of transplant procedures
for mangroves to 2 m in size.
Savage, T. 1972. Florida Mangroves: a Review. Fla.
Dept. Natural Resources Mar. Research Leafl. Ser.
Vol VII, Part 2 (Vascular Plants), No. 1.
Savage, T. 1972. Florida Mangroves as Shoreline
Stabilizers. Fla. Dept. Natural Resources Prof. Pap.
Ser. No. 19.
A classic early work describing many experimental
installations of mangroves and recommending greater
emphasis on planting black mangroves (Avicennia
germinans) due to their cold tolerance and elaborate cable
root network.
Stephen, M.F. 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples,
Florida, p. 201-216. In FJ. Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc.
10th Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
One of the few papers establishing optimum planting
elevations through observation of survival of planted red
mangroves and volunteer propagules of black mangroves.
Teas, HJ. 1977. Ecology and restoration of mangrove
shorelines in Florida, Environ. Conaerv. 4:51-58.
The first comprehensive treatment of the work
through 1976 on mangrove restoration; includes a
description of the basic biological traits of Florida
mangroves and the problem of historical losses due to
dredge and fill.
Walsh, G.E. 1974. Mangroves: a review, p. 51-174. InR. J.
Reimold and W.H. Queen (Eds.), Ecology of
Halophytes. Academic Press, New York.
Woodhouse, W.W., E.D. Seneca, Jr., and S.W. Broome.
1974. Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for
Substrate Stabilization and Saltmareh Development.
TM-46, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
96
-------
APPENDIX II: PROJECT PROFILES
SEAGROVE
Locale: Indian River Lagoon, Indian River County.
Latitude/longitude: 27°37110"N/80°21'20"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 057-760-4; USCOE (none).
Age: one year.
Size: 0.2 ha (0.5 ac).
Species present:
Avicennia yerminarm. Saccharin hnlimifnlia . Bacopa
mnnnieri. Flaveria floridana. Fimbristvlis gpatheca.
Limonium carolinianum. Layuncularia racemosa.
Paspalum distichum. Rhizophora mangle. Soartina
alterniflora. Sporobolus virrinicua. Salicornia virginiana.
Site description:
The Seagrove site is part of a scrapedown mitigation
project along the Indian River Lagoon. Part of the
mitigation was a narrow fringe behind large mangroves
and was not surveyed. The main site is drained by a
U-shaped ditch which connects at both ends to the Indian
River Lagoon; as a result, flushing is excellent. The
higher portions of the marsh are completely drained at
low tide. The center lower portion is not covered with
smooth cordgrass as densely as the higher perimeter.
Mangroves are beginning to colonize the center area.
Goals of project:
Re-establish marsh behind a mangrove fringe as
mitigation.
Attainment of goals:
The project achieved its goals and is successful.
Contact: David Crewz
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources
100 8th Ave. SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
813/896-8626
MELBOURNE HARBOUR, LTD.
Locale: Indian River Lagoon, Brevard County.
Latitude/longitude: 28°04'36"N/80°35'52"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 050924-4; USCOE SAJ-44.
Age: 4-5 years.
Size: approximately 0.2 ha (0.5 ac).
Species present: Sesuvium pnrtulacastrum, Soartina
alterniflora
Site description:
The Melbourne Harbour site was designed to curtail
erosion and to mitigate for development damage. Part of
the site was a long fringe of smooth cordgrass fronted by
coquina rock to break boat wakes and waves; construction
had obliterated most of the fringe. The part surveyed was
a broad area behind a benn away from ongoing
construction. Apparently, the berm had accumulated
after the mitigation had been completed. The elevations
behind the berm were relatively constant and the
vegetation evenly distributed. The site had a broad outlet
to the Indian River Lagoon and flushed well and
completely. Peripheral areas were planted with coastal
dropseed, marsh hay, saltgrass, and red mangrove; the
mangrove areas could not be located.
Goals of project: Erosion control and mitigation.
Attainment of goals: Successful.
Contact: Steve Beeman
Ecoshores, Inc.
3881 South Nova Road
Port Orange, FL 32019
904/767-6232
COSTA DEL SOL
Locale: Banana River Lagoon, Brevard County.
Latitude/longitude: 28°2215"N/80°36'18"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 050770284; USCOE (none).
Age: 4 years (replanted).
Size: approximately 0.4 ha (1.0 ac).
Species present:
Amaranthua ap.. Ammanin latifnlia. Ba^pfl fpo
Cvperus ligularis. Cvperus odoratus. Eleocharis albida.
Eustoma CTAltnfriim Eehinne-hlna waiter! , Iva frutescens.
Phichea odorata. Paspalum distichum. Ruppja
Soartina alterniflorar Salicornia biyelowii. Suaeda
linearia. Scirpus robuatua.
Site description:
The Costa del Sol site was a scrapedown mitigation to
offset wetland encroachment related to nearby
construction. The site was located next to a condominium
development and associated stormwater runoff
depressions. A large pile of soil (10 m) was located next to
the site as well. The exterior of the site outside the
narrow entrance had a higher elevation than the interior
which had been scraped lower, ostensibly to prevent rapid
filling in of the site. Apparently, the plants were installed
around the margin of the site. The species found at this
site indicate considerable freshwater input, and selection
against saline vegetation was probably inevitable.
Cattails have invaded and are aggressively replacing the
saline species.
97
-------
Goals of project: To provide mitigation for lost
mangroves.
Attainment of goals;
Successful; salinity is lower than expected but plant
diversity is high.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, PL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
FLORIDA KEYS WATER MAIN
Locale: Key Largo, Monroe County.
Latitude/longitude: 25006139"N/80824'52"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 13 and 44-28299; USCOE
80M-0276.
Age: 5-6 years.
Size: 3.5 ha (8.7 ac).
Species present:
Avicennia yerminans. Conocarpus erecta.
Pimbristvlia caatanea. Layuncularia racemoaa.
Rhizophora manylg. Spartina altfvrni flora.
Site description:
The Florida Keys Water Main restoration was an
attempt to partially revegetate backflll following
installation of a large water supply line. The disturbed
mangrove area is approximately ten meters wide and
parallels U.S. Highway A1A for a number of miles. An
unknown number and arrangement of mangrove and
smooth cordgrass units were planted along an unknown
extent of the site. Therefore, we surveyed the first
accessible area from the north along A1A for a
predetermined distance of ten sample points at standard
interplot distances (total length approximately one
kilometer). The substrate ranged from muddy to an
occasional rocky outcrop. The cable roots of black
mangroves had trouble penetrating the substrate and
remaining subterranean, indicating a hard surface just
under the mud; this gave the black mangroves the
appearance of having prop roots. Standing water was
present along much of the length of the surveyed area and
frequently was very warm. Undisturbed adjacent
mangroves were approximately three meters tall, and the
surface elevation under them was even, unlike the
restored area where vegetation was found only on the
higher elevations.
Goals of project:
To revegetate water main installation impact area
with mangroves.
Attainment of goals:
Poor elevation control resulting in lack of adequate
drainage from some areas (possibly due to heterogeneous
fill material, leading to differential settling of substrate);
did not achieve goals, although bird use is extensive.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
HAMMER POINT
Locale: Key Largo, Monroe County.
Latitude/longitude: 25°01'24"N/80°30'45"W.
Permit numbers: FDER (none); USCOE 71-1176
(enforcement case).
Age: 2 years.
Size: 1.0 ha (2.5 ac).
Specie* present: Halodule wrightii. Rhizophora manyle.
Site description:
The Hammer Point site is a scrapedown of illegal fill
along the front of a housing project situated on finger
canals. The canals divide the restoration into four
separate areas. The coral rock substrate was of even
elevation, and at low tide the lowest elevation was under
approximately 0.3 m of water; the highest elevations had
some standing water but were probably exposed at the
lowest of tides. The substrate was so hard that the plants
had to be hosed in. Most of the red mangroves were in the
sapling class (>0.3 m) because at installation they were
over 1.5' tall. The low elevations designed for this
restoration resulted in the herb stratum being dominated
by a green alga, Batophora sp.; the presence of shoal grass
also indicates that the site remains inundated
permanently. Survival of red mangrove planting units at
this site can be attributed, in part, to good flushing and
water quality which keep the plants from being affected
by increased water temperature. However, the rate of
plant growth is slow because of the poor substrate.
Goals of project: Restoration of illegally filled mangrove
Attainment of goals:
High survival to date indicates success; long term
survival is questionable.
Contact: Steve Beeman
Ecoshores, Inc.
3881 South Nova Rd.
Port Orange, FL 32018
904/767-6232
SUNKEN ISLAND
Locale: Mouth of Alafia River, Hillsborough Bay,
Hillsborough County.
Latitude/longitude: 27°48'25"N/82°26'01"W.
Permit numbers: none.
Age: 7 years.
98
-------
Size: 1.7 ha (4.2 ac).
Species present:
Avicennia germinans. Blutaparon vermiculare.
Lapincularia racemosa. Paspalum distichum, Rhizophora
pflrtinft fllterpiflora. Suaeda linearia. Sesuvium
Site description:
The Sunken Island site was an attempt to stabilize
dredge spoil, and create nesting and foraging habitat for
bird species utilizing this island managed by the National
Audubon Society. Smooth cordgrass completely covered
the planting area within three years, followed by
mangrove colonization (principally black and white
mangroves) which are beginning to dominate the area.
The site's insular characteristics moderated freeze
damage as suffered by mainland mangroves. Also, foot
traffic was minimal due to protection by the Audubon
Society. This project was an actual enhancement without
mitigation requirements.
Goals of project:
Enhancement of open water with spoil and marsh
creation.
Attainment of goals:
Marsh created for bird nesting and foraging has
changed to mostly mangrove, thereby lessening habitat
value for some bird species but improving it for others.
Generally a success.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
Publications: Hoffman et al. 1985
CARBINIER MITIGATION
Locale: Archie Creek, Hillsborough County.
Latitude/longitude: 27°51'49"N/82°23'40"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 29-42-3949; USCOE 76-074.
Age: 8 years.
Size: 1.8 ha (4.5 ac).
Species present: Spartina alterniflora. Sporobolus
virginicus.
Site description:
The Gardinier site was a mitigation for offsite
damage to a saltmarsh on another part of the phosphate
plant's property. The center scrapedown area adjacent to
the planted portion contained mostly dead smooth
cordgrass, probably as a result of excessive settling or
erosion of surface fines. Apparently, finer sediment from
this area washed into the lower, natural area. The
substrate at the perimeter was much firmer than the
extremely gooey substrate in the low center area; the
difference in texture may have been caused by erosion of
sandy upland slopes into the planted area. The installed
plants were smaller than those in the natural area
"downstream" from it.
Goals of project: Mitigation for 0.6 ha of fill in marsh.
Attainment of goals: Successful.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
Publications: Lewis 1982a
FEATHER SOUND
Locale: Old Tampa Bay, Pinellas County.
Latitude/longitude: 27°54'15"N/82°39'35"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 528301016; USCOE 83T-0476.
Age: 3 years.
Size: 3.1 ha (7.7 ac).
Species present:
Avicennia germinana. Laguncularia racemosa.
Spartina alterniflora.
Site description:
The Feather Sound site was a restoration resulting
from construction of a stormwater catchment basin. A
freshwater creek runs parallel to the site. Smooth
cordgrass cover was homogeneous except where
mangroves were beginning to invade. The elevation range
specified was 0.15-0.46 m (0.5-1.5 ft) NGVD; generally,
the elevations were higher than specified. Following
cordgrass establishment, the actual elevations seem more
appropriate for mangrove colonization if propagules are
available. Possibly, these types of areas could be hastened
to mangrove status by importing propagules and
distributing them over the site. Eventually, this site can
be expected to be mostly mangroves, with a minor smooth
cordgrass component along the creek. Another section
was excavated too low and has minimal plant cover,
although bird use is extensive.
Goals of project: Restoration of 3.1 ha of mangrove.
Attainment of goals:
Only 0.6 ha is now vegetated; balance has high
ecological value and may revegetate on its own.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 2005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
CONNIE MACK ISLAND
Locale: Punta Rassa Cove, Lee County.
99
-------
Latitude/longitude: 26°29'45"N/81059140"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 36-24-3832; USCOE 76E-O892.
Age: 3 years.
Size: 0.3 ha (0.7 ac).
Species present:
Avicennia germinana. Lapincularia racemose.
R*liT7ophora mancrle. Ruppia maritima-
Site description:
The Connie Mack Island site is a partial restoration
of an illegal scrapedown of mature mangroves. The entire
restoration was not surveyed; the unsurveyed portion was
a 15' wide strip behind drastically pruned mangroves.
The main part of the restoration is surrounded by a berm
approximately three meters high on all sides except that
facing the water. The air and water temperatures inside
this pit were very intense. Many of the planted red
mangroves appeared to have suffered heat stress resulting
from high temperatures of standing water at low tide.
The presence of widgeon grass indicates that the standing
water was a permanent condition. The substrate was
extremely mucky, especially in the center area closest to
the water.
Goals of project: Restoration of 0.3 ha of mangroves.
Attainment of goals:
Elevations too low for good red mangrove seedling
growth and survival; high temperatures of standing water
may have killed many propagules; substrate density too
low to give adequate support to propagules; propagule
density too low to provide adequate cover in a reasonable
time; berm traps heat, causing temperature stress;
adjacent slopes too steep to allow habitat migration and
adjustment.
Contact: David Crewz
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources
lOOSthAve.SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
813/896-8626
BAYPORT
Locale: Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough County.
Latitude/longitude: 27°5T62"N / 82°33'08"W.
Permit numbers: FDER 290821843; USCOE 84W-0514.
Age: 3 years.
Size: 3.2 ha (8.0 ac).
Species present: Avicennia perminana. Spartina
alterni flora.
Site description:
The five sites in the Bayport mitigation complex
include a combination of successes and failures. This site
is a scrapedown surrounded by a low berm with
mangroves growing on and around the margins. The
mitigation area is lower in places than the surrounding
mangroves. A 2.4 ha (6-acre) tidal pond with channel
access has been very successful. The required 1:1
mitigation ratio was far exceeded since 3.0 ha were
successful.
Goals of project:
Mitigation for 0.8 ha of fill, and pond restoration.
Attainment of goals: Successful.
Contact: Lewis Environmental Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
WEST LAKE
Locale: City of Hollywood, Bro ward County.
Latitude/longitude: 26°2J7'N/8007.45'W.
Permit numbers: FDER 060942909; USCOE 84J-2528.
Age: Portions one year; balance to be done 1987-1990.
Size: Total, 80 ha (197 ac).
Species present:
Avicennin germinans. Laguncularia racemoaa.
ZyPhora mangle.
Site description: 600-hectare park in the City of
Hollywood.
Goals of project:
To restore 80 ha of mangrove forest as mitigation for
80 ha of fill in stressed mangroves. Experimental
establishment of volunteer propagule recruitment rates is
being tested.
Attainment of goals: Incomplete.
Contacts: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
Gilbert MacAdam
Broward County Parks Department
950 NW 38th St.
Oakland Park, FL 33309
305/357-8122
Publications: Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1987
100
-------
APPENDIX III
404 PERMIT REVIEW CHECK LIST
(FLORIDA COASTAL WETLANDS)
APPLICATION FORM YES NO
Is the area of fill or excavation in wetlands clearly indicated?
Is the type and function of the wetland to be filled or excavated described?
Is the type and function of the created or restored wetland intended for mitagation clearly
indicated?
APPLICATION DRAWINGS
Are the fill or excavation areas clearly indicated by type and acreage on a plan view?
Do the cross-sections show elevations relative to NGVD?
Are the elevations appropriate? Are they justified in a separate narrative?
Is a particular tidal benchmark referenced as having been used to establish site elevations?
Is the restoration creation area shown as being flat? (It shouldn't be).
Is drainage of the restoration/creation area provided with a distinct tidal swale or ditch?
Are there provisions for excluding access?
Is the upland edge stabilized?
Are the source(s), spacing and number of plants per unit area specified?
APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Is there a separate application narrative describing the project and the proposed wetlands
mitagation? If not, inquire as to whether it was provided in the application but not forwarded
to you.
Does the narrative adequately describe the mitigation and include justification for elevations,
slope, planting and monitoring reports, including reference to previous work of the
consultant or published literature?
Are you to receive copies of the monitoring reports directly from the consultant or applicant?
Are clear success criteria stated?
Do the methods of measuring success follow standard protocol?
Are clear mid-course correction plans outlined with a decision date (i.e., three months post-
construction)?
Is the mitigation plan preparer's name provided? Does he have a track record? Is it satisfactory? — —
101
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
IN PUERTO RICO AND THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Roy R Lewis m
Lewis Environmental Service, Inc.
ABSTRACT. Major losses of coastal wetland habitat in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have
stimulated interest in restoring damaged areas, and in requiring mitigation in the form of wetlands
creation or restoration for any future permitted losses. Unlike efforts on the mainland, documentation
of efforts to date is sparse. The major emphasis to date has been on mangrove forests, but other wetland
types are equally important. Our observations indicate that the opening of impounded mangrove areas
works well as restoration, but creation of mangrove areas is more difficult because of the need to very
carefully control the final graded elevations. The optimum target elevation for mangrove establishment
appears to be +12 cm National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
Wetland restoration projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico need more centralized
documentation in order to capitalize on the advances in understanding that come with each project.
Some additional experimental work is also essential to determine the restoration potential of plant com-
munities in which research has not yet been undertaken.
OVERVIEW OF THE REGION
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION
Geology
Puerto Rico and the U.S. and British Virgin
Islands are located east of the island of
Hispaniola and north of the South American
continent in the eastern Caribbean Sea (Figure
1). Geologically the islands are volcanic in
origin, with Puerto Rico and the northern U.S.
Virgin Islands (St. Thomas and St. John) lying
on the Puerto Rican Plateau and St. Croix (the
southern U.S. Virgin Island) lying to the south,
separated by the Virgin Islands Basin from the
Plateau. The islands are surrounded by deep
water with the Puerto Rican Trench reaching
9,000 meters and the Virgin Island Basin
reaching 4,400 meters.
Puerto Rico has a total land area of 886,039
hectares with three inhabited offshore islands,
Viegues, Culebra, and Mona (Figure 2). The
island is approximately 100 million years old.
Nearly two-thirds of the land area is steep
mountains. The remaining one-third contains
80% of all the level land and includes coastal
lowlands produced by erosion of the mountains
and deposition of alluvium at the mouths of
rivers. It is in these coastal lowlands that the
bulk of all fresh and saltwater wetlands in
Puerto Rico are located.
The U.S. Virgin Islands consist of three
islands (Figure 3), St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St.
John. Their physiography is similar to that of
Puerto Rico with predominant mountainous
features surrounded by coastal lowlands, but they
are significantly smaller. Total land area is
only 34,447 hectares.
Climate
The climate of Puerto Rico and the U. S.
Virgin Islands is marine subtropical with little
temperature variation between summer (28°Q
and winter (25 °C). Rainfall varies with location,
with as much as 500 cm falling in the mountain
forests of Puerto Rico. Average annual rainfall
for both areas is 100-125 cm with distinct dry and
wet seasons. Evaporation is often greater than
rainfall, and flowing streams are uncommon,
except in areas downstream of the higher
rainfall areas of some of the mountain ranges.
Hurricanes are a prominent feature of the
islands' weather patterns: 24 have passed within
80 km of the islands since 1900 (Island
Resources Foundation 1977).
103
-------
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
A
FLORIDA
BAHAMAS
"1
PUERTO
RICO
U.S. VIRGIN
ISLANDS
|
I
VIEQUES
HISPANIOLA
JAMAICA
0
0
SOUTH AMERICA
Figure 1. Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Basin.
104
-------
Ecoregions
Holdridge (1947, 1967) and Ewel and
Whitmore (1973) describe six life zones for the
islands, two of which, the subtropical moist and
subtropical dry zones, cover all the coastal areas.
The subtropical moist zones have annual
rainfall greater than 110 cm; the subtropical dry
have less than 110 cm with minimums of
approximately 50 cm, and evaporation typically
exceeds rainfall.
NOAA (1977) defines seven coastal sectors of
Puerto Rico (Figure 4). The south and southwest
sections are subtropical dry zones, while the remain-
ing five sectors are subtropical moist. In each of the
three U.S. Virgin Islands, the eastern and southern
lowlands are generally subtropical dry, while the
central to western higher elevations are subtropical
moist.
WETLAND TYPES
The wetland types listed here are those
indicated by del Llano (1985) as being either
estuarine or marine according to his revision of
Cowardin et al. (1979) to fit the wetland types of
Puerto Rico. They do not coincide exactly with
the three marine emergent subdivisions defined
by Environmental Laboratory (1978), but are felt
to be more accurate by the author.
Mangrove Forest
The mangrove forests of Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands are similar to those of
Florida and are composed of the same four
species: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.),
black mangrove (Avicennia germinans [L.] L.),
white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa
Gaertn. f.) and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus
L.)- Due to the lack of freezes, the canopy height
is generally greater (up to 20 m), but periodic
hurricanes keep maximum development from
occurring (Martinez et al. 1979). In addition to
serving as habitat for fish and wildlife and
exporting organic matter in the form of detritus
for offshore fisheries, mangroves are also
important sources of wood and charcoal,
particularly in Puerto Rico.
Lugo and Cintron (1975) divided the
mangrove forests of Puerto Rico into two type
formations, depending on whether they occurred
in the subtropical moist life zone (north coast) or
in the subtropical dry life zone (south coast). The
basin and riverine forest types of Lugo and
Snedaker (1974) are predominant on the north
coast, while the fringe and overwash types are
dominant on the south coast. The dwarf
mangrove type has only been reported from the
island of Vieques (Lewis, in press).
No good structural descriptions of the
mangroves of the U.S. Virgin Islands exists, nor
is an accurate acreage figure available.
Mangroves in Puerto Rico presently cover 641
hectares representing only 26.4% of the original
2,431 hectares estimated to have been present
(Martinez et al. 1979).
Swamp Forest.
The dominant species in this community is
blood wood (Pterocarpus officinalis Jacq.) (Figure
5). This community typically occurs just
landward of the mangrove forest, but is only
present in the north coast type formation due to
the low salt tolerance of these trees in tidal
waters. The wood of these trees is prized for
furniture construction and much of the original
forests of this type have been eliminated due to
overcutting. A subdominant species in some
forests is the Puerto Rican royal palm
(Rovstonea boringuena Cook).
Herbaceous Swamp
A community further separated from the
mangroves by the above described swamp forest
community, these brackish to freshwater
marshes include some typical marine plants
such as leather fern (Acrostichum aureum L.),
but are composed predominantly of oligohaline to
freshwater plant species such as cattail (Tvpha
domingensis Pers.), sedge (Cvperus giganteus
Vahl), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis Crantz),
and arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia L.) (Figure
6).
Swamp Thicket
Swamp thickets are composed of low shrubs
and small trees along brackish to freshwater
streams. The characteristic species are pond
apple (Annona glabra L.), mahoe (Hibiscus
tiliaceus L.), and leather fern.
Sfllt BflTTffUff ftr Salinas
Salinas are areas of hyperhaline soil
conditions typically found landward of a fringe
of mangroves in the more arid south coast
wetlands. Like similar areas in Florida, the
areas have characteristic barren unvegetated
areas interspersed with low ground cover species
tolerant of high interstitial salinities including
saltwort (B ati s maritim a L.), sea purselane
(Sesuvium portulacastrum L. L.), and smut grass
(Sporobolus virginicus L. Kunth). When flooded
by rains, these are referred to as "hypersaline
lagoons" (Cintron et al. 1978). Cintron et al.
(1978) describe the cyclic patterns of rainfall and
expansion of mangrove areas, followed by
droughts, the death of mangroves, and the
expansion of salt barrens.
105
-------
DESECHEO
CULEBRA
MONITO
<3
O
MONA
VIEQUES
Figure 2. Puerto Rico and adjacent waters.
TORTOLA
CULEBRA
ST.THOMAS
*s
n3f
^VIRGIN GORDA
ft-
ST. JOHN
VIEQUES
ST. CROIX
The U.S. V.I.
Figure 3. The U.S. Virgin Islands.
>T—"* v^y^^/s-^-~T
•
-------
Figure 5 Swamp forest community dominated by bloodwood (Pterocarpus officinalis), Sabana Seca,
Puerto Rico (January 1986).
107
-------
Figure 6. Herbaceous marsh community dominated by cattail (Tvpha domingensis) and giant sedge
(Cvperus gjganteus). Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico (January 1986).
Figure 7. A salt pond (Great Salt Pond) on the southeast coast of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
108
-------
Salt Ponds
Salt ponds are former mangrove lagoons
that have temporarily or permanently lost their
free tidal connection to the ocean (Figure 7). In
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands where
the tidal range is small (24 cm, NOAA 1986, p.
233), minor blockages can dramatically change
the hydrology of these lagoons. Island Resources
Foundation (1977) describes the formation of salt
ponds, the cycle of lowering salinities with
rainfall and the increase in salinities with
drought, which leads eventually to the formation
of a salt barren due to evaporation. Ponds may
also reopen during heavy rain storms or
hurricanes, and these events may be critical to their
use by estuarine species offish and crustaceans seek-
ing nursery habitat. They are also important wading
bird and seabird feeding and nesting areas. The black
mangrove is often a dominant species due to its toler-
ance of high interstitial salinities (Cintron et al.
1978).
Lewis (in press) describes a unique salt pond type
dominated by white mangroves or button wood found
on the islandof Vieques. These ponds have apparently
been isolated from tidal flow for extended periods of
time; the large scale water level fluctuations due to
rainfall have gradually eliminated the other man-
groves which cannot adapt to prolonged flooding of
their pneumatophores or prop roots.
PROBLEM OF MINIMAL
DOCUMENTATION
Unlike efforts in the mainland United
States, restoration and creation of wetlands in
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands has
received little interest in the past and very little
published literature is available describing any
such projects. The pressures of population growth
and the demand for infrastructure (roads,
schools, etc.) to support the population have meant
that the prime efforts have been directed towards
protecting what is left of the wetlands in these
areas (Norton 1986, del Llano et al. 1986). For
this reason, the remainder of this chapter focuses
on the lessons from the few projects that are
familiar to the author; these are primarily
associated with mangroves. Within the last few
years, a number of projects have been designed,
and some permitted, that will greatly expand the
information base, assuming some documenta-
tion of the projects occurs. These projects are
noted at the end of this chapter; those interested
should follow their progress carefully.
TYPICAL GOALS OF PROJECTS
Offset Adverse Environmental Trnpart
Through Mitigation
Lewis (1979) and Lewis and Haines (1981)
describe the planting of red and black mangrove
propagules over a 3.8 hectare area on the south
shore of the island of St. Croix as mitigation for
the impoundment of 7.4 hectares of mangroves as
part of a cooling pond. Forty percent of the red
mangrove propagules are reported to have
survived through the second year of planting,
while survival of the black mangrove propagules
is reported to be only 1-2%. Figure 8 shows the
planting area and plant cover after five years.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. (unpublished)
developed a mitigation plan for the Federal
Aviation Administration to offset the filling of
mangroves adjacent to the airport in San Juan,
Puerto Rico. Two sites totalling 0.25 hectares
were identified along the Suarez Canal and
excavated to an elevation of +12 cm NGVD
[National Geodetic Vertical Datum]. These were
planted with 4,840 red mangrove propagules in
October 1983. Recent inspections indicate that
white mangroves have volunteered in large
numbers and currently dominate the sites.
Canopy height of the volunteer mangroves is now
approximately 3 meters after four years. No
estimate of the survival of planted propagules has
been made.
No other published or unpublished reports of
mitigation projects were available to the author.
Several successful mangrove restoration projects
have been undertaken within artificially closed
salt ponds on the island of Vieques (Lewis et al.
1981, Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1985, Lewis, in
press). Normal tidal circulation was restored by
removing blockages and volunteer propagules
have revegetated two ponds. Similar recom-
mendations have been made for lagoons on the
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station at Ceiba (Lewis
1986).
Restore Ttsmutfe-A Areas
There has been a great deal of interest in the
possibility of restoring mangroves damaged by
oil spills (Figure 9; Lewis 1983, Getter et al. 1984),
by impoundment (Figure 10; Lewis et al. 1981,
Birkitt 1984), or by cattle grazing (Lewis, in
press). The above-described project on St. Croix
was, in fact, an oil-damaged site used as
mitigation for the impoundment of other
109
-------
Figure 8. Mangrove restoration area on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Top: February 1979, six
months after planting, Bottom: April 1983, five and a half years after planting.
110
-------
•
Figure 9. Mangrove forest on the south coast of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, seven years after
damage by an oil spill (photographed March 1978).
Figure 10. Mangroves dead as the result of impoundment at Laguna Boca Quebrada, Vieques, Puerto
Rico (December 1985).
Ill
-------
mangroves. Lewis (in press) describes the
reopening of two lagoons closed due to road
construction on the island of Vieques. Both
resulted in successful re-establishment of
mangroves in the previously stressed areas of the
lagoons. Damage due to cattle grazing on
Vieques (Lewis et al. 1981) and mainland Puerto
Rico (Lewis 1986) also has been reported.
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
The limited number of projects reviewed
here restricts the general assumption that all
projects to date in the islands have been
successful. What projects have failed? None are
known, but it is human nature to publicize
successes and forget failures. A thorough search
of agency files to identify additional projects that
have been attempted should be undertaken and
any monitoring reports located and analyzed.
REASONS FOR SUCCESS/FAILURE
Lewis (1979) and Lewis and Haines (1981)
list several problems with projects: 1) physical
removal due to erosion, accumulation of
seagrass wrack, and floating debris; 2) eating of
the planted seeds by unknown biological agents,
possibly crabs; 3) death of seedlings by
natural causes; and 4) planting at apparently too
high an elevation.
Detailed surveys were performed prior to the
planting at St. Croix in order to keep planting
elevation errors to a minimum. Because the
tidal range is only 24 cm (NOAA 1986) and
mangroves occupy only the upper half of that
range, accurate surveys and propagule
placement were important. This tidal range is
much narrower than in most of Florida where
60-90 cm tidal ranges are common (NOAA 1986,
pp. 226-229). Based upon the success of these
projects, a +12 cm NGVD elevation is
recommended as the optimum for mangroves in
general. As has been recommended for Florida
plantings (Lewis, this volume), any excavated
sites should be designed with a positive slope
towards the open water to provide drainage and to
eliminate pockets of standing water. Also, if
possible, a tidal stream connection for fish
movement into and out of the areas would
enhance the fishery value of the restored system.
No projects have been reported that attempt to
restore or create the other five types of coastal
wetlands listed previously. Any attempts to do so
should depend heavily on understanding the
characteristics of the natural plant community,
including ranges of elevation, interstitial
salinity tolerances, and succession patterns.
DESIGN OF CREATION/REBTORATIONPROJECTS
PRECONSTRUCnON CONSIDERATIONS
Location Of Project
Depending on the type of plant community to
be restored/created, the location of the site should
provide the appropriate hydrology for that specific
plant community. If the plant community
normally requires salinities of 1-5 ppt, a routine
source of freshwater must be available.
Therefore, attempting to establish such a
community (i.e., herbaceous swamp) along the
south coast of Puerto Rico might prove difficult.
Site Characteristics
In order to design a project, the following
minimum information is essential:
1. What is the existing site topography related
to a tidal datum?
2. What is the existing wave climate: how
exposed is the site to storms?
3. What are the proposed elevations? Will they
remain the same? If so, the reasons behind
the absence of volunteer plants need to be
analyzed. If the elevations are to be changed,
what is the justification for the proposed
elevations?
4. What are the sediment characteristics below
the surface if excavation is to take place?
Sand may be suitable, but rock is not.
5. What are the proposed plant materials? Are
they routinely available? Will volunteer
propagules invade the area?
6. Are any exotic plants (Australian pines)
present? Will they shade the planting area?
Can they be removed?
7. How is public access to be controlled?
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROJECT PLAN
Timing of Construction
The timing of construction is dependent on
the type of plant materials to be used. If natural
112
-------
revegetation is to be allowed, excavation should
be timed for completion just prior to the release of
propagules; if it is a mangrove site, maximum
seed availability will occur in the fall, and
excavation should be completed prior to August.
If planting is to occur, then spring installation is
recommended. Site preparation should be
completed to meet this time frame.
PUB-CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
CONTROL
Even when accurate plans are prepared,
actual construction may not achieve the required
tolerances. It is important that an as-built survey
be completed before construction equipment is
moved off site, so that corrections can be made
quickly and inexpensively. Requiring
equipment to return to the site often produces
delays, if the equipment can be brought back at
all. Another quick check of the site to check for
proper drainage can be accomplished by simply
watching the tide rise and fall across the site.
SUBSTRATE
The design substrate composition should be
verified by simple soil auger checks as a
minimum. If rock or clay layers are
encountered at the proposed excavation depth, the
site may be unacceptable.
Detailed examination of the need to add
fertilizer to improve plant survival and growth
has not been tested in Puerto Rico or the U.S.
Virgin Islands. The general guidelines of
Woodhouse and Knutson (1982) and Broome (this
volume) should be used when deciding whether to
use fertilizers in herbaceous marsh plantings.
Fertilizers may be useful in plantings on
exposed shorelines where rapid growth is
desirable to avoid extended exposure of new
plants to wave action.
The response of mangrove plantings to
fertilization is not well documented. Zuberer
(1977) documents the presence of nitrogen
fixation activity in the roots of mangroves in
Florida, while Reark (1983) argues that
fertilizers were essential to the successful
outcome of his project. Teas (1977) states that
"Nursery mangroves of all three species were
found to respond to fertilizer. Because open-water
fertilization ordinarily is not practical, pre-
transplanting fertilization may prove useful."
(p. 56). Reark (1984) describes the addition of a
soluble fertilizer to nursery-grown mangroves,
but there were no controls. In fact, no controlled
experimentation has been conducted to
demonstrate any value of added fertilizer. Such
work needs to be done, but in the interim, added
fertilizer does not appear essential to mangrove
establishment.
PLANT MATERIAL
Mangroves are available for planting in four
forms: propagules, 1-2 year old seedlings, 3-5
year old nursery-grown trees, and field-collected
transplants. The 1-2 year old seedlings are the
most often recommended or required plant
material. They are grown from propagules
harvested in the wild. In fact, Beever (1986)
recommends using only "one year old (one foot
minimum height) nursery grown seedlings"
with no reference to the other plant materials.
The direct installation of red mangrove
propagules (Figure 8) has been popular due to low
cost and general success in protected sites.
Goforth and Thomas (1980) compared red
mangrove propagules and field-dug seedlings 12
to 18 months old. At the end of five years,
"survival of transplanted seedlings was no more
successful than that of propagules" while "the
average vertical growth of seedlings ... was
significantly (p<0.001) less than propagules" (p.
221). Stephen (1984) reports 97% survival of
planted red mangrove propagules after 8 months
at a large project in Naples, Florida while Lewis
and Haines (1981) report 40% survival after one
year in St. Croix.
Direct installation of propagules of the other
three species is not practical due to their
requirement to shed a pericarp and rest on the
surface of a damp substrate for several days
prior to anchoring. Broadcasting of these
propagules might be successful in some projects,
but Lewis and Haines (1981) report low overall
successful anchoring of broadcast propagules.
The use of larger plant materials greatly
increases the cost of a project (Teas 1977, Lewis
1981) and should only be used where absolutely
necessary. Goforth and Thomas (1980) note that
in exposed sites, transplanted 2-3 year old trees
are the only successful plant material. Teas
(1977) reports that all attempts to transplant large
(6 m tall) mangroves in Florida failed. Gill
(1971), however, reported transplanting red
mangroves up to 6.5 m in height that Carlton
(1974) indicates had high survival. Pulver (1976)
provides guidelines to the transplanting of
mangroves up to 2 m tall, and reports good
success with trees to this height.
Finally, there may be instances in which no
installation of mangrove plant materials is
necessary. The largest (80 ha) mangrove
restoration in Florida is designed to require no
installed mangroves at all, and preliminary
testing appears to confirm the success of this
technique where natural propagule availability
is sufficient (Lewis, this volume). The Suarez
113
-------
canal planting site previously discussed has
become dominated by volunteer white
mangroves. Given the limited availability of
funds for restoration, the elimination of planting
could provide extra money to move more soil and
restore larger areas. However, each site has
unique characteristics that require pilot projects
to confirm the utility of this technique.
Other species often transplanted in
oligohaline situations in Florida include leather
fern and sawgrass. Plugs of leather fern
transplant well, but not cut stems as described by
Beever (1986, p. 7). Sawgrass is available from
some nurseries in Florida as cultivated units but
is most often dug from the wild. Bare root units
have exhibited poor survival in oligohaline
environments, and plugs of 3-5 intact shoots with
soil core are recommended. No nurseries are
known to provide these plant materials in Puerto
Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
REINTRODUCTION OF FAUNA
The establishment of a new faunal
community in a created/restored system
connected to tidal waters has historically been
left to incidental moving of individual
organisms with plant material, the natural
settlement of planktonic life forms that become
sessile, epibenthic or infaunal after
metamorphosis (meroplankton), and the
immigration of fauna, particularly fish, from
adjacent wetlands.
There is no evidence that active
reintroduction of fauna would accelerate the
colonization process, but controlled
experimentation to answer the question has not
been done. Based only on personal observations,
the author sees no obvious need to introduce
fauna, because colonization of created/restored
systems by fauna appears to be quite rapid.
Nonetheless, good experimental evidence should
be generated to answer the question.
BUFFERS, PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES
Beever (1986) recommends, for Florida, that a
buffer zone equivalent to the width of the planted
area be cleared of exotic species. The author's
experience has been that rapid invasion by these
species will occur and that such a buffer zone, if
not maintained free of exotics, will cease to be a
buffer within five to ten years. In addition to
removing exotic plants, creation of a buffer zone
should include destroying root systems with a
systemic herbicide and planting native
vegetation such as Thespesia populnea and
mahoe to outcompete the exotics. It is not the
width but the intensity of maintenance that will
ensure that no invasion of exotics occurs in a
buffer zone.
Foot traffic and vehicle access problems have
been noted previously. If a site is in an urban
area where public access can be expected, the site
should be fenced and legally posted.
LONG TERM MANAGEMENT
Control of exotics over the long term will
require implementation of a control program as
outlined above. The problem of ownership change
and future threats to restored/created sites is
addressed in Florida by the routine requirement
of a conservation easement in which the property
owner retains fee simple title but restricts the
future use of the property by a county recorded
easement. No similar protective mechanism is
known to be routinely applied in Puerto Rico' or
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Fee simple transfer of
ownership to the state is also possible for that
portion of the property not needed for
development.
MONITORING
WHAT TO MONITOR AND HOW
Prior to implementing a monitoring
program, it is essential that measurable goals be
defined. The goals should be reasonable and
based on published literature values of
parameters in natural systems or on values
reported in monitoring reports readily available
to all parties. Due to the haphazard nature of the
methods of obtaining and reporting data on
wetlands in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, it is virtually impossible to go much
beyond percent survival, growth measurements,
and areal cover measurements as reasonable
criteria for determining success. This should
improve as more data are obtained and
centralized for review.
An example of the problem is establishing a
target goal for the number of invertebrate species
and their density in a created/restored wetland.
Baseline data from tidal wetlands in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands are minimal and
thus establishing a criterion such as 30,000
organisms/m2 as "successful" is impossible. An
alternative is the comparison of a control
114
-------
wetland to the created/restored one. Due to
natural variations in wetlands that may appear
identical to an observer, variances in faunal
densities as great as 50% are not uncommon.
Only by careful study of existing
created/restored wetlands in comparison with
adjacent control areas can any general criteria
be established. Because this has not been done in
Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, we must
work with what we have until such data is
available.
What do you monitor and how? First, it is
important to describe in detail, using maps and
photographs, what was done at the site. How big
was it? What were the slopes and elevations?
What tidal benchmark was used? What types
and numbers of plants were installed, and where
and when?
Second, some sampling regime needs to be
established that will be repeated over a period of
time. The typical standard is quarterly sampling
for two years. This results in reports issued at
time zero (completion of construction and
planting), 3, 6, 9,12,15,18, 21 and 24 months for
a total of nine reports. Longer times may be
required for monitoring forested wetlands and
monitoring intervals may lengthen as the
monitoring period increases.
Third, a sampling program involving either
pre-established plots or random plots determined
at each monitoring inspection needs to be
described and justified. Broome (this volume)
supports stratified random sampling with
sampling in each elevation zone. The sampling
program should begin at the completion of
construction and/or planting (time zero).
Fourth, each sampling should include
photographs taken from the same position and
angle during each monitoring episode to
illustrate to the report reviewer what is
happening at the site (Figure 8).
Finally, the last report should summarize
all the results with appropriate graphs, and
compare the results with 1) the previously
established goals, and 2) literature values for
parameters measured.
This monitoring program is most easily
accomplished by making it a condition of the
permit and requiring the permittee to pay for it.
Few federal or state regulatory agencies have the
staff or funds to conduct detailed compliance
monitoring themselves. Simply inspecting the
site once or twice during the course of the permit
is an accomplishment for agency personnel, and
the reports with photographs are an important
compliance monitoring tool.
With regard to the parameters to be
measured, percent survival of installed plant
materials and/or volunteer recruitment within
plots should be measured and extrapolated to
describe the conditions across the
created/restored area. Plots are important
because, except for small planting areas,
counting hundreds or thousands of units
individually can be tedious, expensive, and error-
prone. One meter square plots are typically
sufficient for tidal marsh plantings. Four meter
square (2 m x 2 m) plots may be better for tree
species. The absolute number of plots will depend
on site size; Broome (this volume) suggests
fifteen as a minimum.
Each planting unit or volunteer in the plot
should be measured for height and the percent
cover in the plot estimated. If random units are
chosen each time for measurement, a quadrat
can be centered over them for measurements.
For herbaceous species like giant sedge, culm
(stem) density can be measured using 10 cm x 10
cm quadrats. For mangroves, plant height and
prop root or pneumatophore number can be noted.
Above-ground and below-ground biomass of
herbaceous species can be measured by clipping
at ground level, taking core samples, and
separating plant material out for drying and
weighing (see Broome, this volume). It is not
practical to measure biomass of mangroves
because this involves destructive sampling and
loss of planting units.
Percent survival alone should not be the sole
criterion of success. Low percent survival of
rapidly expanding herbaceous marsh species
may still provide 100% cover of the area desired.
With mangroves, mortality of young mangroves
is normal with competition. Pulver (1976)
measured the density of mangroves in natural
forests in Florida and found that as the stand
height (and age) increased, the number of trees
decreased. For example, densities of red
mangroves decreased from 26.8 trees/m2 for 1.2
m tall trees to 8.3 trees/m2 for 1.9 in tall trees (p.
13). That represents a survival rate of only 31%;
would that be called "successful" in a
created/restored system?
Percent cover supplements percent survival
as a measurement of expansion of leaf area.
Combined with growth and stem density
measurements, it provides a good indication of
whether a system is healthy and expanding in
plant height and cover. What are good rates of
growth and coverage to look for? Data are
generally absent. Lewis and Crewz (in prep.)
will provide some typical target values.
Faunal sampling in created/restored systems
is more of an art than a science at present. A
number of studies are underway in the
continental United States, under the auspices of
115
-------
the National Marine Fisheries Service (Beaufort,
North Carolina), U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (Vicksburg,
Mississippi) and Florida Department of Natural
Resources (St. Petersburg), in created/restored
tidal wetland systems in Florida. No similar
studies are known to be underway in Puerto Rico
or the U.S. Virgin Islands. None of the results
have been published at this time. Readers are
encouraged to contact these agencies directly for
updated publications on the subject.
How long to monitor? Two years is normal
for marsh systems. Five years should be the
minimum for forested systems. If faunal
monitoring is included, eight to ten years are
probably necessary to document changes.
MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS
If, during the course of monitoring, it
becomes obvious that the goals will not be met,
there are two choices. One is to determine the
cause of the problem and correct it. It may be
elevation, drainage, source of plant materials,
etc. The other choice is to evaluate the habitat
value of the system as it exists, and determine if
that is sufficient to satisfy regulatory agencies.
It is possible that the wetland was a failure (no
plant survival) but the project worked from other
perspectives—for example, if there is intense use
of shallow unvegetated areas by wading birds.
If the first course of action is taken, the cost
of the modifications may cause the permittee to
challenge the regulatory agency's right to ask
for changes in a plan it originally approved.
Such questions have been raised in the case of
unsuccessful creation/restoration attempts in
Florida and usually, the agency has backed
down. Careful preparation of permit conditions
to provide for mid-course corrections are
essential.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
CENTRALIZED DATA BANK
As has been stated, Lewis and Crewz (in
prep.) note that the lack of a centralized database
concerning historical as well as current
creation/restoration projects usually hampers
any data analyses, and prevents comparisons of
projects. Such a condition presently exists in
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. If such
a system is developed, it is equally important
that the data concerning historical permitted
creation/restoration projects be catalogued. No
known plans are underway to document this
information.
limited public funds available for habitat
restoration, the cost-effectiveness of particular
plant materials needs to be documented.
TRANSPLANTING LARGER
MANGROVES
As noted, the success of transplanting larger
(>2 m tall) mangroves has generally not been
good. The salvage of larger mangroves destined
for destruction might prove valuable if larger
trees could be moved successfully.
NATURAL PROPAGULE
RECRUITMENT VERSUS PLANTING
OR TRANSPLANTING
The natural recruitment, survival, and
growth rates of volunteer propagules need to be
tested for various sizes and densities of installed
plant materials to determine the optimum
densities needed for certain target coverage rates
and habitat utilization. For example, it has been
assumed that volunteer mangrove propagule
recruitment could not match the success or
growth rates of planted nursery-grown
mangroves. With costs of $1,000 to $200,000 per
hectare for planted mangroves (Teas 1977, Lewis
1981), significant savings could occur if natural
recruitment proved effective. Particularly with
COMPARABLE GROWTH RATES OF
MANGROVE PROPAGULES AND
SEEDLINGS
Is it necessary to plant 1-2 year old nursery-
grown seedlings in order to achieve more rapid
cover, or will natural propagule recruitment, or
planted or broadcast propagules achieve
equivalent growth? The previously described
data of Goforth and Thomas (1980) needs
amplification.
RATE OF FAUNAL RECRUITMENT
A comparison of sites of different ages in a
synoptic manner is needed to determine how
rapidly faunal recruitment takes place, and
116
-------
whether supplementing the process is necessary.
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY
A multi-parameter comparison of created/
restored systems with several natural areas is
needed to determine which functional values
(habitat, water quality, primary production, etc.)
can be re-established, and over what time frame.
REGIONAL CREATION/RESTORATION
PLANS
Wetland creation and/or restoration needs to
be examined as a need of the regional ecosystem,
with the possible outcome that out-of-kind
creation/restoration is deemed acceptable in
some instances to compensate for the loss at
another site of a distinct habitat type such as
swamp forest.
LITERATURE CITED
Beever, J.W. 1986. Mitigative Creation and Restoration
of Wetland Systems-A Technical Manual for
Florida. Draft Report. Fla. Dept. of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Birkitt, B.F. 1984. Considerations for the functional
restoration of impounded wetlands, p. 44-59. In FJ.
Webh, Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 10th Ann. Conf. Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Carlton, J. 1974. Land building and stabilization by
mangroves. Environ. Conserv. 1:285-294.
Cintron, G., AE. Lugo, D.J. Pool, and G. Morris. 1978.
Mangroves of arid environments in Puerto Rico
and adjacent islands. Biotropica 10(2):! 10-121.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep water
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services 79/31.
del Llano, M. 1985. Inventario de terrenos anegadizos
y habitats de aguas profundas de Puerto Rico, p.
93-111. In DA. Scott, M. Smart, and M. Carbonell
(Eds.), Report XXXI Ann. Meeting International
Waterfowl Research Bureau. IWRD Slimbridge,
Glos. GL27BX, England.
del Llano, M., J.A. Colon, and J.L. Chabert. 1986.
Puerto Rico, p. 559-571. In D.A. Scott and M.
Carbonell (compilers), A Directory of Neotropical
Wetlands. IUCN Cambridge and IWRB
Slimbridge, U.K.
Environmental Laboratory. 1978. Preliminary Guide
to Wetlands of Puerto Rico. Technical Rep. Y-78-3.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Ewel, J.J. and J.L. Whitmore. 1973. The Ecological
Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Forest Service Research paper ITF-18. Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Getter, C.D., G. Cintron, B. Dicks, R.R. Lewis, and E.D.
Seneca. 1984. The recovery and restoration of salt
marshes and mangroves following an oil spill, Ch.
3, p. 65-113. In J. Cairns, Jr. and A. Bulkema, Jr.
(Eds.), Restoration of Habitats Impacted by Oil
Spills. Butterworth Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Gill, A.M. 1971. Mangroves-is the tide of public
opinion turning? Fairchild Troo. Gard. Bull. 26:5-9.
Goforth, H.W. and J.R. Thomas. 1980. Planting of red
mangroves (Rhizophora mangle L.) for
stabilization of marl shorelines in the Florida
Keys, p. 207-230. In D. P. Cole (Ed.), Proc. 6th Ann.
Conf. Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Holdridge, L.R. 1947. Determination of world plant
formations from simple climatic data. Science
105:367-368.
Holdridge, L.R. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Provisional
edition. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa
Rica.
Island Resources Foundation. 1977. Marine
Environments of the Virgin Islands. Tech. Suppl.
No. 1. Virgin Islands Planning Office, Coastal
Zone Management Program.
Lewis, R.R. 1979. Large scale mangrove planting on
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, p. 231-242. In D.P.
Cole (Ed.), Proc. 6th Ann. Conf. Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, R.R. 1981. Economics and feasibility of
mangrove restoration, p. 88-94. In P.S. Markouts
(Ed.), Proc. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Workshop on
Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United
States. Washington, D.C.
Lewis, R.R. 1983. Impact of oil spills on mangrove
forests, p. 171-183. In H.J. Teas (Ed.), Biology and
Ecology of Mangroves. Tasks for Vegetation
Science 8. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague.
Lewis, R.R. 1986. Status of Mangrove Forests,
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, Puerto Rico. Report
to Ecology & Environment, Inc.
Lewis, R.R. In press. Management and restoration of
mangrove forests in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands and Florida, U.S.A. Proc. International
Symp. Ecology and Conservation of the
Usumacinta-Gryalva Delta, Mexico; 1987 February
2-6; Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico.
Lewis, R.R. and D.W. Crewz. In prep. An Analysis of
the Reasons for Success or Failure of Attempts to
Create or Restore Tidal marshes and Mangrove
117
-------
Forests in Florida. Florida Sea Grant Project R/C-
E-24, University of Florida, Gainesville, 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.),
Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Restoration and Creation of
Wetlands. Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida.
Lewis, R.R., R. Lombardo, B. Sorrie, G. D'Aluisio-
Guerrieri, and R. Callahan. 1981. Mangrove
Forests of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Vol. I,
Management Report, 42 pp. Vol. II, Data Report.
Lugo, AJE. and G. Cintron. 1975. The mangrove forests
of Puerto Rico and their management, p. 825-846.
In G.E. Walsh, S.C. Snedaker, and H.J. Teas
(Eds.), Proc. International Symp. Biology and
Management of Mangroves. East-West Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lugo, A.E. and S.C. Snedaker. 1974. The Ecology of
Mangroves. Ann. Rev. Ecology & Systematica
539-64.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1985. Status of Mangroves on
Vieques, Puerto Rico. Report to the UJS. Navy.
Martinez, R., G. Cintron, and L.A. Encarnacion. 1979.
Mangroves in Puerto Rico: A Structural Inventory.
Final report to the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, NOAA. Dept. of Natural Resources,
Area of Scientific Research, Government of Puerto
Rico.
NOAA. 1977. Puerto Rico Coastal Management
Program and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Office of Coastal
Zone Management, Washington, D.C.
NOAA. 1986. Tide Tables 1987, East Coast of North
America and South America Including Greenland.
NOAA, Washington, D.C.
Norton, R.L. 1986. United States Virgin Islands, p.
585-596. In D. A. Scott and M. Carbonell
(compilers), A Directory of Neotropical Wetlands.
IUCN Cambridge and IWRB Slimbridge, U.K.
Pulver, T.R. 1976. Transplant Techniques for Sapling
Mangrove Trees, Rhizophora mangle.
Layuncularia racemosa. and Avicennia
germinans. in Florida. Fla. Dept. Nat. Resources
Mar. Res. Publ. 22.
Reark, J.B. 1983. An in situ fertilizer experiment
using young Rhizophora. p. 166-180. In FJ. Webb,
Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 9th Ann. Conf. on Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Reark, J.B. 1984. Comparisons of nursery practices for
growing of Rhizophora seedlings, p. 187-195. In F.J.
Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc. 10th Ann. Conf. on Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Stephen, M-F. 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples,
Florida, p. 201-216. In FJ. Webb, Jr. (Ed.), Proc.
10th Ann. Conf. Wetlands Restoration and
Creation. Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida.
Teas, H.J. 1977. Ecology and restoration of mangrove
shorelines in Florida. Environ. Conserv. 4:51-58.
Woodhouse, W.E., Jr. and P.L. Knutson. 1982. Atlantic
coastal marshes, Ch. 2, p. 45-109. In R.R. Lewis
(Ed.), Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant
Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Zuberer, D. 1977. Biological nitrogen fixation: a factor
in the establishment of mangrove vegetation, ,p.
37-56. In R.R. Lewis and D.P. Cole (Eds.), Proc. 3rd
Ann. Conf. Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in
Florida. Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida.
118
-------
APPENDIX!: RECOMMENDED READING
del Llano, M., J.A. Colon, and J.L. Chabert. 1986.
Puerto Rico, p. 559-571. In D.A. Scott and M.
Carbonell (compilers), A Directory of Neotropical
Wetlands. IUCN Cambridge and IWRB
Slimbridge, UJC.
Hamilton, L.8. and S.C. Snedaker. 1984. Handbook for
Mangrove Area Management. United Nations
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, Environment and Policy
Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Island Resources Foundation. 1977. Marine
Environments of the Virgin Islands. Tech. Suppl.
No. 1. Virgin Islands Planning Office, Coastal
Zone Management Program.
Lewis, R.R. 1981. Economics and feasibility of
mangrove restoration, p. 88-94. In P.8. Markouts
(Ed.), Proc. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Workshop on
Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United
States. Washington, D.C.
Lewis, R.R. (Ed.). 1982. Creation and Restoration of
Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Lewis, R.R. 1983. Impact of oil spills on mangroves.
Proc. 2nd Ann. International Syrnp. on Biology and
Management of Mangroves, Papua, New Guinea.
Lewis, R.R. In press. Management and restoration of
mangrove forests in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Florida, U.S.A. Proc. International
Symp. Ecology and Conservation of the Usumacinta-
Grijalva Delta, Mexico; 1987 February 2-6;
Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico.
Lugo, AJ3. and G. Cintron. 1975. The mangrove forests
of Puerto Rico and their management, p. 825-846.
In G.E. Walsh, S.C. Snedaker, and H.J. Teas
(Eds.), Proc. International Symposium on Biology
and Management of Mangroves. East-West Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Martinez, R., G. Cintron, and L.A. Encarnacion. 1979.
Mangroves in Puerto Rico: A Structural Inventory.
Final Report to the Office of Coastal Zone
Management. NOAA, Dept. of Natural Resources,
Area of Scientific Research, Government of Puerto
Rico.
Norton, R.L. 1986. United States Virgin Islands, p.
585-596. In D.A. Scott and M. Carbonell (compilers),
A Directory of Neotropical Wetlands. IUCN
Cambridge and IWRB Slimbridge, U.K.
Yanez-Aranciba, A. 1978. Taxonomy, Ecology and
Structure of Fish Communities in Coastal Lagoons
with Ephemeral Inlets on the Pacific Coast of
Mexico. Centre. Cienc. del Mar. y Limnol., Univ.
Nal. Auton. Mexico, Publ. Exp. 2:1-306.
119
-------
APPENDIX n: PROJECT PROFILES
ALUCROIX CHANNEL
Locale: Port Alucroix Channel, south shore of St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Latitude/Longitude: 17°42.00
-------
Site Description:
Salt pond partially impounded due to causeway;
causeway replaced by a bridge in 1983.
Goals of Project: Allow free exchange of tidal waters
and drainage waters through an ephemeral opening to
the ocean.
Judgement of Success: Successful.
Contact: Roy R. Lewis III
Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813/889-9684
Reports Lewis et al. 1981.
Lewis in press.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1985.
LACUNA BOCA QUEBRADA
Locale: Western end of Vieques, Puerto Rico.
latitude/Longitude: 18006.331N/65°34.59'W.
Permit Numbers: None.
Age: Two years.
Size: Fifteen ha.
Species Present: Rhizophora mangle. Avicennia
germinans. Laguncularia racemosa.
Site Description:
Salt pond artificially isolated by road
construction, causing death of 15 ha of mangroves.
Road use was stopped by U.S. Navy and area was re-
opened in 1985.
Goals of Project: Allow free exchange of tidal waters
and drainage waters through an ephemeral opening to
the ocean.
Judgement of Success: Successful.
Contact Roy R. Lewis IH
Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 20005
Tampa, FL 33622-0005
813889-9684
Reports Lewis et al. 1981.
Lewis in press.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1985.
The following project descriptions are taken from
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Public Notices. The
status of these projects is unknown but all involve
some proposed wetland restoration, creation or
enhancement. They deserve further investigation.
EL TUQUE LAGOON
Locale: Ponce, Puerto Rico.
LatituderiLongitude: Not provided in permit application.
Permit Numbers: 83F-5032,85IPD-20524,87IPM-20069.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Unknown.
Species Present: Unknown.
Site Description:
Multiple permits for fill in mangroves with some
involving mangrove restoration or creation as
mitigation.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contact: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
809/753-4996 or 809/7534974
SUABEZ CANAL H
Locale: Suarez Canal, near Carolina, Puerto Rico.
Latitude/Longitude: Not provided in permit application.
Permit Numbers: 87IPM-20759.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Unknown.
Species Present: Unknown.
Site Description:
Afler-the-fact permit for unauthorized filling of 0.12
ha of mangroves.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contact: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
80SI/753-4996 or 809/753-4974
122
-------
SOUTHGATE POND
Locale: Southgate Pond, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Latitude/Longitude: 17°45'30"N / 64°31'30"W.
Permit Numbers: Unknown.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Unknown.
Species Present: Unknown.
Site Description:
Proposed development with filling of 2.7 ha of
wetlands in a salt pond, and pond enhancement plan
as mitigation.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contact: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
809/753-4996 or 809/753-4974
SUGAR BAY
Locale: Salt River, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Latitude/Longitude: 17°6.5'N /64°4.5'W.
Permit Numbers: 86IPB-20899.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Unknown.
Species Present: Unknown.
Site Description:
Planting of approximately 250 m of shoreline with
red, black and white mangroves as mitigation for
work related to a marine development.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contact: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
809/753-4996 or 809/753-4974
BACARDI CORPORATION
Locale: Catano, Puerto Rico.
Latitude/Longitude: Unknown.
Permit Numbers: 87IPM-20656.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Unknown.
Species Present: Avicennia germinans.
Site Description:
Proposed fill in 0.5 ha of wetlands; mitigation not
described.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contact: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
809/753-4996 or 809/753-4974
TRES MONJITAS CANAL
Locale: Tres Monjitas Canal, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Latitude/Longitude: Unknown.
Permit Numbers: 84F-1156.
Age: Unknown.
Size: Approximately seven ha.
Species Present: Unknown.
Site Description:
Mitigation associated with the Martin Pena
navigation channel, Agua-Guagua project.
Goals of Project: Unknown.
Judgement of Success: Unknown.
Contacts: Juan Molina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
San Juan, PR 00901
809/753-1996 or 809/753-4974
Ricardo Corominas, P-E.
Redondo Construction Corp.
GP.O. Box 4185
San Juan, PR 00936
123
-------
APPENDIX III
404 PERMIT REVIEW CHECKLIST
(COASTAL WETLANDS IN PUERTO RICO AND THE UJS. VIRGIN ISLANDS)
APPLICATION FORM YES NO
A. Is the area of fill or excavation in wetlands clearly indicated?
R Is the type and function of the wetland to be filled or excavated described?
C Is the type and function of the created or restored wetland intended for
mitigation clearly indicated?
APPLICATION DRAWINGS
A Are the fill or excavation areas clearly indicated by type and acreage on a
plan view?
R Do the cross-sections show elevations relative to NGVD?
C. Are the elevations appropriate? Are they justified in a separate narrative?
D. Is a particular tidal benchmark referenced as having been used to establish
site elevations?
E. Is the restoration/creation area shown as being flat? (It shouldn't be).
F. Is drainage of the restoration/creation area provided with a distinct tidal
swale or ditch?
G. Are there provisions for excluding access by humans and grazing animals?
H. Is the upland edge stabilized?
I. Are the source(s), spacing and number of plants per unit area specified?
APPLICATION NARRATIVE
A Is there a separate application narrative describing the project and the
proposed wetlands mitigation? If not, inquire as to whether it was
provided in the application but not forwarded to you.
R Does the narrative adequately describe the mitigation and include
justification for elevations, slope, planting and monitoring reports,
including reference to previous work of the consultant or published litera-
ture?
C, Are you to receive copies of the monitoring reports directly from the
consultant or applicant? If not, request direct submittal.
D. Are clear success criteria stated?
E. Do the methods of measuring success follow standard protocol?
F. Are clear mid-course correction plans outlined with a decision date (i.e.,
three months post-construction)?
G. Is the mitigation plan preparer's name provided? Does he have a track
record? Is it satisfactory?
125
-------
CREATION, RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT OF
MARSHES OF THE NORTHCENTRAL GULF COAST
Robert H. Chabreck
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
School of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries
ABSTRACT. Coastal marshes of the Northcentral Gulf Coast encompass over 1.2 million ha
and comprise almost 50% of the coastal marshes of the United States, excluding Alaska. The
region includes portions of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Over 80% of the
marshes in this region occur in Louisiana because of the influence of the Mississippi River.
Salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh marshes are well represented within the region.
Marshes have been created from dredged material deposited in shallow waters and by
controlled diversion of river flow to direct sedimentation to specific sites. Plantings are
seldom made on dredged material in Louisiana because of the large area to be planted and the
fact that natural colonization is rapid. In fresher marshes, dredged material is left as levees
after canals are dug that connect to salt water sources. Levees reduce salt water
contamination and drainage of the marsh. Dredge material is usually planted in Texas,
Mississippi, and Alabama to stabilize the material and hasten marsh development.
In tidal marshes, construction of weirs is the most widely used enhancement practice.
Impoundments provide a mechanism for controlling water depth and salinity and regulating
plant growth. But impoundments can only be constructed in marshes that will support a
continuous levee system. Freshwater diversion from the Mississippi River has been used on a
small scale for marsh restoration and enhancement but could be used to improve vast areas of
the rapidly deteriorating marshes of southeastern Louisiana.
Precise information is needed on subsidence rates of individual localities for planning
marsh creation and restoration projects. Methods for maximizing subdelta development and
determining best use of dredged material are needed.
OVERVIEW OF REGION
CHARACTERISTICS OF REGION
Physiography
The Gulf Coastal Plain gently slopes toward
the Gulf of Mexico and forms the coastal region
of the Northcentral Gulf Coast in Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The coastal
region is bordered by a broad continental shelf
in the Gulf of Mexico, which contains relatively
shallow water near shore. These conditions have
enhanced development of marshes and barrier
islands. Many rivers empty into the Gulf in this
region and contain embayments that contribute
to estuarine environments.
Climate
Climate of the region is temperate, with hot
summers and mild winters, although several
freezes occur each winter. The growing season
averages about 300 days. Most of the region
ishumid, and rainfall in the eastern portion
averages between 140 and 150 cm (Stout 1984).
Rainfall rates decrease westward along the
Texas coast and range from 140 cm at the Sabine
River to less than 75 cm at the Rio Grande River
(Diener 1975). The Gulf coast is characterized by
southerly to southeasterly prevailing winds that
are an important source of atmospheric moisture.
Hurricanes are common in the region and have
had a detrimental effect on marshes, beaches,
and barrier islands of the area.
Tides
Normal tidal range is between 30 and 60 cm,
but the level of individual tides varies with the
phase of the moon, direction and velocity of the
wind, and other factors. Lowest tides occur
during winter when strong northerly winds are
127
-------
present. Highest tides are associated with
hurricanes, and tide levels of 1 to 2 m above
normal occur in some portion of the region
almost every year (Manner 1954).
Water Salinity
Water salinity varies within the region and
is largely governed for a particular site by its
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, tide water access
to the site, recent rainfall rates, and river
discharge. Water salinity in the adjacent Gulf of
Mexico usually ranges from 20 to 25 ppt and is
less than normal sea water (36 ppt). However, in
the Laguna Madre of Texas or in high marsh
ponds where Gulf water may be trapped, water
salinity may be concentrated through
evaporation and exceed that of sea water (Diener
1975).
Salinity levels are usually quite high where
water from the Gulf of Mexico enters adjacent
marshes. As Gulf water moves inland by tidal
action, it mixes with fresher water draining
from interior regions toward the Gulf.
Consequently, water salinity gradually declines
from the coastline to the interior reaches of the
coastal marshes. Marsh vegetation varies in its
tolerance to water salinity, and plants are
grouped into communities having similar
tolerances and are referred to as vegetation or
marsh types.
Water salinity is the primary factor
affecting plant distribution. Four distinct marsh
types have been identified in the region
(Penfound and Hathaway 1938, Chabreck 1972):
salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh. Since
water salinity declines on a gradient moving
inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the marsh types
generally occur in bands parallel to the
shoreline.
MARSH TYPES
Reographical Distribution
Coastal marshes of the Northcentral Gulf
Coast encompass slightly over 1.2 million ha and
comprise almost 50% of the coastal marshes in
the United States, excluding Alaska (Alexander
et al. 1986). Louisiana contains the largest area
of marshes and comprises 81.2% of the region
(Table 1). The marshes of Louisiana extend
inland from the Gulf for distances ranging from
24 to 80 km and consist of the deltaic plain and
the chenier plain. The deltaic plain lies in the
southeastern portion of the state and makes up
three-fourths of its coastal region (Chabreck
1970). Marshes of the deltaic plain were formed
from deposition by the Mississippi River and are
unstable and in various stages of degradation
(Coleman 1966). The marsh is rapidly subsiding
and eroding and being lost at a rate of over 100
km per year (Gagliano et al. 1981). An irregular
shoreline with numerous large embayments
characterize the area. The deltaic plain has
several chains of barrier islands, which
represent the outer rim of former deltas of the
Mississippi River. Active land building is
currently taking place in deltas of the
Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya River,
which is a distributory of the Mississippi River.
The chenier plain occupies the coasts of
southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas.
Marshes of the chenier plain were formed from
Mississippi River sediment that was discharged
into the Gulf of Mexico, carried westward by
currents, and deposited against the shoreline to
form marshland. Interruptions in the
depositions! process resulted in beach formation,
and resumption of deposition caused new
marshland to form seaward from the beach.
This process caused several beach deposits to be
stranded in the marshes. The stranded beaches
are locally termed cheniers and represent a
major relief feature of the area. Marshes of the
chenier plain are underlain by firm clay
deposits and will support the weight of levees and
dredged material deposits, quite unlike the
unstable subsoils of most of the deltaic plain.
The chenier plain is bordered by a well
developed beach, which has few openings into the
Gulf of Mexico (Russell and Howe 1935).
Texas contains 15.6% of the marshes of the
Northcentral Gulf Coast. The greatest area of
marshland in the state lies between the Sabine
River and Galveston Bay and is part of the
chenier plain. Westward along the Texas coast,
a well developed series of barrier islands -are
present, and marshes occur along the shores of
bays enclosed by the offshore bars (West 1977).
An extensive band of tidal flats also borders the
shorelines of the bays (Diener 1975).
Mississippi contains 2.3% of the coastal
marshes of the region. The greatest area of
marshland is in the southwestern portion of the
state and comprises a portion of the deltaic plain
(Eleuterius 1973). Marshes along the Alabama
coast comprise less than 1% of the Northcentral
Gulf Coast marshes. In Alabama and adjacent
areas of the Mississippi coast, marshes are
small, disjunct, and limited to low alluvial
deposits along protected bay shores and rivers
(West 1977). A series of barrier islands occur
offshore of both states (Crance 1971, Eleuterius
1973).
Description of Types
Since the major area of marshland in the
region is in Louisiana and adjacent portions of
Texas and Mississippi, most descriptions of
marsh types relate to that area. The marsh types
128
-------
(salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh) not only
contain characteristic associations of plant
species but also vary in hydrological patterns,
soils, fish and wildlife values, and ecological
functions performed.
Salt Marsh-
Salt marsh makes up 28.2% of the coastal
marshes of the region (Table 1). This type
generally occupies a narrow zone adjacent to the
shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and
embayments. It is quite extensive in the deltaic
plain because the broken shoreline allows tide
water to move far inland.
Salt marsh has the greatest tidal fluctuation
of all marsh types and contains a well developed
drainage system. Water salinity averages 18.0
ppt (range: 8.1 to 29.4 ppt), and soils have a lower
organic content (mean: 17.5%) than fresher types
located further inland (Chabreck 1972). Veg-
etation within this type is salt-tolerant and is
dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora)T salt grass (Distichlis spicata). and
black rush (Juncus roemerianus).
Brackish Marsh-
Brackish marsh comprises 30% of the total
marsh area of the region. This type lies inland
from the salt marsh type, is further removed
from the influence of saline Gulf waters, but is
still subject to daily tidal action. Normal water
depth exceeds that of salt marsh, and soils
contain higher organic content (mean: 31.2%).
Water salinity averages 8.2 ppt (range: 1.0-18.4
ppt). This marsh type characteristically contains
numerous small bayous and lakes.
Brackish marsh contains greater plant
diversity than salt marsh and is dominated by
two perennial grasses, marshhay cordgrass
(Spartina patens) and D. spicata. An important
wildlife food plant of brackish marsh, Olney
bulrush (Scirpus olnevi). grows best in tidal
marsh free from excessive flooding, prolonged
drought, and drastic salinity changes. S. olnevi
is, however, crowded out by S. patens unless
stands of S. olnevi are periodically burned.
Wigeongrass (Ruppia maritime), the dominant
submerged aquatic plant of brackish marsh, is a
preferred food of ducks and coots (Fulica
americana).
Intermediate Marsh-
The intermediate marsh type lies inland
from the brackish type and comprises 14.7% of
the marsh area of the region. Intermediate
marsh receives some influence from tides, and
water salinity averages 3.3 ppt (range: 0.5 to 8.3
ppt). Water levels are slightly higher than in
brackish marsh, and soil organic content
averages 33.9%. Plant species diversity is high,
and the type contains both halophytes and
freshwater species used as food by a wide variety
of herbivores. S. patens dominates intermediate
marsh as it does brackish marsh, but to a lesser
degree. Some of the common marsh plants in
intermediate zones are giant reed (Phragmites
australis). narrowleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria
lancifolia). and waterhyssop (Bacopa monnieri ).
This type also contains an abundance of
submerged aquatic plants that are important
foods for ducks and coots.
Fresh Marsh-
Fresh marsh makes up 27.1% of the marshes
of the Northcentral Gulf Coast. It occupies the
zone between the intermediate marsh and the
Prairie formation or the forested wetlands in the
alluvial plain of major river systems. Fresh
marsh is normally free from tidal influence,
and water salinity averages only 1.0 ppt (range:
0.1 to 3.4 ppt). Because of slow drainage, water
depth and soil organic content (mean: 52.0%) are
greatest in fresh marsh. In some fresh marshes,
soil organic matter content exceeds 80%, and the
substrate for plant growth is a floating organic
mat referred to as "flotant" by Russell (1942).
Fresh marsh supports the greatest diversity of
plants and contains many species that are
preferred foods of wildlife. Dominant plants
include maidencane (Panicum hemitomon),
spikerrush (Eleocharis spp.), S. lancifolia, and
alligatqrweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides'). The
type also contains many submerged and floating-
leafed aquatic plants of value as wildlife foods.
Some floating aquatics, such as water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes). form dense stands that
block waterways and are considered pest plants.
FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Coastal marshes and their associated water
bodies provide valuable habitat for fish and
wildlife. Salt and brackish marshes and the
adjacent estuaries are important nursery
grounds for many species of marine fish and
crustaceans that spawn in the Gulf of Mexico
(Gunter 1967). Also, some species complete their
entire life cycle in estuarine waters (Chapman
1973). Water bodies associated with fresh and
intermediate marshes also support abundant
fisheries resources.
Coastal marshes provide important habitat
for birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
The number of species in each group generally
decreases as the water salinity of the marsh type
increases (Table 2). Groups with greatest
sporting or commercial value include waterfowl,
fur bearing animals, and alligators (Alligator
129
-------
Table 1. Geographical distribution of marsh types in states along the Northcentral Gulf Coast.1
Size of marsh types (hectares x 100)
State
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Total
Salt
28
75
2,663
665
3,431
Brackish
31
83
2,959
569
3,642
Intermediate
15
42
1,480
247
1,784
Fresh
28
78
2,762
418
3,286
Total
102
278
9,864
1,899
12,143
1The total area of marsh by state is from Alexander et al. (1986). Distribution of marsh types by state is
from Chabreck (1972), Diener (1975), and Crance (1971).
Table 2. Number of species of wildlife groups by marsh types along the Northcentral Gulf Coast.1
Marsh types
Wildlife
groups
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Salt
100
8
4
0
Brackish
89
11
16
5
Intermediate
91
11
16
6
Fresh
88
14
24
18
1 Source: Gosselink et al. 1979.
130
-------
mississippiensis). Individuals in these groups
utilize all marsh types but greatest densities are
usually found in marshes with lower water
salinity (Palmisano 1973, McNease and Joanen
1978, Linscombe and Kinler 1985).
Hurricane Protection
A band of marshes and barrier islands
along the coast provide a buffer against
hurricanes and reduces flooding of interior
areas. The marshes absorb the energy of storm
waves and provide a drag on the inland rush of
storm waters. Coastal facilities separated from
the Gulf by a wide band of marshes suffer less
damage than those without protective marshes
(Craig etal. 1979).
Water Quality Improvement
Coastal marshes improve water quality in
estuaries by retaining pollutants or delaying
their movement into estuaries. The pollutants
include excess nutrients, toxic chemicals, and
disease-causing micro-organisms. Some pollut-
ants may settle out in the marsh and be
converted by biochemical processes to less
harmful forms. Some may remain trapped in
the sediments or be taken up by plants and
recycled or transported from the marsh (U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
1984).
EXTENT TO WHICH CREATION/RESTORATION/
ENHANCEMENT HAS OCCURRED
TYPES OF PROJECTS
Marsh Creation
Two types of marsh creation have
traditionally been used along the Northcentral
Gulf Coast. One type involves creation of marsh
from dredged material deposited in shallow
water during dredging operations. The other
type of marsh creation involved controlled
diversion of river flow to direct sedimentation to
specific areas.
Much marsh has been created in the region
from dredged material placement in shallow
water. However, in almost all cases in
Louisiana, no special treatments were applied
nor attempts made to establish vegetation by
planting. In Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama
marsh plantings usually accompanied the
material placement (Landin 1986), although
many plantings were done as part of special
investigations. Controlled diversion of river
flow to create marsh by sedimentation has been
carried out at certain locations on the lower
Mississippi River. Expansion of this type of
marsh creation has been recommended as a
procedure for creating vast areas of new
marshland. In fact, an important aspect of
diverting one-third of the Mississippi River flow
down the Atchafalaya River is creation of
additional marsh in the recently emerged delta
of the Atchafalaya River (Cunningham 1981).
Marsh Restoration
Marsh restoration primarily involves
reestablishment of plants to normal conditions
in a deteriorating marsh. Means by which this
can be accomplished include diversion of
freshwater or sediment into the marsh to offset
the factors causing the deterioration. In some
situations, the factors causing the deterioration
can be regulated or offset by impoundment or by
constructing weirs in drainage systems of the
marsh. In many instances, such projects may be
classified as marsh enhancement.
s
Diversion of freshwater into marshes is
currently used, to a limited extent, at several
locations along the lower Mississippi River to
restore deteriorating marshes and is being
considered in other areas where feasible. Weir
construction has been widespread across the
Louisiana coast, but marsh impoundment
construction in the region has been largely
restricted to southwestern Louisiana and
southeastern Texas, where soil conditions permit
construction of continuous levee systems.
TYPICAL GOALS FOR PROJECTS
Marsh Creation
The goals of projects to create marsh on
dredged material are to optimize use of the
material, expand the acreage of wetlands, and
help slow the erosion process. This activity
generally has been successful, but the degree of
success varies throughout the region. In marshes
with firm foundations, success is greater than in
areas were the substrate is poorly consolidated.
Without a firm base for support of deposits, the
dredged material rapidly subsides and soon
sinks below the surface of the water.
Plantings are rarely made on dredged
131
-------
material in Louisiana, which may partially
account for the poor success of marsh creation in
some areas. The reason more plantings are not
made is because of the large area to be planted
and the fact that natural colonization is very
rapid. In Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama,
dredged material is usually planted to stabilize
the material and hasten marsh development.
In fresh and intermediate marshes where
salt water intrusion is a problem, dredged
material is left as levees after canals are dug.
Even where canals cross ponds or small lakes,
maintenance of a levee is important. Without a
protective levee, salt water may enter through the
canal and kill marsh vegetation, or on low tides,
the canal will excessively drain the marsh.
The goal of marsh creation by controlled
diversion of river flow is to establish new
marshland in an area where marsh is rapidly
disappearing because of subsidence and erosion.
This type of marsh creation has been used on a
small scale on the Mississippi River delta.
Openings made in banks of distributaries permit
river water to flow during flood stages into
adjacent shallow water areas. River water
deposits its silt load as it spreads out into the
quiet shallow waters and its velocity decreases,
thus creating small subdeltas.
Success of controlled diversion depends upon
proper placement of bank openings so that an
adequate flow of water occurs. Also, proper water
control structures are essential to prevent
excessive flow and channel development. South
of New Orleans where the mainline levee is not
in place, marsh nourishment is occurring with
visible results. A factor that may reduce the
effectiveness of this type of marsh creation in the
future is a reduction in sediment load carried by
the Mississippi River.
Marsh Restoration
Restoring a Gulf coast marsh to its original
condition is a costly and, in most cases, an
impossible task. Coastal marshes are dynamic
systems, and, if it were possible to completely
restore a marsh, it could be restored to only one
stage in its frequently changing past. Therefore,
the goal of restoration should be to maximize
productivity and enhance the quality and
diversity of the environment within the limits of
available resources and technology.
Construction of weirs in drainage systems is
the most widely used restoration practice in tidal
marshes. The elevation of a weir is established
approximately 15 cm below that of surrounding
marsh so that water will freely flow over the
structure. However, the weir holds a permanent
basin of water that functions as a mixing bowl
with incoming tides to stabilize water salinity.
Weirs greatly increase production of submerged
aquatics in marsh ponds (Chabreck 1968,
Larrick and Chabreck 1976) and attract ducks to
the ponds (Spiller and Chabreck 1975); however,
weirs do not change the plant species composition
of affected marsh. Also, the weirs reduce ingress
and delay egress of aquatic organisms in a
marsh (Herke 1979); however, Rogers et al. (1987)
found that this problem could be largely
mitigated by placing a vertical slot in the weir to
allow passage of aquatic organisms.
Impoundments have been constructed in
coastal marshes to form wildlife management
units but are restricted to marshes, such as
thechenier plain, with firm soil that will support
continuous levee systems. Impoundment
construction requires establishment of adequate
water control structures such as weirs, gated
culverts, or pumps. Impoundment provides a
mechanism for regulating water levels and
salinities and controlling plant distribution and
species composition. In many marshes that are
deteriorating because of excessive salt water
intrusion or drainage, impoundment offers the
best and, in most cases, the only solution to
marsh restoration.
Impoundments have been constructed mainly
to improve habitat for ducks, but other forms of
wildlife and fisheries also benefit (Chabreck
1980). However, levees that form a barrier to
tidal flow also block normal movement of
marine organisms and may prevent their access
to the enclosed marsh and water bodies.
Studies in Louisiana have disclosed that this
problem can be partially corrected by opening
water control structures at the proper time to
allow passage of marine organisms (Davidson
and Chabreck 1983).
Freshwater diversion from the Mississippi
River has been used on a small scale for marsh
restoration but could be used to restore vast
portions of the rapidly deteriorating marshes of
the deltaic plain. Culverts and siphons are used
to move river water during flood stages through
or over the flood protection levees. The water is
allowed to flow through the marsh, thus adding
sediment and nutrients and lowering water
salinity in the marsh. The added sediment
raises the elevation of the marsh and helps offset
land loss. Reducing water salinity and adding
nutrients promotes plant growth, increases plant
species diversity, and improves the marsh and
adjacent water bodies for fish and wildlife. A
major handicap of this type of restoration is that
it can only be used in marshes in drainage
basins adjacent to the freshwater source. Also,
areas on the landward side of flood protection
levees are usually developed, and diverting river
water for marsh nourishment raises not only an
environmental but also, socioeconomic and
political issues.
132
-------
DREDGE SPOIL
Location and Site Characteristics
Marsh has been created with dredged
material at Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound,
Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River,
Atchafalaya Bay, Calcasieu Lake, Galveston
Bay, Chocolate Bay, Aransas Bay, East
Matagorda Bay, and various other sites along the
Northcentral Gulf Coast. Project sites included
areas along shorelines and in open water away
from land. Dredged material was confined
within dikes in some areas, but in others, only a
temporary breakwater was used to protect planted
material. At sites along Southwest Pass of the
Mississippi River and in Atchafalaya Bay, spoil
was deposited in open water without confinement
levees and allowed to revegetate naturally. Most
plantings on dredged material have been done
on an experimental basis but have yielded
valuable information for marsh creation and
restoration (Landin and Webb 1986, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1986).
Critical Asects of Pro
Construction Considerations-
Si te selection for marsh creation projects
along the Northcentral Gulf Coast requires field
investigations and laboratory tests to evaluate
location, bottom topography, wave and water
energy, and substrate characteristics
including consolidation and sedimentation. If
dredging is involved, material may be placed in
the disposal site using either hydraulic or
mechanical methods. The hydraulic pipeline
dredge is the type most commonly used for
projects involving marsh creation or restoration.
Disposal sites should be as near the excavation
site as possible; however, at substantially greater
cost, material can be moved through the pipeline
for several kilometers with intermediate booster
pumps. Other marsh development projects such
as impoundments require equal care in site
selection, construction design, and other critical
factors.
Hydrology-
Important hydroiogical factors in marsh
design are water salinity, tidal range, flood
stages, and wave and wind action. Charac-
teristics of wind waves such as height, fetch,
period, direction, and probability of occurrence
can be obtained from locally collected data. At
locations where wind waves are a major
consideration, early recognition of the problem
may allow either relocation to alternate sites
where open-water fetch in the predominant wind
direction is minimized, or incorporation of
protection structures into project design. Locating
sites in low energy environments greatly
increases the chances of project success. Tidal
range and flood stages are factors that regulate
elevation of sites. Water salinity is an important
consideration in the selection of species for
planting (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986).
Substrate-
Design of substrate at sites for marsh
creation requires information regarding desired
elevation, slope, shape, orientation, and size of
the sites. The design must allow for placement
of dredge material within desired limits of
required elevations, allowing for consolidation
of dredged material and compaction of
foundation soils. The design must include
predictions of expected settlement. Substrate
composed of fine clays and silts may remain in
a slurry state for a significant period after
placement and require a retaining structure for
containment. The final elevation when such
substrates dry is much more difficult to predict
than when substrates are composed of sandy
material, which lose water and dry quickly (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1986). Dredged
material used as substrate for marsh creation in
Galveston Bay was placed on a 0.7% slope from
mean low water to over 1 m above mean high
water to achieve successful elevation (Webb et al.
1986).
Producing Desired Plant Communities-
Establishment of marsh plants on dredged
material can be attained by natural invasion or
artificial propagation. In freshwater areas,
natural invasion by marsh plants will occur
within one growing season. Dredge spoil on the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya River deltas that is
placed several inches below mean high tide is
soon colonized by delta duckpotato (Sagittaria
platyphylla).
In other marsh types, several years may be
required for natural invasion of marsh plants,
and artificial propagation by sprigging of
desired species is recommended if establishment
of plant cover is desired. Along the Northcentral
Gulf Coast, sprigging of S. patens is recom-
mended for sites in intermediate and brackish
marshes (Eleuterms 1974). In saltwater areas, ŁL
alterniflora should be sprigged at elevations
below mean high tide, and S. patens should be
sprigged at elevations above mean high tide
(Allen et al. 1978, Landin 1986). Planting
133
-------
material is often collected near the planting site;
however, Eleuterius (1974) reported that best
success was obtained when cuttings of S. patens
and D. spicata were rooted in peat pellets before
field planting.
Plantings in the intertidal zone on sandy
dredged material along the shoreline of Bolivar
Peninsula in Galveston Bay successfully estab-
lished stands of S. alterniflora and S. patens. A
sandbag dike was placed in the intertidal zone
and along the flanks to protect a portion of the
planting site from wave energy. Also, a fence
was erected to exclude goats and rabbits from the
site (Allen et al. 1978).
Plantings were first made in 1976, and the
size and vigor of the plant community
increased each year. The site withstood direct
hits of hurricanes in 1983 and 1986 with no
noticeable effects (Landin 1986). The density
and vigor of plants inside the diked area was
considerably greater than that of plants in an
adjacent control area. Allen et al. (1978) believed
that much of the success in establishment of the
plants was related to protection provided by the
sandbag dike. They also concluded that, in areas
with excessively high wave energies, success is
unlikely unless wave energy is dissipated.
Attempts to create marsh in Mobile Bay on a
dredged material island where substrate
consisted largely of clay was less successful
than those in Galveston Bay. Wave energy was
moderately high, and a floating tire breakwater
and a fixed breakwater were installed to protect
plantings of S. alterniflora. The fixed
breakwater consisted of a wooden fence onto
which automobile tires were mounted in a single
row. Plantings were made in the intertidal zone
behind both types of breakwaters and in a control
area but were successful only behind the floating
tire breakwater. Plant spacings of 45 cm and 90
cm were tested (the 45-cm spacing required four
times more plants). The 45-cm spacing had lower
plant survival but produced stands with greater
density. Fertilization of plantings did not
increase survival (Allen and Webb 1983).
CONTROLLED DIVERSION OF
RIVER FLOW
Preconstruction Considerations
The Mississippi River has historically
overflowed its banks, spread out through its
many distributaries, and added vast amounts of
freshwater and sediment to the Northcentral Gulf
Coast. This process was essential not only for
developing the spacious marshes of the region but
also for their maintenance. During the early
20th century, the Mississippi River was enclosed
with levees for flood protection, a process that
terminated the over bank flooding. Most
freshwater and sediment is now channeled down
the river and deposited in the Gulf of Mexico.
One-third of the flow is diverted into the
Atchafalaya River where it is actively building
new land in a growing delta (Cunningham 1981,
Roberts and van Heerden 1982). Diversion of a
portion of the flow of the Mississippi River into
adjacent marshes and estuaries has been
recommended as a procedure for marsh creation
and restoration (Gagliano et al. 1973).
Freshwater from the river would help offset
encroachment of salt water into the deltaic plain
marshes, enhance plant growth, and possibly
facilitate a seaward advancement of marsh type
boundaries. Diversion of sediment would
promote subdelta development and facilitate
vertical accretion of the marshes.
Critical Aspects of Prftjflflt T*lfUlff
Construction Considerations-
Small-scale freshwater diversion structures
have been installed at Bayou Lamoque and
Violet Canal. Even though the structures are
small and divert only 7 m3/sec., improvements
have been noted in wetlands in the immediate
area (Chatry and Chew 1985). Opening of the
Bonnet Carre Spillway for flood control on the
Mississippi River in 1973 and 1975 diverted
tremendous amounts of freshwater into Lake
Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne, and Mississippi
Sound. Changes of marsh types to less saline
conditions in marshes east and south of Lake
Borgne was attributed to that action (Chabreck
and Linscombe 1982). Operation of the Bonnet
Carre Spillway on a routine basis has been
recommended for improvement of fish .and
wildlife habitat in the region (Fruge and Ruelle
1980). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, is conducting studies to
determine the feasibility of large-scale controlled
diversion of freshwater from the Mississippi
River into nearby estuarine areas. The studies
have indicated that recommended fish and
wildlife habitat changes could be met 9 out of 10
years with strategically placed structures. This
would include a 300 m3/sec. diversion structure
in the vicinity of Davis Pond in the Barataria
Basin (west of the river) and a 187 m3/sec.
structure at Caernarvon in the Breton Sound
Basin (east of the river) (Chatry and Chew 1985).
Hydrology-
Freshwater diversion into an estuarine basin
will cause changes in salinity regimes and
enhance vegetation growth; however, some
concern has been expressed regarding other
impacts associated with water salinity changes.
Certain harvestable resources such as oysters
and brown shrimp become more accessible as
salt water encroaches into formerly freshwater
134
-------
or low salinity habitats closer to urban areas.
Unfortunately, industrial and domestic pollution
are also more severe in such areas and may
affect these resources (Chatry and Chew 1985).
Some concern has also been expressed about
the quality of Mississippi River water introduced
into estuarine systems and increased pollution
that may result. However, previous introductions
of Mississippi River water through the Bonnet
Carre Spillway have not resulted in increased
levels of contaminants (Pruge and Ruelle 1980).
Substrate-
Diversion of river flow can provide substrate
for marsh creation and restoration. Marshland
can be created by diverting river flow into
shallow embayments favorable to the
development of subdeltas. The effectiveness of
sediment in building new marshland by
subdelta formation is dependent upon water
depth, subsidence, compaction, sea-level rise,
flow regime, tidal currents, and wind. The
amount of water and sediment diverted is
important also, because there is a minimum
diversion below which sediment will not
accumulate but will be carried away by
longshore currents (Gagliano et al. 1973).
Important information regarding subdelta
development on the Mississippi River delta was
provided by studies of four major modern
subdeltas: Baptiste Collette, Cubits Gap, West
Bay, and Garden Island Bay. The growth rate
during active buildout ranged from 0.5 km2/yr
(Baptiste Collette) to 2.6 km2/yr (West Bay). The
average buildout rate for the four subdeltas was
1.8 km2/yr. The efficiency of sediment retention
ranged from about 50% to over 90% (average:
70%) (Gagliano et al. 1973). Marshes undergoing
deterioration because of salt water intrusion,
erosion, subsidence, and rising sea levels can be
restored by introducing freshwater and
sediment. Ponds in deteriorating coastal
wetlands gradually enlarge, and the marsh
occurs as islands of emergent vegetation.
Sedimentation gradually fills the ponds until the
substrate reaches an elevation suitable for growth
of emergent plants.
Establishment of Plant Communities-
Marshes created or restored by diversion of
river flow along the Northcentral Gulf Coast are
naturally colonized by plants. The species that
frequently become established on subdeltas are
those best suited for prevailing freshwater
conditions, such as S. platyphyllaT common
arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). American
bulrush (Scirpus americana). common cattail
(Typha latifolia), and P. australis. Marshes
restored by introduced river sediment are likely
to be colonized by brackish marsh plants such as
S. patens, S. olnevi, and narrowleaf cattail
(Tvpha anqustifolia).
MONITORING
Monitoring of marsh creation and
restoration projects should include site
characteristics, dredged material placement,
protective measures, plant establishment and
growth, wildlife use, and other site attributes.
Physical features of a site include climate,
geographical location and size, topography and
configuration, physical and chemical properties
of the supporting subsoil, hydrology, physical and
chemical properties of material to be dredged,
and land use. Biological features of a site
include plant communities in the area and
aquatic and terrestrial animals that use the site
or the surrounding area. Effective monitoring
requires a multi -disciplinary team, which should
include a wildlife biologist, fishery biologist,
botanist, soil scientist, engineer, and land-use
planner (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986).
Plant establishment should be given careful
consideration in the monitoring process because
the success of a marsh creation and restoration
project can be best measured by the plant
communities that the site ultimately supports.
Newling and Landin (1985) recommended two
levels of monitoring to evaluate the success of
plant establishment and the factors that affect
plant growth. The first level of monitoring
involves an annual, general reconnaissance of
all sites to provide qualitative information on
changes at sites that may require closer
evaluation such as excessive erosion or plant
mortality. Information for a general recon-
naissance of sites may be determined by
analysis of aerial photographs of the site.
The second level of monitoring should
be intensive sampling of sites to provide
quantitative data needed for research projects or
for analysis of sites presenting special problems.
Such monitoring requires sampling of plants
and soils and should be conducted on a random
basis along elevational gradients. Newling and
Landin (1985) sampled 0.5-m2 quadrats along
transects in elevational strata. Information
collected on individual plant species in plots
included number of stems, mean height, number
flowering, aboveground biomass, and total
belowground biomass. Soil samples were taken
in each quadrat to a depth of 25 cm and sectioned
135
-------
at 5-cm intervals. Each interval was tested for
particle size, volatile solids, percent moisture,
bulk density, pH, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and total organic carbon.
Survival data alone failed to provide
complete insight into the final results of
transplanting and subsequent plant growth. In
ideal marsh sites, transplants often produced
rapid growth and closed stands. However, the
rate of growth varied among species and plots,
and determining growth within and among
species was difficult. Photographing plots at
different time intervals was the best means of
conveying growth patterns without destroying
plots (Eleuterius 1974).
INFORMATIONNEEDS
The Northcentral Gulf Coast has the greatest
subsidence rates in the United States. Projected
subsidence for the next century in Louisiana is
from 60 to 90 cm and at Galveston, Texas, is 55
cm (Titus 1985). Subsidence rates for local areas
in the region will vary; consequently, more
precise information on individual localities is
needed when planning marsh creation and
restoration projects.
Diversion of vast amounts of Mississippi
River water is needed to restore existing marsh
that is rapidly deteriorating and being lost.
Much concern is expressed regarding the quality
of Mississippi River water and its impact in
areas receiving the flow. During river diversion
in recent years into Lake Pontchartrain and
Lake Borgne via the Bonnet Carre Spillway no
problems with water quality were reported. How-
ever, information is needed regarding possible
impacts on water quality if vast amounts of
Mississippi River water were diverted into
Bar atari a Bay and Breton Sound. Small
subdelta lobes can be created on the active delta
of the Mississippi River by diverting river flow
through openings in pass banks into shallow
ponds and embayments. However, information
is needed on the width and depth of openings and
the characteristics of receiving water bodies that
would maximize sediment accumulation and
subdelta development. Openings that are too
small may not carry enough material to be
effective, and openings too large may cause
erosion and channel formation in receiving
water bodies.
Although dredged material has been used
effectively for marsh creation, in some
situations it may serve a better purpose by
forming levees along canals to prevent salt
water intrusion into adjacent marshes and
excessive drainage of marshes. The best use of
dredged material will vary with the location of
the project and the amount of material available.
Also, maintenance dredging will continue to
produce additional material in the future for
marsh creation. Information is needed on the
best use of dredged material under various
salinity regimes and with different project sizes.
Sprigging of marsh plants on dredged
material to establish stands of vegetation is a
costly and time-consuming project. Direct
seeding is less costly and could be applied to
some sites rather than sprigging. Additional
research is needed on seeding characteristics of
marsh plants and procedures for establishment
of stands by direct seeding.
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, C.E., M.A. Broutman, and D.W. Field.
1986. An Inventory of Coastal Wetlands of the USA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.,
Washington, D.C.
Allen, H.H. and J.W. Webb. 1983. Erosion control with
salt marsh vegetation. Proc. Symp. on Coastal and
Ocean Manage. 3:735-748.
Allen, H.A., EJ. Clairain, Jr., R.J. Diaz, A.W. Ford,
J.L. Hunt, and B.R. Wells. 1978. Habitat
Development Field Investigations Bolivar
Peninsula, Marsh and Upland Habitat Development
Site, Galveston Bay, Texas (Summary Report). U.S.
Army Engineers, Waterways Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep.
D-78-15.
Chabreck, R.H. 1968. Weirs, plugs, and artificial
potholes for management of wildlife in coastal
marshes, p. 178-192. In J.D. Newsom (Ed.),
Proceeding of the Marsh and Estuary Management
Symposium, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.
Chabreck, R.H. 1970. Marsh Zones and Vegetative
Types in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Ph.D.
dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.
Chabreck, R.H. 1972. Vegetation, Water and Soil
Characteristics of the Louisiana Coastal Region.
Louisiana Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 664. Baton Rouge.
136
-------
Chabreck, R.H. 1980. Effects of marsh impoundments
on coastal fish and wildlife resources, p. 1-16. In
P.L. Fore and R.D. Peterson (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ecosystems Workshop. U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/30.
Chabreck, R.H. and R.G. Linscombe. 1982. Changes in
vegetative types in the Louisiana coastal marshes
over a 10-year period. Proc. Louisiana Acad. Sci.
4538-102.
Chapman, C.R. 1973. The impact of estuaries and
marshes on modifying tributary runoff, p. 235-258.
In RJH. Chabreck (Ed.), Proceedings cf the 2nd
Coastal Marsh and Estuary Management
Symposium, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.
Chatry, M. and D. Chew. 1985. Freshwater diversion in
coastal Louisiana: recommendations for
development of management criteria, p. 71-84. In
CJ1. Bryan, PJ. Zwank, and R.H. Chabreck (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 4th Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium. Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
Coleman, J.M. 1966. Recent coastal sedimentation:
Central Louisiana Coast. Coastal Studies Series No.
17, Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge.
Craig, NJ., RJE. Turner, and J.W. Day, Jr. 1979. Land
loss in coastal Louisiana (U.S.A.). Environ.
3132-144.
Crance, J.H. 1971. Description of Alabama Estuarine
Areas - Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine
Inventory. Alabama Dept. of Cons., Dauphin Island,
Alabama.
Cunningham, R. 1981. Atchafalaya delta: subaerial
development environmental implications and
resource potential, p. 349-365. In R.D. Cross and D.L.
Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries, Vol.
1. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-81-04.
Davidson, R.B. and R.H. Chabreck. 1983. Fish,
wildlife, and recreational values of brackish marsh
impoundments, p. 89-114. In R. J. Varnell (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Water Quality and Wetlands
Management Conference. Louisiana Environmental
Prof. Assoc., New Orleans.
Diener, R.A. 1975. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico
Estuarine Inventory and Study-Texas: Area
Description. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admin. Tech. Rep. NMFS, Circ. 393.
Eleuterius, I*N. 1973. The marshes of Mississippi, p.
147-190. In J.Y. Christmas (Ed.), Cooperative Gulf of
Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Mississippi.
Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
Eleuterius, L.N. 1974. A Study of Plant Establishment
on Dredge Spoil in Mississippi Sound and Adjacent
Waters. Gulf Coast Research Lab., Ocean Springs,
Mississippi.
Fruge, D.W. and R. Ruelle. 1980. A Planning-Aid
Report on the Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine
Study. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Lafayette,
Louisiana.
Gagliano, S.W., P. Light, and R.E. Becker. 1973.
Controlled Diversion in the Mississippi River Delta
System: An Approach to Environmental
Management. Louisiana State University Center for
Wetland Resources Rep. No. 8.
Gagliano, S.W., K.J. Meyer-Arendt, and K.M. Wicker.
1981. Land loss in the Mississippi deltaic plain.
Trans. Annu. Meeting Gulf Coast Geol. Soc.
31295-300.
Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979.
An Ecological Characterization Study of the Chenier
Plain Ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-78-9. Washington, D.C.
Gunter, G. 1967. Some relationships of estuaries to the
fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico, p. 621-638. In G.H.
Lauff (Ed.), Estuaries. Am. Assoc. for the
Advancement of Sci. Publ. No. 83, Washington, D.C.
Herke, W.H. 1979. Some effects of semi-impoundment
on coastal Louisiana fish and crustacean nursery
usage, p. 325-346. In J.W. Day, Jr., DD. Culley, Jr.,
R.E. Turner, and A.J. Mumphrey, Jr. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 3rd Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium. Louisiana State
University. Baton Rouge.
Landin, M.C. 1986. Wetland beneficial use
applications of dredged material disposal sites.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Wetlands
Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida 13:118-129.
Landin, M.C. and J.W. Webb. 1988. Wetland
development and restoration as part of Corps of
Engineers programs: case studies, p. 388. In J.A.
KusleY, M.L. Quammen and G. Brooks (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Wetlands Mitigation Symposium,
Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Assoc. of State
Wetland Mgrs., Berne, New York.
Larrick, W.J., Jr. and R.H. Chabreck. 1976. The
effects of weirs on aquatic vegetation along the
Louisiana coast. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc.
Game and Fish Comm. 30:581-589.
Linscombe, G. and N. Kinler. 1985. Fur harvest
distribution in coastal Louisiana, p. 187-199. In C.F.
Bryan, P.J. Zwank, and R.H. Chabreck (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 4th Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
McNease, L. and T. Joanen. 1978. Distribution and
relative abundance of the alligator in Louisiana
coastal marshes. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast.
ASSQC. Game and Fish Comm. 32J.82-186.
Manner, HA. 1954. Tides and sea level in the Gulf of
Mexico, p. 101-118. In P.S. Galtsoff (Ed.), Gulf of
Mexico: Its Origin, Waters, and Marine Life. U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. Fishery Bull. 89.
Washington, D.C.
Newling, CJ. and M.C. Landin. 1985. Long-term
Monitoring of Habitat Development at Upland and
Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites, 1974-1982.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Tech. Rep. D-85-5.
137
-------
Palmisano, A.W. 1973. Habitat preferences of
waterfowl and fur animals in the northern Gulf
coast marshes, p. 163-190. In E.H. Chabreck (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 2nd Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium. Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
Penfound, W.T. and E.S. Hathaway. 1938. Plant
communities in the marshland of southeastern
Louisiana. Ecol. Monogr. 8:1-56.
Roberts, HH. and I.L. van Heerden. 1982. Reversal of
coastal erosion by rapid sedimentation: the
Atchafalaya delta (south-central Louisiana), p.
214-231. In DJ1. Boesch (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Conference on Coastal Erosion and Modification in
Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options. U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82-59.
Rogers, B.D., WJL Herke, and EJE. Knudsen. 1987.
Investigation of a Weir-Design Alternative for
Coastal Fisheries Benefit. Louisiana State
University Agric. Center, Baton Rouge.
Russell, RJ. 1942. Flotant. Geogr. Rev. 32:74-98.
Russell, RJ. and H.V. Howe. 1935. Cheniers of
southwestern Louisiana. Geogr. Rev. 25:449-461.
Spiller, SJ. and R.H. Chabreck. 1975. Wildlife
populations in coastal marshes influenced by weirs.
Pnv Anny1 <^nnf- Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish
CoTTOV 29:518-525.
Stout, JJ>. 1984. The Ecology of Irregularly Flooded
Salt Marshes of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 85(71).
Titus, J.G. 1985. How to Estimate Future Sea Level
Rise in Particular Communities. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. EM1110-2-6026, Office, Chief of
Engineers. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1984.
Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation. U.S. Gov.
Printing Off., Washington, D.C.
Webb, J.W., M.C. Landin, and H.H. Allen. 1988.
Approaches and techniques for wetland development
and restoration of dredged material disposal sites, p.
132. In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks
(Eds.), Proceedings of a National Wetland
Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts and Losses,
Assoc. of State Wetland Mgrs., Berne, New York.
West, R.C. 1977. Tidal salt marsh and mangal
formations of Middle and South America, p. 193-213.
In V.J. Chapman (Ed.), Ecosystems of the World, I:
Wet Coastal Ecosystems. Elsevier Scientific Publ.
Co., New York.
138
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READINGS
Allen, H.H., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.J. Diaz, A.W. Ford,
J.L. Hunt, and B.R. Wells, 1978. Habitat
Development Field . Investigations Bolivar
Peninsula, Marsh and Upland Habitat Development
Site, Galveston Bay, Texas (Summary Report). U.S.
Army Engineers, Waterways Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep.
D-78-15.
Field investigations were conducted at Bolivar
Peninsula, Galveston Bay, Texas, to test the feasibility
and impact of developing marsh on dredged material.
The investigation provided baseline information
before habitat development and evaluated post-
development operations. S. altcrniflora and S. patena
were used to evaluate fertilizer treatments and
planting methods. Wildlife use of habitat developed
was compared with adjacent control areas.
Allen, H.H., S.O. Shirley, and J.W. Webb. 1986.
Vegetative stabilization of dredged material in
moderate to high wave-energy environments for
created wetlands, p. 19-35. In Proc, Annu. Conf. on
Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Tests were conducted for protecting plantings of &
alterniflora by using four protection techniques
including large sandbags, tire breakwaters with plants
wrapped in long burlap rolls, and plants sprigged into
a woven mat and then laid and anchored to the
substrate. Tests were conducted at dredge disposal
sites in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound in
Alabama, Southwest Pass on the Mississippi River
Delta in Louisiana, and Galveston Bay in Texas.
Allen, H.H., J.W. Webb, and S.O. Shirley. 1984.
Wetlands development in moderate wave-energy
climates, p. 943-955. In Proc. of the Conf. Dredging
'84. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division
ASCE. Clearwater Beach, Florida.
S. alterniflora was planted on Theodore Island in
Mobile Bay, Alabama, to provide shoreline
stabilization. Establishment of plantings was more
successful along shorelines where protection
techniques involving breakwaters were used.
Chatry, M. and D. Chew. 1985. Freshwater diversion in
coastal Louisiana: recommendations for
development of management criteria, p. 71-84. In
CJ1. Bryan, PJ. Zwank, and RJL Chabreck (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 4th Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium. Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
Controlled diversion of Mississippi River water into
estuarine areas of southeastern Louisiana is planned
to enhance vegetative growth, reduce land loss, and
increase production of fish and wildlife by
establishing favorable salinity conditions. Priorities
must be established for estuarine basins to be affected
and resources to be managed by the program. Pre- and
post-operational monitoring of environmental
conditions will be necessary to identify optimum
salinities and develop operational plans for achieving
optimum salinities.
Cunningham, R. 1981. Atchafalaya delta: subaerial
development environment implications and resource
potential, p. 349-365. In R.D. Cross and D.L.
Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries, Vol.
1. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-81-04.
Approximately 30% of the Mississippi River flow has
been diverted down the Atchafalaya River since 1963.
Sedimentation has filled many lakes in the
Atchafalaya Basin, and record flooding from 1973 to
1975 created 32 km2 of new land by sedimentation in
Atchafalaya Bay.
Eleuterius, L.N. 1974. A Study of Plant Establishment
on Dredge Spoil in Mississippi Sound and Adjacent
Waters. Gulf Coast Research Lab., Ocean Springs,
Mississippi.
Species characteristics and transplanting techniques
were evaluated for establishment of submerged
aquatics on dredge spoil and barren sea bottoms and
emergent vascular plants on dredge spoil and dunes.
Successful establishment of plant cover was largely
affected by conditions at the planting site.
Fruge, D.W. and R. Ruelle. 1980. A Planning Aid
Report on the Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine
Area Study. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Lafayette,
Louisiana.
The value of fish and wildlife resources and factors
affecting their abundance in coastal areas of
southeastern Louisiana and Mississippi are discussed.
The impacts of freshwater introduction from the
Mississippi River into estuarine systems and
procedures for minimizing adverse impacts are
described.
Gagliano, S.M., P. Light, and R.E. Becker. 1973.
Controlled diversion in the Mississippi River Delta
System: An Approach to Environmental
Management. Louisiana State University Center for
Wetland Resources Rep. No. 8.
Diversion of Mississippi River water along lower
reaches for subdelta deposition would be capable of
creating 32 km2 of new marshland per year.
Freshwater introduced at the upper end of
interdistributary estuarine systems could be used to
offset salt water intrusion and introduce nutrients.
Kruczynski, W.L. 1982. Salt marshes of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico, p. 71-87. In R.R. Lewis,
Id (Ed.), Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant
Communities. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
139
-------
The characteristics of marsh along the coastal
regions of Alabama and Mississippi are discussed,
and studies on establishment of marsh communities
on dredge spoil in the area are summarized.
Landin, M.C. 1986. The success story of Gaillard
Island, a Corps confined disposal facility. Proc. of
the Dredging Seminar and Western Dredging
Assoc. Conf., Baltimore, Maryland. 19:41-54.
Gaillard Island, a 626-ha confined disposal facility
in Mobile Bay, was monitored to determine plant
colonization and wildlife use. The island is an
important nesting site for seabirds. Aquatic habitat in
the island's interior is used by waterfowl and
shorebirds. Shorelines were stabilized by planting g»
alterniflora and using erosion control fabrics.
Landin, M.C. and J.W. Webb. 1988. Wetland
development and restoration as part of Corps of
Engineers programs: case studies, p. 388. In J-A.
Kusler, M.L. Quammen and G. Brooks (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Wetlands Mitigation Symposium,
Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Assoc. of State
Wetland Mgrs., Berne, New York.
Marsh creation programs at selected dredged
material disposal sites were described including
Bolivar Peninsula, Chocolate Bay, Stedman Island,
and East Matagorda Bay in Texas.
Morton, R.A. 1982. Effects of coastal structures on
shoreline stabilization and land loss—the Texas
experience, p. 177-186. In D.F. Boesch (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Conference of Coastal Erosion
and Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes,
consequences, and Options. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv. FWS/OBS-82-59.
Seawalls and bulkheads constructed for shoreline
protection may not always be successful and in some
instances may increase erosion of adjacent property.
Costs for structures may exceed the value of land being
protected.
Newling, C.J. and M.C. Landin. 1985. Long-term
Monitoring of Habitat Development at Upland and
Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites 1974-1982.
U.S. Army Engineers Waterway Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep.
D-85-5.
Wetland habitat development projects were
monitored at six dredged material disposal sites. After
8 years, all sites have developed and stabilized and are
considered highly successful. No maintenance has
been performed, and wildlife use exceeds that
occurring in nearby control areas.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. EM1110-2-6026. Washington,
D.C.
Techniques and engineering procedures for creation
and restoration of marsh and aquatic habitat on
dredged material disposal sites are described, plus
other beneficial uses of dredged material. Includes
information on species propagation and planting, site
selection, site design, soil problems, monitoring,
contaminants, and legal and other considerations.
Webb, J.W., Jr. 1982. Salt marshes of the western Gulf
of Mexico, p. 89-109. In RJR. Lewis (Ed.), Creation
and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC
Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
The characteristics of marsh along the Louisiana
and Texas coasts are described. Specific projects
involving marsh creation and restoration are
reviewed, and recommended techniques for planting
dredged material disposal sites are discussed.
140
-------
APPENDIX It PROJECT PROFILES
GAILLARD ISLAND, ALABAMA
Wetland Type: Diked, confined dredged material
disposal facility.
Location: Lower Mobile Bay.
Size: 526 ha.
Goals of Project:
The site was built in 1981 and is used for disposal
of material from maintenance dredging. Salt marsh
habitat has been developed in a portion of the area. A
324-ha containment pond is used by local crabbers and
fishermen. The entire site provides diverse habitat for
fish and wildlife, and over 25,000 sea and wading
birds nest on the island.
Significance:
Dike erosion and subsidence problems have
necessitated stabilization efforts. Because of severe
wave erosion, various techniques such as floating-tire
breakwaters, plant rolls, and erosion control mats
were employed to facilitate plant establishment for
erosion control. A long-term management plan
incorporating environmental and engineering
strategies is being developed for the island.
Contact Mary C. Landin
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
BOLIVAR PENINSULA, TEXAS
Wetland Type: Salt marsh.
Location: Bolivar Peninsula in lower Galveston Bay,
Texas.
Size: 8 ha.
Goals of Project:
Sandy dredged material was hydraulically placed
along the shoreline to create salt marsh habitat in 1974
and 1981. The project site in 1974 was graded and
fenced, and a sandbag dike was constructed in the
intertidal zone to provide protection from wave energy.
The site was planted with S. alterniflora and {j.
patens. The 1981 site was stabilized with erosion
control biostabilization techniques.
Significance:
Plantings became well established in the
intertidal zone and at higher elevations and
demonstrated that vegetation could be used to stabilize
sandy dredged material. The site withstood a direct hit
from Hurricane Alicia in 1983. Research will continue
through 1990.
Contact Hollia H. Allen, Mary C. Landin,
or James W. Webb
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
SOUTHWEST PASS, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Delta marsh.
Location: Active delta of the Mississippi River.
Size: 445 ha when completed (depends upon channel
sediments to be removed; area created may actually be
larger).
Goals of Project:
Dredged material from the Southwest Pass
shipping channel is being pumped over the west levee
and allowed to colonize naturally with marsh and
aquatic plants. Along the east bank, a floating-tire
breakwater and a fixed breakwater were constructed
and dredged material was planted with S. alterniflora.
The east bank has direct exposure to the Gulf of
Mexico.
Significance:
The east bank site was monitored after planting
in May 1985. Sediment accumulated rapidly behind
each breakwater and unprotected shores eroded.
Sediment accumulation was so rapid that plantings
were covered and had to be replanted in July. Three
separate hurricanes struck the site in late summer and
fall of 1985 and completely destroyed all breakwaters.
Vegetation colonization is rapidly occurring on the
west bank and is still being monitored. Large
quantities of material is placed there on a nearly
continuous basis, and the head of the discharge pipe is
moved as needed to keep the material at an intertidal
elevation.
Contact: Mary C. Landin or Hollis H. Allen
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
COFFEE ISLAND, ALABAMA
Wetland Type: Salt marsh.
Location: Mississippi Sound about 16 km south of
Bayou La Batre, Alabama.
Size: Unknown but relatively small.
Goals of Project:
Dredged material was placed along the east face of
Coffee Island to protect an existing salt marsh from
wave energy. The dredged material was planted with
S. alterniflora for stabilization.
Significance:
Plant rolls were placed end to end and seaward of
141
-------
transplants and stabilized the exposed dredged
material face. After 2 years, the site was accreting
sediment and protecting the island and salt marsh
from further erosion.
Contact: Hollis H. Allen
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station
Vicksburg,MS 39180
STEDMAN ISLAND, TEXAS
Wetland Type: Salt marsh.
Location: Stedman Island in Aransas Bay, Texas.
Size: 5 ha.
Goals of Project:
A dredged material spillover adjacent to a
disposal site was planted with S. altern iflora to create
salt marsh habitat.
Significance;
After 2 years, 95% of the site was covered with
vegetation. However, after 39 months, plants began to
die at lower elevations, and no growth was noted the
following year. At higher sites, all plants appeared
healthy. Possible causes for death of plants were high
salinity, sulflde concentrations, inadequate aeration,
nitrogen limitations, chemical pollution, or
combinations of these factors.
Contact: James W. Webb or Mary C. Landin
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station
Vicksburg,MS 39180
TENNECO MANAGEMENT UNIT,
LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Fresh to brackish marsh.
Location: Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
Size: 2Ł00ha.
Goal of Project:
The project will reintroduce freshwater and
sediment flow, improve water circulation, and reduce
saltwater intrusion through a structural water
management plan.
Significance:
This project is part of a mitigation bank designed
to enhance fish and wildlife habitat in an area of
coastal marsh that is rapidly deteriorating because of
salt water intrusion.
Contact: David M. Soileau
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lafayette, LA 70502
LAKE BORGNE CANAL FRESHWATER
DIVERSION, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
Location: Lake Borgne Canal and Mississippi River
at Violet, Louisiana.
Size: 8,000 ha.
Goals of Project:
To introduce freshwater from the Mississippi River
through two 125-cm pipes that will siphon water over the
protection levee of the river and discharge it into the
Lake Borgne Canal.
Significance:
Flood protection levees along the Mississippi River
prevent traditional flow of river water into adjacent
marshes. As a result, salt water intrusion is causing a
gradual deterioration of the marshes and increasing
erosion rates. Introduction of freshwater from the river
will help offset this process.
Contact: Sherwood M. Gagliano
Coastal Environments, Inc.
Baton Rouge, LA
CALCASIEU LAKE SHORELINE EROSION
CONTROL, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
Location: Southeastern shore of Calcasieu Lake,
Louisiana.
Size: Test plantings were made along the shoreline.
Goals of Project:
Experimental plantings of S. alterniflora were
made along the shoreline of Calcasieu Lake in an
attempt to find a vegetative means of reducing
shoreline erosion. The shoreline of the lake is
currently eroding at a rate of 3 m/yr.
Significance:
S. alterniflora will protect shorelines where the
species can be successfully transplanted. Test
plantings should be made to determine site suitability.
Where the site is suitable, single-stemmed plants
should be placed 60 cm apart in rows and fertilized
with a time-release fertilizer tablet.
Contact: Jack R. Cutshall
Soil Conservation Service
Alexandria, LA
BACKFILLING AND PLUGGING OF
CANALS, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
142
-------
Location: Vermilion Parish, Louisiana about 13 km
south of Delcambre.
Size: Canal about 180 m long and 12 m wide.
Goals of Project:
To partially restore marsh sites where access
canals have been dredged to reach oil and gas drilling
locations. Abandoned sites are partially restored by
returning the spoil to the canal and placing a plug or
dam across the canal entrance.
Significance:
Success of restoration depends upon maintenance
of a well constructed dam across the entrance to the
canal. Also, extreme care must be used in replacing
the spoil so that excessive amounts of material are not
removed from the shoreline, thus farming a depression
or basin. Spoil deposits are insufficient to refill the
canal, but aquatic plants often invade the site because
of reduced depth. Emergent plants will revegetate the
former spoil disposal site.
Contact: Donald Moore
National Marine Fisheries Service
Galveston, TX
REVEGETATTON OF PIPELINE SITE,
LOUISIANA AND TEXAS
Wetland Type: Brackish and salt marsh.
Location: East (Louisiana) and west (Texas) of Sabine
Pass near the mouth of the Sabine River.
Size: Pipeline about 13 km long.
Goals of Project:
To evaluate revegetation rate of pipeline
construction site where single ditching and double
ditching were employed and to determine if
transplanting facilitated recovery of the site.
Significance:
Double ditching involved refilling the pipeline
ditch with spoil in the order removed so that the topsail
was replaced last. Double ditched sites became
revegetated faster than sites single ditched where spoil
was mixed. Transplanting S. alterniflora. S. oatena.
and D. apicata did not increase revegetation ratea.
Contact: Robert H. Chabreck
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
MILLER LAKE WEIR, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
Location: Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, Cameron
Parish, Louisiana.
Size: Weirs provide water management in an area of
about 1,200 ha of marsh.
Goals of Project:
Two weirs were constructed in drainage outlets of
the marsh to stabilize water levels, prevent drastic
water salinity changes, and improve the area as
habitat for waterfowl.
Significance:
Weirs prevent excessive drainage of marshes
during low tides and maintain a basin of water which
junctions to dilute highly saline tidewater that enters
the area. During certain low tides in winter, as much
as 80% of the marsh ponds are drained.
Contact; Ted Joanen
Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries
Grand Chenier, LA 70643
BIRD ISLAND WEIR, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
Location: Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, Iberia
Parish, Louisiana.
Size: This weir provides water management on an
area of about 1,600 ha of marsh.
Goals of Project:
The weir stabilizes water levels and salinities in
the marsh and aquatic habitats affected and improves
the area as winter habitat for migratory waterfowl.
Significance:
The weir reduces the rate of tidal exchange in the
marsh and stabilizes water levels. Production of
aquatic vegetation in marsh ponds and lakes
controlled by the weir was three times greater than in
nearby free-flowing systems. Aquatic plants are an
important food source for wintering ducks, and duck
use was significantly greater in areas affected by
weirs.
Contact: Greg Linscombe
Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries
New Iberia, LA
FRESHWATER DIVERSION FROM
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, LOUISIANA
Wetland Types: Coastal marshes and estuaries of the
Deltaic Plain.
Location: Freshwater diversion sites are proposed for
the Barataria Bay and Breton Sound basins.
143
-------
Size: The area to be affected by the proposed project
includes the vast basins on both sides of the Mississippi
River south of New Orleans.
Goals of Project:
The project is described by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New Orleans District, as the Louisiana
Coastal Area Study and is designed primarily as a
salinity management program. The project would
restore and enhance vast areas of coastal marshland
that is rapidly deteriorating because of salt water
intrusion.
Significance:
Land loss in the Louisiana coastal marshes is
estimated to be 100 kmZ/yr, and the proposed project
area is undergoing greatest losses. Freshwater
introduction into the basins would be designed to
reestablish historical zonations of salinity patterns to
maximize plant growth and enhance fish and wildlife
productivity.
Contact: Dennis Chew
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District
New Orleans, LA 70160
ROCKEFELLER REFUGE
IMPOUNDMENTS, LOUISIANA
Wetland Types: Intermediate and brackish marsh.
Location: Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, Cameron
Parish, Louisiana.
Size: Includes 10 separate impoundments ranging in
size from 160 to 1,600 ha.
Goals of Project:
The impoundments provide water management
systems for regulating water depths and salinity to
produce desired plant communities and improve
habitat for waterfowl. Impoundments are managed as
fresh- and brackish-water units. Some units are
permanently flooded, and in others water levels are
manipulated to produce annual grasses and sedges.
Significance;
Impoundments provide the most effective means of
enhancing wildlife habitat in coastal marshes.
Approximately one-half of the refuge is under
impoundment management, and approximately 80% of
the waterfowl on the refuge occur within the
impoundments.
Contact: Ted Joanen
Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries
Grand Chenier, LA 70643
LACASSINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE IMPOUNDMENT, LOUISIANA
Wetland. Type: Freshwater marsh.
Location: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge,
Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
Size: Approximately 8,000 ha.
Goals of Project:
To provide resting and feeding habitat and a
sanctuary for migratory waterfowl in a vast
agricultural region heavily utilized by the birds.
Significance:
The impoundment is managed as a permanently
flooded freshwater basin with water depth ranging
from 30 to 90 cm. Waterfowl habitat within the
impoundment is greatly superior to that of adjacent
natural marsh. The impoundment also produces an
abundance of freshwater fishes and alligators and
attracts various types of birds in addition to waterfowl.
Contact: Bobby Brown
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Arthur, LA
SHORELINE AND BARRIER ISLAND
RESTORATION, LOUISIANA
Wetland Type: Beaches and barrier islands.
Location: Southeastern Louisiana.
Size: Barrier islands that have been or will be included
are Grand Isle, East Timbalier Island, Timbalier
Island, and Isles Dernieres.
Goals of Project:
Restoration planned is to raise the average barrier
island elevation by sand dredging, rebuild back-
barrier marshes, and revegetate the sites. These
projects will reduce erosion of barrier islands and
reduce destruction by hurricanes.
Beach restoration at Grand Isle was successful in
reducing the erosion experienced by other beaches and
barrier islands in the vicinity when struck by 3
hurricanes during 1985. Barrier islands offer the first
line of defense in protecting coastal marshes and
communities from the destructive forces of hurricanes.
Contact: Shea Penland
Louisiana Geological Survey
Baton Rouge, LA
144
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Joseph K. Shisler
Environmental Connection, Inc.
ABSTRACT. The wetlands of the coastal zone of the northeast have been managed since the
colonization of the United States. Restoration work associated with mitigation of impacts has been
going on in the region for over twenty years. Despite this history, there has not been an extensive
evaluation of these projects to determine their success and how they function.
The mitigation process should be directed towards a management approach that is concerned
with the total system instead of just the "vegetated" wetland. Goals should be based upon a
wetland system's requirements within a watershed or region. The use of adjacent wetlands as
models is critical in this process. Monitoring the created or restored wetlands can provide an
important database which can be used in planning future projects. Goals, clearly defined in the
design process, will promote meaningful evaluations.
REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The geographical area discussed in this chapter
covers Maine to northeastern Virginia and includes
the Acadian and Virginian provinces defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979). The Acadian Province
extends from Avalon Peninsula to Cape Cod and is
dominated by boreal biota. This province contains a
heavily indented and frequently rocky shoreline
influenced by a large tide range. The Virginian
Province is the transition zone between the Acadian
and Carolinian provinces and is dominated by
temporal species and moderate tide ranges. The
coastal region exhibits pronounced seasonal
temperature fluctuations. Extreme variations in
seawater temperature, which is warmest in August
through September and coolest in December to
March, are among the greatest in the world
(Sanders 1968).
Cooper (1974) defined two of the major wetland
groups associated with the region, the New England
and Atlantic coastal wetlands. The Atlantic coastal
wetlands are built upon sands of the outer coastal
plain, while the substrate of New England wetlands
is glacial till with rocks. Coastal wetland systems
become smaller and isolated north of Boston
compared to the more expansive wetland systems of
the Chesapeake and Delaware estuaries. Annual
climatic changes, a major factor of the north, have
impacted the wetlands in the form of ice (Teal
1986). Alexander et al. (1986) have indicated that
there are over 17 million acres of coastal wetlands
in this region (Table 1).
TYPES OF WETLANDS
A number of factors determine the types of
wetlands and their locations. Penfound (1952)
identifies the most important physical factors as:
(1) water depth; (2) fluctuation of water levels; (3)
soil moisture; and (4) salinity. Frey and Basan
(1978) present a detailed list of reasons for the
differences in coastal marshes, including: (1)
character and diversity of the indigenous flora; (2)
effects of climatic, hydrographic, and edaphic
factors upon this flora; (3) availability, composition,
mode of deposition, and compaction of sediments,
both organic and inorganic; (4) organism-substrate
interrelationships, including burrowing animals
and their prowess plant in affecting marsh growth;
(5) topography and aerial extent of the depositional
surface; (6) range of tides; (7) wave and current
energy; and (8) tectonic and eustatic stability of the
coastal area. Tiner (1985a, 1985b) also summarizes
the role of all these factors affecting coastal
wetlands. These and other factors (e.g., location,
size, vegetation sources, problem species,
maintenance, and economics) are major
considerations in the development of functioning
wetland systems.
Recent publications have addressed the various
types of northeastern coastal wetlands and their
functions (e.g., Hill and Shearin 1979, Nixon and
Oviatt 1973, Niering and Warren 1980, McCormick
and Somes 1982, Simpson et al. 1983a, Nixon 1982,
Daiber 1982,1986, Odum et al. 1984, Mitsch and
Gosselink 1986, Teal 1986, Tiner 1985a, 1985b).
These wetlands have been some of the most
intensively studied systems in the United States,
but many of their complex functions and the
impacts of human encroachment still have not been
fully explored. Less research associated with
wetland creation and restoration has been
conducted in the northeast as compared to the mid-
Atlantic, Florida, Gulf, and Pacific coasts. How-
145
-------
Table 1. Coastal Wetlands of the Northeast.
Wetland Acres (x 1000 acres)
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
Totals
Salt
Marsh
166
75
481
79
166
267
2,174
781
1,636
1,523
7,348
Fresh
Water
257
N/A
151
0
N/A
34
217
71
256
200
1.194
Tidal
Flats
583
N/A
415
0
N/A
N/A
486
113
18
N/A
1,615
Swamp
250
N/A
249
571
N/A
N/A
4,723
1,234
194
N/A
7,221
Total
Acreage
1,256
75
1,296
650
166
301
7,600
2,199
2,104
1,723
17,378
Source: Alexander et al. 1986
146
-------
ever, the northeast possibly has the greatest
concentration of restoration and creation sites in
the United States.
ESTUARINE WETLANDS
Coastal wetlands are primarily limited by the
influences of tide and salinity. In relation to
salinity, they can be subdivided into: (1) polyhaline-
-strongly saline areas [18-30 parts per thousand
(ppt)], (2) mesohaline-moderate salinity areas (5-18
ppt), and (3) oligohaline--slightly brackish areas
(0.5-5 ppt) (Figure 1) (Cowardin et al. 1979). The
diversity of vegetation species increases with a
decrease in salinity. Major estuarine wetland types
are: (1) intertidal flats, (2) emergent wetlands, and
(3) scrub-shrub wetlands (Tiner 1985a, 1985b).
SALT MARSHES
Salt marshes are emergent wetlands located in
the polyhaline zone of the estuary. Tidal
inundation results in the formation of two major
vegetation zonations, high and low marsh. The low
marsh area is located between mean low water
(MLW) and mean high water (MHW) and is
dominated by tall form Spartina alterniflora
throughout the region (Figure 2). McCormick and
Somes (1982) describe a short growth form of Ł.
alterniflora as a saline low marsh type in MarylandL
Recently, Kennard et al. (1983) has shown that the
tall form S. alterniflora is an accurate indicator for
the landward extent of mean high tide. There is an
increase in the number of species associated with
the salt marsh systems towards the southern limits
of the region. Species such as Spartina
cynosuroides. Juncus roemerianus and Scirpus
robustus often become dominant species associated
with the wetland systems south of Delaware.
In the northern section of the region, the high
marsh is dominated by short form S. alterniflora
and S. patens, but other species associated with the
high marsh area include Distichlis spicata and
Juncus perardii. There is an increase in the
number of vegetation species towards the ecotonal
edge (Nixon 1982). Miller and Egler (1950)
identified some 150 species in the Wequetequock-
Pawcatuck marshes in Connecticut. In many
marshes, these vegetation species form a complex
mosaic, rather than distinct zones, as a result of
minor elevational changes. In the southern section
of the region, McCormick and Somes (1982) identify
three major dominants in saline high marshes in
Maryland as, Spartina patens/Distichlis spicata. Ivg
frutescens/Baccharis halimifolia. and Juncus
roemerianus.
The alteration of marshes for mosquito control
and other reasons increases the diversity of the
marsh. Iva frutescens. Panicum virgatum.
Baccharis halimifolia. and Phragmites australis.
have colonized dredged material associated with
alterations of the marsh (Miller and Egler 1950).
The development of the open marsh water
management technique has minimized changes in
vegetation associations and increased standing
crops of certain species (Shisler and Jobbins 1977,
Meredith and Saveikis 1987).
Pools and pannes are associated with the high
marsh areas (Figure 2). Pools vary in depth and
may be devoid of vegetation or vegetated by Ruppia
maritima. Pannes are slight depressions in the
high marsh that may or may not be vegetated as a
result of extreme temperatures and/or salinity.
Plant species, such as Salicornia bigelovii or S.
virginica. may be associated with these depressions.
Tidal range affects the percentage of high and
low marsh (Provost 1973) and the growth of S^
alterniflora (Odum 1974, Shisler and Charette
1984a). Tides in the region range from shallow
wind blown tides in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey to
tidal ranges of over 8 meters along the coast of
Maine.
BRACKISH WATER WETLANDS
Brackish wetlands are located in the
mesohaline zone (5 to 18 ppt) associated with
estuarine systems that are seasonally exposed to a
wide range of salinities. The increased run-off in
the spring decreases salinity, while low flow in the
late summer increases the salinity. Salinity
oscillation creates the transitional zone between the
fresh water and estuarine systems. Larger wetland
systems are found in the southern sections of the
region due to the more gentle topography. Tiner
(1985a) identifies four major plant communities in
New Jersey brackish marshes: (1) Typha
angustifolia: (2) Spartina cvnosuroides: (3)
Phragmites australis; and (4) Scirpus americanus.
In Maryland, McCormick and Somes (1982) define
ten types of emergent wetland vegetation
associations: (1) Spartina alterniflora: (2) ŁL
3/Distichlis spicata; (3) Iva
frutescens/Baccharis halimifolia: (4) Juncus
roemerianus: (5) Typha spp.: (6) Hibiscus spp.: (7)
Panicum virgatum: (8) Scirpus spp.: (9) Spartina
cvnosuroides: and (10) Phragmites australis. Brack-
ish water marshes comprise 58% of the tidal
wetlands in Maryland (McCormick and Somes
1982).
OLIGOHALINE WETLANDS
The zone between mesohaline and oligohaline
is exposed to a minimum amount of salt (5.0 to 0.5
ppt). These systems contain the highest diversity of
all the estuarine wetlands as a result of their
location on the upper periphery of the salinity
continuum (Tiner 1985a, 1985b).
ESTUARINE SCRUB-SHRUB WETLANDS
Scrub-shrub wetlands are located along the
ecotonal edge of the uplands. They are not
147
-------
AVERAGE ANNUAL
SALINITY
MARSH TYPE
LIMIT OF
TIDAL INFLUENCE
< 3OO ppt
NON-TIDAL
FRESHWATER
- T (DURING
LOW
TIDAL FLOW
FRESHWATER | CONDITIONS)
I
I
OLIGOHAUNE
MESOHAUNE
POLYHALINE
E
S
T
U
A
R
Y
EUHALINE
(MARINE)
Figure 1. The average annual salinity within the major tidal wetland types (from Odum et al. 1984, based
on terminology from Cowardin et al. 1979).
148
-------
MARJH ITLAND
•ORDER
LTKR
MICH MARSH
lOWlRIIK.HWARSII
Etltnss
* idf eon Crass
Smooth Cordfran
GUsiworts
Su-Bblci
M
-------
extensive systems throughout the region, but
become more extensive towards the southern areas
of the region where they are dominated by L.
frutescens and B. halimifolia. In oligohaline areas
of Delaware and Maryland, Mvrica cerifera may
form a shrub thicket at the transition zone between
oligohaline tidal marshes and the freshwater tidal
swamps (finer pers. comm.).
TIDAL FRESH WATER WETLANDS
Odum et al. (1984) characterize tidal
freshwater wetlands as: (1) near freshwater
conditions (average annual salinity is less than 0.5
ppt); (2) plant and animal communities dominated
by freshwater species; and (3) a daily, lunar tidal
fluctuation. These wetlands are located in large
coastal rivers (Figure 3). The wetlands are
vegetated by a diverse group of: (1) broad-leaved
plants (Nuphar advena. Pontederia cor data.
Peltandra virginical: (2) herbaceous annuals
(Polygonum spp., Bidens laevia. Impatiena capensia.
Ambrosia trifida. Amaranthus cflT^flb, jniigV (3)
annual and perennial sedges, rushes and grasses
(Zizania aouatica. Spartina cvnosuroides. Scirpus
spp., Eleocharia spp.. Cyperus spp., Carex spp.);
and (4) grasslike plants or shrub-form herbs
(Acorua calamus, Tvpha spp., Hibiscus moscheutos.
SioTn suave); and (5) hydrophytic shrubs
(Cephalanthus occidentals. Mvrica cerifera. Rosa
palustris. Salix spp., Cornua amomum ) (Figure 4)
(Odum et al. 1984, Tiner 19&7). As with estuarine
systems, two vegetation zones may be recognizable.
These high and low marshes are defined by
elevation and frequency of flooding. There is also
an increase in the number of species towards the
southern limits of the region where these wetlands
become more extensive.
Odum et al. (1984) summarize data associated
with mid-Atlantic tidal freshwater marshes and
indicate that these marshes may be categorized as
follows: (1) eutrophic or hyper-eutrophic; (2)
contain high levels of suspended sediments; and (3)
may have depressed oxygen concentrations during
the summer.
EXTENT OF TIDAL WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION
Wetlands associated with the coastal zone have
been managed since the colonization of the United
States, especially in the northeast Beeftink (1977)
presents seven pressures associated with human
activities: (1) animal husbandry; (2) strip or open
cast mining; (3) land reclamation and improvement
for agriculture; (4) pollution; (5) recreation; (6)
establishment of industrial and urban sites; and (7)
scientific and field studies. Dai her (1986) adds
another four activities: (1) insect control; (2)
wildlife management; (3) waste disposal; and (4)
marsh rehabilitation. Another major impact has
been associated with port and harbor development
and maintenance. These various activities and
their history provide a database that can be utilized
in developing methods of creating and restoring
wetland ecosystems. Many of these activities have
had definite goals that can be evaluated as to their
effectiveness. In the past, mitigation projects have
not had specific goals or objectives, therefore the
evaluation of their effectiveness is questionable
(Quammen 1986, Shisler and Charette I984a). A
recommendation for future mitigation projects by a
number of researchers has been that they contain
definite goals so that they can be properly
evaluated (Charette et al. 1985).
The management of wetland systems is a
complex issue that has to be based on a number of
parameters to determine the goals and objectives of
the plan. For example, natural salt marshes are
usually low in avian diversity and biomass, while
impoundments (both low and high level) can often
produce high biomass and diversity values (Burger
et al. 1982, Daiber 1982,1986). The alteration of a
Phragmites austrah's or salt hay (a mixture of high
marsh plants species) impounded wetland into a
Spartina alterniflora marsh is also an objective that
creates major changes in its use by a number of
species. Once the purpose(s) of a project has been
identified, the management strategy can be directed
towards that goal. Goals should be based upon a
wetland system's requirements within a watershed
or region.
Historically, a major focus of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and many state wildlife programs
has been the purchase and management of coastal
wetlands for waterfowl habitat To accomplish this,
the major method of wetland management has been
the construction of impoundments. Research has
documented increases in waterfowl utilization
through the interspersion of open water and
vegetative cover which produces maximum quantity
and quality of food supply (Daiber 1986). Water
management through water level manipulation has
been shown to be the most effective method of
maintaining required vegetation associations for
waterfowl (Weller 1978, Daiber 1986). Whiteman
and Cole (1987) identified habitat changes with
impoundments over time due to non-management
in Delaware. Impoundments created in fresh water
and brackish water areas undergo a series of
changes in soil and water chemistry, vegetation;
and invertebrates, which cause waterfowl
populations to stabilize within a few years and
eventually decline (Whitman and Cole 1987). It
also is important to note that management of
impoundments for waterfowl occurred at the
expense of other avian species (Andrews 1987) as
well as certain fish, shellfish, and other animals.
Impoundments were also, constructed for
150
-------
MERRIMACK RIVER
NORTH RIVER
CONNECTICUT RIVER
HUDSON RIVER
MULUCA AND WADING RIVERS
DELAWARE RIVER (INCLUDING SMALL
RIVERS ALONG DELAWARE BAY)
MID AND UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY
(NANTICOKE.POCOMOKE. CHOPTANK,
CHESTER. ELK. BUSK. GUNPOWDER,
PATAPSCO. PATUXENT, AND OTHER
RIVERS)
POTOMAC RIVER
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
YORK RIVER (MATTAPONI AND PAMUNKEY)
JAMES AND CHICKAHOMINY RIVERS
Figure 3. Representative freshwater tidal wetlands over 500 acres in size (from Odum et al. 1984).
s.
LiJ
at
Spatterdock
Pickerelwecd
Arrow Arum
Sweet Flag
Broadleaf Arrowhead
Cattail
Water Smartweed
Water Hemp
Giant Ragweed
Bur Marigold
Halberd-leaved Tearthumb
Jewelweed
Wild Rice
DEPTH OF FLOODING (ft)
DURATION OF FLOODING
PER TIDAL CYCLE (hr)
• I
11
1
a «
i
i
i
i
i
i
j
te
CHANNEL
FREAMBAN
7
\
4t 10-33
-12 | J-5
1
^
— ~n
j LEVEE
.7
"
i
1
i
.
r"
5
C/3
BJ
s
X
0
1 ^
0-1.0
0-4
1 -
U
1 <
003
9-12
PONDS
K
\^
1.0-4.9
cotittnuo
RIVERINE
SYSTEM
-PALUSTRINE.
SYSTEM
Figure 4. Generalized distribution of vegetation in a freshwater tidal wetland (from Tiner 1985a, adapted
from Simpson et al. 1983).
151
-------
muskrats, salt hay production, and other
agricultural products (Daiber 1982, 1986, Mitsch
and Gosselink 1986). Over 11,690 acres of salt hay
impoundments have been constructed in the
Delaware Bay region of New Jersey. Salt hay is a
mixture of S. patens. D. spicataT and Juncus
gerardii that serves as livestock feed and a variety
of other uses (Daiber 1986, Perrigno et al. 1987).
Salt hay impoundments have a history of creating
mosquito problems that required routine pesticide
applications for their control (Slavin and Shisler
1983, Daiber 1986, Ferrigno et al. 1987). Tidal
restoration of salt hay impoundments in New
Jersey is the major method for controlling
mosquitoes (Figure 5). Over 6,900 acres have been
restored to tidal inundation since 1970, with
documented increases in wildlife and recreational
utilization (Ferrigno et al. 1987). In Connecticut a
25-acre impounded wetland previously dominated
by dense stands of P. australis has been restored to
tide changing the vegetation to a Spartina
alterniflora and S. patens marsh with D. spicata
and Salicomia spp. (Bongiorno et al. 1984).
Since 1965, Ducks Unlimited Canada has
constructed or restored approximately 45,000 acres
of Canadian wetlands, including over 12,000 acres
in the coastal regions (Barkhouse 1987). Most of
the restoration involved diked abandoned
agricultural areas which had no tidal inundation.
Water control structure installation was the method
utilized to control water levels and vegetation
growth. These restored wetlands provide valuable
wildlife habitat, but ecological processes proceed
rapidly, and management is required to maintain
this productivity. These conclusions are based upon
the study of 34 wetlands over a period of 6 years
(Barkhouse 1987).
The management of mosquito populations
associated with coastal wetlands has occurred since
the turn of the century (Daiber 1982, 1986).
Drainage and impoundment of coastal wetlands
was the major engineering method employed in the
early 1900's (Bourn and Cottam 1950). The
development of the open marsh water management
method in the 1960's has met with approval by
certain regulatory agencies, e.g., U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (Ferrigno and Jobbins 1968, Ferrigno et
al. 1969). The method has definite objectives with
documented beneficial impacts upon the salt
marsh/estuarine systems (Daiber 1986, Meredith
and Saveikis 1987, Shisler and Ferrigno 1987).
Restoration work associated with mitigation of
impacts in coastal wetlands has been going on for
over twenty years (Garbisch 1977, Charette et al.
1985). An informal survey of the Environmental
Protection Agency's regional offices and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineer's district offices in the
northeast by the author estimated that there had
been 2000 permitted mitigation projects. Most of
these mitigation projects are less than a few acres
in size. There has not been an extensive evaluation
of these projects to determine their success and how
they function (Shisler and Charette 1984a, Reimold
and Cobler 1986). However, mitigation projects
continue to be undertaken without an
understanding of their effectiveness. A detailed
evaluation of northeastern mitigated wetland
projects in various environmental conditions could
provide the needed data base to design an effective
management strategy.
The information associated with the evaluation
of mitigated wetland systems in the northeast is
limited. In two published reports, wetland
mitigation directed towards creation and
restoration has not received a favorable review
based on an evaluation of the selected existing
projects (Shisler and Charette 1984a, Reimold and
Cobler 1986). If this activity is to receive
acceptance, information has to be generated to
document its effectiveness.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
The mitigation process should be directed
towards an approach that is concerned with the
total system instead of just the "vegetated" wetland.
Wetlands within individual watersheds should be
evaluated to determine the most effective system to
be created or restored. Snyder and Clark (1985)
propose segregating wetlands into two categories,
wilderness and economic, and developing separate
strategies for their regulatory evaluation. Wilder-
ness wetlands are defined as those in the public
sector that meet specific criteria relating to size,
location, importance (or potential importance) to
consequential species, and scarcity on a regional or
national basis. Economic wetlands are impounded,
impacted, and/or privately owned wetlands that are
in the final throes of corruption and that will be
used commercially, such as waterfowl
impoundments or aquaculture.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers research
addresses wetlands, but, until recently, only those
wetlands most commonly subjected to the
mitigation process. The engineering manual (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1986) offers detailed
information regarding the construction and use of
various vegetation species in wetland development
management. A majority of the information is
associated with southern, interior, and western
systems and larger wetland creation projects (over 5
acres or more in size).
Knowledge of the usual wetland development
152
-------
SALT HAY IMPOUNDMENT
Phragmtes
RESTORED
STL
MHW—
MT —
MLW —
Figure 5. Salt hay impoundment before and after tidal restoration (STL = storm tide level, MHW = mean
high water, MT = mean tide level, MLW = mean low water).
process is important for an understanding of
wetland restoration and creation (Odum 1988).
Research associated with the development of
coastal wetlands in the northeast is important for
establishing a data base to be used in
restoration/creation projects for the region. North-
east coastal marshes developed as the result of
coastal submergence and sedimentation (Bloom and
Stuiver 1963, Bloom and Ellis 1965, Redfield 1972,
Orson et al. 1987). Natural coastal wetland
development is in shallow areas usually associated
with low energy environments, often behind barrier
islands and along river systems. Sediments begin
to drop out of the water column in the estuarine
systems where they form deltas and intertidal fiats.
Prey and Basan (1978) present three physiographic
stages in marsh maturation: (1) youthful marsh,
where low-marsh environments constitute most of
the total area; (2) mature marsh, where areas of
high and low marsh are approximately equal; and
(3) old marsh, where high marsh comprises most of
the area. Odum (1988) characterizes the early
development stages as being dominated by
opportunistic species with soils composed of mineral
material and the subsurface hydrology and
chemistry similar to early stages of soil
development. As the wetland ages the plant
community becomes diversified on soils with higher
organic content and the subsurface hydrology and
chemistry changes in response to the wetlands soils.
Coastal wetlands are advancing into low-lying
ecotonal areas as a result of sea-level rise (Psuty
1986a, 1986b, Kana et al. 1988). During the
153
-------
invasion of the ecotonal edge, areas of palustrine
forest are replaced by scrub-shrub and eventually
high marsh habitats. In some areas of eastern
Maine, salt marshes are palustrine scrub-shrub
wetlands (e.g., Chamaedaphne calvculata bogs),
while further south, salt marshes are advancing
upon Chamacecvparis thvoides swamps, Acer
rubrum swamps and even low-lying Pinus taeda
forest such as along the Eastern Shore of the
Chesapeake Bay (Tiner pers. comm.).
PRECONSTRUCTION
CONSroERATIONS
The process of constructing a wetland system
has to take into consideration a number of existing
environmental factors. The use of adjacent
wetlands as models becomes critical in the
assessment process. If wetlands are not present in
an area that is normally inundated by tides, there
has to be a reason. If the reason can not be
determined and addressed in the design, the project
is destined to fail.
Location of Project
The location of the site is one of the most
important factors. Reimold and Cobler (1986) state
that more time and effort should be spent in
determining an optimum site to increase the
chances of success. Garbisch (1986) identifies two
principal criteria that are important for the
selection of lands for conversion to wetland
habitats: (1) the land should have low fish and
wildlife resource value in its present state; and (2)
an adequate water supply (river, stream, tidal
source, ground water) should be available.
Unfortunately, the most suitable areas for wetland
creation are usually those that already have high
biological productivity (e.g., shallow water
habitats). Shisler and Charette (1984a) determined
that location explained the greatest amount of
variability in their study of mitigated marshes in
New Jersey.
Restoration/creation adjacent to functioning
wetland systems offers the greatest chance of
success and is recommended. The created wetland
system should, ideally, be in the same watershed as
the system that is being altered so that there is not
a net loss of wetlands within the watershed. The
creation of wetlands from upland sites will increase
or maintain the total acreage of wetlands within a
given watershed. Increased wetland acreage will
create changes in the hydrological regimes of the
watershed and, therefore, the watershed should be
evaluated for impacts.
The use of equipment and the transportation of
materials for the construction and possible
maintenance of the restored/created wetland should
be addressed in some detail in each project.
Site Characteristics
The selection of a suitable wetland creation site
will depend upon the existing site characteristics
and the ability to modify these characteristics to
produce a functioning wetland system. An
evaluation for restoration is different from that for
creation, since a wetland is or was present at the
restoration site. Snyder and Landrum (1987)
reported the major areas of concern that must be
incorporated into project design are: (1) evaluation
of current conditions; (2) determination of desired
results; and (3) construction management. Within
these areas of concern are a multitude of questions
that must be addressed.
Restoration--
Reconstruction of wetland habitats has to
consider existing site conditions as they relate to
the functions of both the present system and the
restored system. The principal issues are: what is
the cause of the degradation of a system, and what
is the probability that a wetland system can be
altered to produce and maintain the desired
wetland habitat? The alteration of existing
hydroperiods may be all that is required for
restoration. An example of this would be the
removal of impoundment dikes to allow resumption
of normal tidal inundation, resulting in changes in
vegetation associations (Bongiorno et al. 1984,
Perrigno et al. 1987).
Creation--
Creation of wetland habitats differs
considerably from restoration and, in most cases, is
more difficult. If wetlands are or were not present
at a given site, then major limitations may exist
which have to be overcome to create suitable
conditions. These alterations may or may not be
economically or environmentally acceptable. The
advisability of destroying mature upland forest
habitats or other critical habitats in an area to
create small and questionably functionable
wetlands has to be seriously considered.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROJECT PLAN
The recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
engineer manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1986) separates the design of a wetland habitat
utilizing dredge material into four parts: (1)
location; (2) elevation; (3) orientation and shape;
and (4) size. These criteria can also be applied to
the construction of any wetland habitat.
Timing of Construction
Certain times of the year are more conducive
for the successful construction and/or restoration of
wetland systems, especially in the northeastern
154
-------
region. Climatic conditions limit access, use of
equipment, revegetation procedures, and the
success of these procedures. The effects of the
construction activities on the habitats of
amphibians, fish, and mammals have to be
considered.
Construction Considerations
Construction considerations vary with
individual site conditions. A given set of designs
will not be applicable to every site and wetland
type. The use of experienced personnel and the
knowledge of how adjacent wetland systems are
functioning will provide an understanding of what
should be included in the new wetland system.
Techniques, methods, and recommendations may be
totally different between marsh restoration and
creation projects within a given area because of site
conditions. Garbisch (1986) stated that the single
important factor in wetland creation is elevation.
For this reason, a topographic and/or bathymetric
survey of the site at 0.5 foot contours should be
undertaken and the location of proposed plantings
should be recorded with relation to prospective
water levels. After a detailed survey of the site is
prepared, the plan can be designed. There has to be
enough flexibility in the design so that as the
existing system reacts, modifications can be
included in the project without total redesign. An
"as built" plan submitted after the system is
complete and functioning can be more important
than the construction plans.
Site conditions should be continually monitored
by knowledgeable personnel during the construction
phase. This monitoring ensures that construction
personnel are building the project as designed or
conceptually planned. Small deviations from the
design plan may result in drastic change in
vegetation associations and possible project failure.
Also, the adherence to a plan that will not function
within given site conditions is destined to fail.
Elevations should be periodically checked with
adjacent reference wetland systems to ensure
stability of the wetland.
Slopes
Slopes are another major consideration in the
development of wetland habitats. Wetland plant
species must be able to stabilize the slopes and
maintain coverage over a period of time to control
erosion. Of the four projects evaluated by Reimold
and Cobler (1986) in New England, three had
problems because the slopes were too steep. They
recommended slopes ranging from 1:5 to 1:15 for
increasing wetland vegetation diversity and
decreasing erosion potential.
Elevations
The elevations of the restored/created wetland
are one of the most critical considerations in
project design and construction. Final elevations of
the site will be affected by settlement and
consolidation of the substrate, therefore these
factors must be considered in project design.
Shisler and Charette (1984a) reported that relative
elevations of constructed marshes in New Jersey
were too low to support adequate growth of planted
vegetation when compared to adjacent wetlands.
Determination of the final elevation is critical and
should be based upon the elevational requirements
of the desired habitat. Shisler and Charette (1984b)
identified consolidation of sand around sewage
pipes buried in wetland habitats as causing
standing water problems and loss of emergent
vegetation cover (Figure 6).
The zonation of the marsh plant species is
related to elevations with respect to tidal ranges
and water levels. A number of studies have
addressed the impacts of elevation and hydrology
associated with wetland systems (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 1986). An annotated bibliography and
review of publications dealing with vegetation and
elevation data in the northeast region would be
useful for preparing and reviewing of permit
applications.
Size
Size of the created/restored wetland will affect
the use of the wetland by certain species. Wetlands
created adjacent to functioning systems will more
easily develop wetland functions and assimilate
associated fauna. Snyder (1987) presented an
overview in the holistic approach to wetland
creation and restoration that should be considered
in assessing the size of the system. A productive
wetland system in most cases requires a
combination of open water and ecotonal and upland
habitats. The construction of only the emergent
wetland vegetation component will not result in a
viable system and will not be comparable to the
natural system in many cases. Garbisch (1986)
recommends construction of tidal channels in a
created wetland system for the control of litter and
for their value in the exchange of nutrients,
increased habitat diversity, and elimination of
mosquito breeding. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(1986) recommends tidal channels to increase tidal
circulation and to increase marsh productivity.
Tidal channels in high salt marsh habitats have
been used for over 20 years in New Jersey for
mosquito control with increases in diversity of
wetland species and productivity (Shisler and
Jobbins 1977, Daiber 1986, Meredith and SaveiMs
1987). The extension of a functional system by the
use of tidal creeks into the created system will
create higher rates of success. These systems can
be relatively small, since they are extensions of
functioning systems, e.g., fringe wetlands.
Small isolated wetlands may have limited use
because of the size requirements of various wetland
species. Therefore, it is important to determine the
155
-------
SEDIMENT COMPACTION
IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Planted Vegetation
f
MARSH PEAT
SEVERAL YEARS LATER
Figure 6. Sediment compaction over time from the use of sand as a replacement for marsh peat (from
Shisler and Charette 1984b).
156
-------
size limitation of certain wetland faunal species
which potentially use the created wetland. Other
factors associated with size are maintenance,
economics, and availability of the site.
The concept that vegetation is the most
important component in the development of
wetland systems is questionable. Natural wetland
systems are far more complex. For example, the
water in the system has its origin from areas
outside the hydric vegetation zone. The use of the
wetlands by fish, avian, and mammal populations
has to be evaluated in the created and restored
systems. The evaluation of the success of a created
wetland is usually determined by the success of the
planted species, for example an 85 percent survival.
The creation of the habitat is, however, more
critical. For example, a created, emergent wetland
may consist of many indigenous species that were
associated with the sediment or brought into the
system during construction or with the tides than
were planted.
Waterfowl biologists consider 50% open water a
guideline in determining suitable waterfowl habitat
(Weller 1978, Daiber 1986). The open water
component contributes to spatial heterogeneity and
is important to wetland functions. The aquatic
habitat provides the medium for exchange of
nutrients and populations between the wetland
system and adjacent areas. The creation of
extensive wetland systems without allowing for
water circulation may allow standing water on the
surface. Standing water on the surface may
change vegetation composition and create mosquito
breeding habitat. These areas will retain water
long enough, in some cases 7 days, for the mosquito
to complete the aquatic stage of its life cycle.
Ice
Ice has had an impact upon northeastern
coastal wetland systems. Ice can impact large
sections of the marsh by rafting and erosion. It can
also cause changes in the elevation of the marsh
which affects vegetation associations (Teal 1986).
The movement of ice by tidal action results in
geomorphological effects upon sediment through
erosion, transport, and accretion. Boulders
weighing several tons have been transported
considerable distances by ice in Barnstable Harbor
(Redfield 1972). The destruction of sections of gobi
mats used in a New Jersey marsh creation project
was attributed to ice (Shisler and Charette
1984a, b).
Wetland creation and restoration projects
should not be constructed where ice floes are
possible due to wind and currents. The ice
accumulation and movement during winter periods
would likely eliminate newly constructed wetlands
(Reimold and Cobler 1986).
Animal Populations
Animal populations can affect the success of a
wetland project by their presence and feeding
behavior. Both Branta canadensis and Chen
hyperborea (Canada and Snow Geese) affect the
growth of a created/restored wetland (Smith and
Odum 1981). Branta canadensis has become a
major nuisance species in New Jersey suburban
areas where it heavily utilizes stormwater facilities
and feeds on adjacent lawns.
Geese will usually not alight in tall vegetation.
They prefer to land in open water and then proceed
towards the emergent wetland and upland areas.
Garbisch (1986) suggests the construction of a fence
along the open water edge of the wetland consisting
of posts connected by nylon line (ca. 1/8 inch
diameter) rails spaced every 6 inches, from 6 inches
above low water and high water levels. The design
of wetland systems with a shrub border will limit
geese utilization of the upland edge.
Toxic Materials
Recent publications have addressed the
recycling of heavy metals by wetland vegetation
(Breteler et al. 1981, Sanders and Osman 1985,
Kraus et al. 1986). The impacts of recycling toxic
materials has to be addressed through additional
research, especially if wetlands are to be considered
as stormwater management facilities for water
quality control. In any event, the presence of toxins
at potential restoration and creation sites must be
examined prior to site selection and construction
activities.
Hydrology
The driving force in the development of any
wetland system is the hydrology. If the correct
hydrology is not present or is insufficient, the
desired project will fail. The determination of the
hydrological regime for the site then becomes the
most critical consideration. The use of adjacent
tidal wetlands as models becomes important in the
assessment of the project design.
Two hydrological differences are associated
with coastal wetlands, namely the regularly flooded
zone and irregularly flooded zone. The regularly
flooded zone is flooded at least once a day by tides
and is known as the low marsh. The higher
elevations, or high marsh, are flooded for brief
periods, during storms and spring tides. The
irregularly flooded zone may be termed seasonally
flooded-tidal or temporarily flooded-tidal in
freshwater tidal areas (Tiner 1985a, b). Odum et
al. (1984) concludes that the hydrology of tidal
freshwater marshes and associated streams and
rivers has been poorly studied. The factor of tide
range is critical, especially when there is a small
157
-------
tide range (less than a foot), which makes
construction and grading of the substrate to control
unwanted species more difficult
The impacts of hydro-period on various wetland
species associated with tidal freshwater systems
have not been well documented in the northeast.
Substrate
Garbisch (1986) provides the following
specifications for acceptable wetland substrate: the
substrate shall consist of a minimum of one foot in
depth of clean inorganic/organic materials of which
80-90% by weight will pass through a No. 10 sieve.
From their field inspection of a number of created
wetland projects in New Jersey and a literature
review, Shisler and Charette (1984a) proposed the
ranking of substrate as: (1) natural marsh peat; (2)
clay and silty clay; (3) estuarine sediments (dredge
material); and (4) sand. They also reported some
problems with stability and the colonization of sand
by certain wetland vegetation species and
recommended that sand not be placed on existing
marsh peat. Wetland substrates may present
problems with handling and application in areas
subjected to tides, but usually the benefit of the
seed bank and its supplement to the planted
vegetation outweighs these problems. Research
should address procedures of handling natural
wetland substrates to ensure viability of the seed
bank.
Revetretation
The success of site revegetation is determined
by a number of conditions, but primarily by salinity,
elevation, and hydrological factors. Most of the
research in the northeast has been directed towards
salt marsh species, with limited research
concerning the brackish and freshwater wetland
systems. The documentation of revegetation in
other wetland systems is an important research
topic.
The time of year to revegetate an area is
critical in the northeast. If seed bank material is to
be used it should be in place before the beginning of
the growing season. The use of transplants can
occur throughout the growing season, ideally in the
spring, but should be in place at least one month
before the first frost to allow root establishment.
Planting in the summer months may expose
vegetation to extreme temperatures, salinity, and
dryness due to lack of tidal inundation. Most of the
research has been directed towards the mid-
Atlantic states and south, where transplanting can
occur at any time of the year that the ground is not
frozen (Garbisch 1986). In the northeastern region,
seasonal conditions make transplanting ineffective
except during the growing season.
The most successful and expensive method of
wetland revegetation is the use of peat-potted
plants, plugs, sprigs, and dormant underground
plant parts (tubers, bulbs, rhizomes) (Garbisch
1986). The selection of species for revegetation is
important, but a source of the material must be
availableeither commercially or naturally. Major
considerations in vegetation selection are: (1)
availability and cost of material; (2) collection and
handling ease; (3) storage ease; (4) planting ease;
(5) disease; (6) urgency of need for vegetative cover;
and (7) site elevation (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1986).
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection recommends the replacement of Ł
australis dominated wetlands with S. alterniflora.
and new freshwater emergent wetlands planted
with P. virqrinica and Sagittaria spp. (Kantor and
Charette 1986). The restoration/creation of high
marsh habitats is not recommended due to the
number of failures in the State (Shisler and
Charette 1984a, Charette et al. 1985).
The use of adjacent wetland areas as donor
sites for certain plant species may limit possible
impacts of site selection on vegetation populations.
The use of these wetland resources in existing
wetland creation projects has to be undertaken with
an understanding of the donor wetlands. The
removal of material should be done in a manner
that does not effect the existing wetland and its
function. Garbisch (1986) recommends a
checkerboard technique to avoid the disruption of
single large areas of wetlands. Care has to be taken
to not create locations ideal for attack by faunal
populations, such as Branta canadensis. Openings
in the surface may create sites for root predation by
avian and mammal populations that would alter
the existing wetland habitat.
Natural colonization of vegetation has been
shown in certain cases to be more productive than a
planted site (Shisler and Charette 1984b). The
importance of natural revegetation is that existing
gene stock is utilized. Natural revegetation can
occur in freshwater tidal wetlands within several
months, while in more saline conditions, several
years may be required for total revegetation (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1986).
Garbisch (1986) lists commercial sources for
plant materials for the United States. Of the
sixteen sources listed, only four are in the northeast
region. The use of plant material grown outside the
region will create problems of adaptation of the
material. Additional commercial plant material
sources are needed since there will be increased
pressure upon existing sources to supply plant
material. The use of adjacent wetlands as sources
for plant material may become a more viable option.
Fertilization
Fertilization is important in establishing
certain planted species. A number of experiments
158
-------
have been carried out on the impacts of fertilizers
on various species in the mid-Atlantic region and
south. Garbisch (1986) recommends a side-dressing
(placed below the surface) with a controlled release
fertilizer at the time of planting. Osmocote is a
controlled release fertilizer that performs well in
saline waters and under saturated soil conditions.
Very small burlap sacks containing the fertilizer
are placed beneath the transplant for underwater
planting (Garbisch 1986).
Faunal Populations
No data on the placement of fauna! populations
into restored/created areas has been documented in
coastal areas. Natural colonization in the
northeastern wetlands has been documented in
altered systems in a number of publications
(Ferrigno 1970, Shisler and Jobbins 1977, Shisler
and Charette 1984a, Daiber 1982, 1986). Bontje
(1988) documented a 100 percent increase in avian
species and 700 percent increase in numbers
associated with a partially completed 63-acre
restored marsh in comparison with an adjacent
unrestored marsh.
Buffers
Limited research in the northeast has been
directed to the establishment of buffers zones for
the protection of wetland habitats, especially in
created/restored wetlands (ASWM 1988). Limited
data are available as to the type and size of buffer
zones and their value. Individual states and
various commissions have instituted width
regulations with regard to the type of wetlands and
the presence of endangered species. The New
Jersey Pinelands model (Roman et al. 1985, Roman
and Good 1983) is the only real model in the
northeast, but it is based on limited data.
Lon-Term
The objective of restoration/creation projects is
to build wetland systems without causing negative
impacts upon other ecosystems. Constructed
systems should meet the objectives of the project
without the need for extensive maintenance
programs.
Coastal wetland systems are destined to
change over time because of their dynamic nature.
These pulsed systems are characterized by
oscillating water levels and, under such conditions,
a single self-perpetuating ecosystem is often
unrealistic (Niering 1987). Design plans for the
restoration and creation of wetland systems have to
consider this dynamic environment. Areas
subjected to daily tidal inundation are the easiest to
maintain in vegetation homeostasis, while those
constructed above regular tidal inundation create
habitats that will change with minor alterations
ofenvironmental conditions. Niering et al. (1977)
document five vegetation changes within a period of
500-1000 years.
Phragmites australis is considered the
dominant vegetation species associated with
disturbed wetlands. The species dominates about
one-third of Delaware's coastal marshes (Jones and
Lehman 1987) and the wetlands along the
Delaware and Hudson Rivers. The importance of
the species in the overall function of the wetland
systems of the United States has not been
identified. Phragmitea australis has one of the
highest standing crops associated with wetland
systems. In dense homogeneous stands, the plant
will militate against waterfowl, waterbird, and
furbearer populations by replacing desirable food
plants and reducing habitat heterogeneity, and
open water space (Buttery and Lambert 1965, Ward
1968, Vogl 1973, Jones and Lehman 1986). This
species also causes fire hazards, impedes water
flow, penetrates and clogs underground pipelines,
restricts access, and provides roosts for destructive
blackbirds (Beck 1971, Riemer 1976, Ricciuti 1982).
Phragmites australis. however, is effective in
erosion and water quality control and is
commercially harvested outside the United States.
Phragmites australis should not be recom-
mended as a revegetation species in coastal areas
and should be strictly controlled in recently
constructed wetland projects. The use of physical
control methods (mowing, plowing, disking) and
burning are ineffective, and actually facilitate the
plant's spread and propagation (Garbisch 1986).
Both Dowpon and Rodeo have been shown to be an
effective means of control (Garbisch 1986, Jones
and Lehman 1987).
Both Tvpha latifoliar T. angustifolia. and
Lvthrum salicaria. also produce monotypic stands
that limit utilization of wetland systems by certain
other wetland species. These species are usually
associated with disturbed wetlands and many
restored and created wetland projects with such
species can behave like disturbed wetlands (Odum
1988). Wetland vegetation species that naturally
colonize wetlands (i.e., pioneer species) are not
recommended, since they will naturally occur over
time and usually dominate the wetland in a
relatively short period.
159
-------
MONITORING
Monitoring of restored/created wetlands can
provide an important database upon which
recommendations can be made for future projects.
These evaluations should include a combination of
detailed analysis of the habitat parameters and
general field observations for several years. The
use of photographs from fixed locations to document
changes in wetland habitats is an inexpensive
method that provides an important database for
comparison. Detailed analysis of various habitat
components becomes cumbersome for the
uninitiated in wetland science and can lead to
ineffective results.
Parameters to Monitor
The monitoring of habitat characteristics
distinguishing low intertidal marsh, high marsh,
emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub, etc. may be better
for general evaluation than detailed biological
survey information. Standard accepted habitat
sampling procedures, species composition, and
growth measurements should be used.
Evaluations should be performed by
experienced personnel with an understanding of the
various types of wetlands and their functions. The
use of detailed evaluation instruments for before
and after assessments are not recommended by
Golet (1986). Conclusions from these assessments
will present a variety of results which may be
difficult to interpret and present erroneous con-
clusions. If designed habitats are present and
functioning, the system may be considered as
having reached its objective. If these systems are
not present, then a project may be considered as not
meeting its objective.
How to do it?
Periodic sampling by either the regional
representatives or consultants could provide
indications of mitigation effectiveness. The
importance of follow-up evaluations are that they
supply detailed information as to the success rate of
certain types of management methods within
individual regions. The evaluation should be
directed towards assessing the presence of a
wetland habitats that were to be created.
Presently, in the northeast, exists the greatest
concentration of wetland mitigation projects, yet
evaluations are limited (Shisler and Charette
1984a, Reimold and Cooler 1986).
How to Interpret the Results?
Goals and objectives must be clearly defined
during design of the mitigation projects, if the
created or restored system is going to be evaluated
in a meaningful way. Historically, the major
problem with the evaluation of mitigation projects
has been the absence of goals associated with the
evaluated projects (Quammen 1986).
RESEARCH NEEDS
The coastal wetlands of the northeast have
been heavily impacted by man and the restoration
of these systems should become a major goal of the
mitigation process. The continual use of mitigation
as a component of federal and state permitting
programs must be based on an effective process to
be successful. To implement this process, there
should be a detailed evaluation of the individual
systems to determine the critical wetland habitats
within the regions and watersheds. The need for
data associated with wetland systems and their
functions is imperative considering the increasing
number of neophyte marsh builders and wetland
management programs. Shisler and Charette
(1984a) recommend that an ecological management
approach be used in future New Jersey mitigation
projects. This approach would include the use of
experimental projects to test methods and
techniques and record study results. The
evaluation of past projects offers ideal starting
points, but future projects will have to be innovative
in design and application. The use of these future
projects as experiments will allow the private sector
and permit applicants to become involved. The costs
of these experiments can be minimized and to a
large extent, borne or shared by the private sector.
If it does not work, the contractor could be held
totally responsible.
INFORMATION GAPS
Major information gaps are present in the
current knowledge of the restoration and creation of
northeastern coastal wetlands. Some of the gaps
can be filled through detailed review of existing
wetland projects and the supplementation of these
data with additional research. Others will require
research projects specifically designed to address
specific questions.
Most of the restoration and creation research
has been conducted outside of the northeast region
and has been associated with large projects. The
northeastern region is unique. Its history,
development pressures, and climatic conditions
160
-------
make the application of research results from other
regions of limited value.
Research needs include, but are not limited to
the following:
1. Tidal range impacts on the vegetation
associations. Detailed information concerning
the distribution of major wetland species
associated with tidal wetland habitats of the
northeast is not available in a single
publication. Tiner (1987) has addressed the
geographic range and preliminary habitat data
of 150 plus coastal wetland plant species, but
additional data are needed as to the
hydrological requirements and success of these
species. The work of several researchers
(McCormick and Somes 1982, Nixon 1982,
Odum et al. 1984, Tiner 1985a, b, Teal 1986),
has documented state and regional wetland
systems. It should be expanded. A manual
addressing the species and their location in
reference to the tidal range and major
environmental conditions may help correct
some of the problems of misidentification of
species by habitat by consultants and approval
by regulators.
2. Transplants vs. natural succession. A
major consideration with wetland creation and
restoration is natural succession of vegetation
associations within the systems. Natural
revegetation and succession may be a feasible
alternative to transplanting. Transplanting
may be an effective method of controlling
certain vegetation pest species, if planting
takes place at the appropriate time. The
timing of transplanting versus natural
succession requires additional research.
3. Potted transplants vs. natural (donor)
transplants. A major requirement of many
mitigation projects has been the use of potted
transplants. However, the use of adjacent
wetlands as donor sources allows for the
transfer of indigenous bacterial communities
associated with the root zones of the
transplants. These local transplants are
acclimated to the local environmental
conditions. Other seed sources may also be
transplanted in the process. Research
comparing these methods could be conducted.
4. Transplanting time of year. Some
publications (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1986, Garbisch 1986) state that transplanting
can occur any time during the year when the
ground is not frozen, but in the northeast there
are seasonal limitations. Research associated
with the seasonal impacts of transplanting and
the success of individual species would be
beneficial. Most of the research to date is
associated with salt marsh systems
(predominantly S. alterniflora). with limited
information available concerning the other
wetland species found in coastal wetland types.
5. Individual species requirements. There is a
need for basic ecological research associated
with common coastal wetland species. Salt
marsh species (S. alterniflora and S. patens)
have received the bulk of emphasis in the
literature, particularly as they relate to wetland
creation. The restoration of wetland systems
will have to address other species, since many of
the degraded wetland systems are located along
major estuarine systems with a variety of
environmental conditions. The northeast region
contains extensive degraded wetlands in the
brackish to freshwater zones that offer
numerous restoration opportunities.
6. Habitat requirements of endangered and
threatened species. A large percentage of the
endangered and threatened species of an area
are associated with wetland habitats. Sixty-
four percent of the 249 vegetative species
identified by New Jersey as endangered and
threatened grow in wetland or aquatic habitats
(Tiner 1985a). At the federal level, 17 of 20
Delaware and 23 of 25 New Jersey plant species
considered endangered or threatened are
associated with wetlands (Tiner 1985a, b). How
can wetland habitats be restored/created and
maintained for these species? Basic research
associated with these species and their
ecological requirements may assist with the
creation and restoration of habitats needed for
their survival.
7. Toxic materials and their movements. Re-
cent research has documented biological
transfer and amplification of toxic material by
certain wetland plant species. Research is
needed to determine which wetland plant
species and/or wetland systems amplify toxic
materials. The use of wetlands as stormwater
management facilities may increase toxic
loading associated with run-off and ultimately
the biological amplification of toxic materials.
Are there design criteria that could be
implemented in the construction and
restoration of wetlands that would trap toxic
materials before entering the biological system?
8. Wetlands as stormwater management
facilities. Wetlands are being created as a
major component in stormwater management
programs. These wetlands are being used for
water quality maintenance. Research determin-
ing the impacts of stormwater run-off on the
various components of wetlands is needed. Do
these stormwater run-off wetlands function as
biological amplifiers of heavy metals?
9. Forested wetlands. The major wetland type
in the northeast is palustrine forested wetland,
for which there is a very limited scientific data
161
-------
base. A small percentage of these are tidally
influenced, with even less available data.
Basic research concerning the functioning of
the palustrine systems is needed.
10. Maintenance of wetlands systems. Res-
toration and creation of wetland habitats
without detailed maintenance plans may create
problems for local governments in keeping
these systems functioning. Research
addressing wetland habitats and maintenance
requirements would be useful.
11. Pest and nuisance species. Certain wetland
habitats become ideal locations for the
production of mosquito populations and other
nuisance species. Usually, restored/created
wetlands juxtapose human populations and can
provide breeding areas and refuges for
nuisance species populations, such as
mosquitoes, rats and raccoons. Research
associated with the design of restored and
created wetlands which minimize the
production of nuisance species should be
addressed.
12. Stockpiling of wetland material. Many
restoration/creation projects make use of the
organic soils of the wetland filled by the
development activity. The stockpiling of the
wetland materials on site and their eventual
use in mitigation would provide an important
seed bank, gene stock, nutrients, etc. required
by the created system. A major problem with
stockpiling is the creation of cat clays, acid
conditions, and oxygenation of the previously
saturated soil. Research associated with the
methods and consequences of stockpiling
various wetland sediments is needed.
13. Size of a wetland system. The size of a
wetland is important and usually not
considered in mitigation. The construction of
isolated small systems may not be effective.
What are the requirements of the wetland
species and system as a unit? Does an
individual species require an acre or several
acres as its habitat? What are the functioning
units (vegetation, open water, buffer) of various
species or groups?
14. Wetland inventories. The development of
individual wetlands within a watershed without
an understanding of the total system may not
be effective. The total system should be
inventoried to determine the most suitable
wetland rehabilitation and creation projects.
LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
The limitations of our knowledge of wetland
management creates complex issues. There is a
need to combine the various data sources from both
the "gray" and "published" scientific literature to
provide a better understanding of wetland
management. Wetland management is nothing
new (Daiber 1986, Maltby 1988), although some
organizations think so. Wetland management has
been carried out for thousands of years. A major
problem is the application of old methods by the
new group of wetland management personnel.
Wetland management does not have to be
reinvented, just fine-tuned and applied with
definite objectives and goals. Detailed evaluation of
sites that have been restored or created would
provide a database that could be applied to future
mitigation projects. The data would also suggest
the direction of future research project endeavors.-
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, CJS., MA. Brontman, and D.W. Field. 1986.
An Inventory of Coastal Wetlands of the USA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Andrews, R. 1987. Other waterbirds and their use of
coastal wetlands in the northeastern United States, p.
71-80. In W.R. Whitman and W.H. Meredith (Eds.),
Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings
of a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands
Management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic
Flyway. Delaware Coastal Management Program,
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
ASWM Proceedings: National Wetlands Symposium.
Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, p. 433-435.
Barkhouse, HP. 1987. Management related study of man-
made wetlands located in coastal regions of the
maritime provinces, Canada, p. 82-97. In W.R.
Whitman and W.H. Meredith (Eds.), Waterfowl and
Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings of a Symposium
on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the
Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Flyway. Delaware Coastal
Management Program, Delaware Dept. of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,
Delaware.
Beck, R.A. 1971. Phragmites control for urban, industrial,
and wildlife needs. Proc. Northeast Weed Control
Conf. 25:89-90.
Beeftink, W.G. 1977. Salt marshes, p. 93-121. In R.SJL
Barnes (Ed.), The Coastline. John Wiley & Sons,
London.
Bloom, A.L. and M. Stuiver. 1963. Submergence of the
Connecticut coast. Science 139:332-334.
162
-------
Bloom, A.L. and C.W. Ellis, Jr. 1965. Postglacial
Stratigraphy and Morphology of Coastal Connecticut.
Conn. Geol. Nat. Hist. Survey Guidebook No. 1.
Hartford, Connecticut.
Bongiorno, S.F., J.R. Krautman, T.J. Steinke, S. Kawa-
Raymond, and D. Warner. 1984. A study of the
restoration in Pine Creek salt marsh, Fairfield,
Connecticut, p. 10-23. In FJ. Webb (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
College, Tampa, Florida.
Bontje, MJ>. 1988. The application of scieace and
engineering to restore a salt marsh, 1987, p. 267-273.
In J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Proceedings
of a Conference: Increasing Our Resources. National
Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Bourn, W.S. and C. Cottam. 1950. Some Biological Effects
of Ditching Tidewater Marshes. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Res.Rept. 19.
Breteler, R.J., I. Valiela, and J.M. Teal. 1981.
Bioavailability of mercury in several north-eastern
U.S. Spartina ecosystems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
12155-166.
Burger, J., J. Shisler, and FJL Lesser. 1982. Avian
utilization on six salt marshes in New Jersey. Biol.
Conserv. 223:187-212.
Buttery, B.R. and J.M. Lambert. 1965. Competition
between G-lvceria maxima and Phrapmites
in the region of Surlingham Broad. I. The
competition mechanism. J. Ecol. 53:163-181.
Candeletti, 1M. and FJL Lesser. 1977. Mosquito control
techniques on Island Beach State Park. Proc. NJ
Mosq. Control Assoc. 64:39-42.
Charette, D.J., JJL Shisler, and R. Kantor. 1985.
Guidelines for the mitigation of tidal salt marshes in
New Jersey, p. 941-960. In O.T. Magoon, H. Converse,
D. Miner, D. Clark, and L.T. Thomas (Eds.), Coastal
Zone 85. Am. Soc. Of Civil Eng. New York, New
York.
Copper, A.W. 1974. Salt marshes, p. 55-99. In H.T.
Odum, B J. Copeland, E.A. McMahan (Eds.), Coastal
Ecological Systems on the United States. Vol. II.
Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Daiber, F.C. 1982. Animals of the Tidal Marsh. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, New York.
Daiber, F. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, New York.
Ferrigno, F. and D.M. Jobbins. 1968. Open Marsh Water
Management. Proc. of NJ Mosq. Exterm. Assoc.
55:104-115.
Ferrigno, F., L.G. McNamara, and DM. Jobbins. 1969.
Ecological approach for improved management of
coastal meadowlands. Proc. NJ Mosq. Exterm. Assoc.
56188-203.
Ferrigno, F. 1970. Preliminary effects of open marsh
water management on the vegetation and organisms
of the salt marsh. Proc. of NJ MOSQ. Exterm. Assoc.
57:79-94.
Ferrigno, F., J.K. Shisler, J. Hansen, and P. Slavin. 1987.
Tidal restoration of salt hay impoundments, p.
284-297. In W.R. Whitman and WH. Meredith (Eds.),
Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings of
a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands
Management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic
Flyway. Delaware Coastal Management Program,
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
Frey, R.W. and P.B. Basan. 1978. Coastal Salt Marshes,
p. 101-169. In R.A. Davis, Jr. (Ed.), Coastal
Sedimentary Environments. Springer-Verlag, New
York, New York.
Garbisch, E.W. 1977. Recent and Planned Marsh
Establishment Work Throughout The Contiguous
United States A Survey and Basic Guidelines. U.S.
Army Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta. Rept. D-77-3.
Garbisch, E.W. 1986. Highway and Wetlands:
Compensating Wetland Losses. U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Report No. FHWA-IP-86-22.
Golet, F.C. 1986. Critical issues in wetland mitigation: a
scientific perspective. National Wetlands Newsletter
8(5):3-6.
Hill, D.E. and A.E. Shearin. 1979. Tidal Marshes of
Connecticut and Rhode Island. Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven,
Connecticut. Bulletin 709.
Jones, W.L. and W.C. Lehman. 1986. Phragmites control
with aerial applications of glyphosate in Delaware.
Trans. Northeast Pish Wildl. Conf. 43:15-24.
Jones, W.L. and W.C. Lehman. 1987. Phragmites control
and revegetation following aerial applications of
glyphosate in Delaware, p. 185-199. In WJR. Whitman
and WJL Meredith (Eds.), Waterfowl and Wetlands
Symposium: Proceedings of a Symposium on Water-
fowl and Wetlands Management in the Coastal Zone of
the Atlantic Flyway. Delaware Coastal Management
Program, Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
Kana, T.W., W.C. Eiser, B J. Baca, and M.L. Williams.
1988. New Jersey Case Study, p. 61-86. In J.G.Titus
(Ed.), Greenhouse effect, sea level rise and coastal
wetlands. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C. EPA-
230-05-86-013.
Kantor, R.A. and D.J. Charette. 1986. Wetland mitigation
in New Jersey's coastal management program.
National Wetlands Newsletter 8(5):14-15.
Kennard, W.C., M.W. Lefor, and D.L. Civco. 1983.
Analysis of Coastal Marsh Ecosystems: Effects of Tides
on Vegetational Changes. Univ. of Connecticut,
Institute of Water Resources, Storrs, Connecticut. Res.
Proj. Tech. Completion Rept. B-014 CONN.
163
-------
Kraus, M.L., P. Weiss, and J.H. Crow. 1986. The
excretion of heavy metals by the salt marsh cord
grass, Spartina alterniflora and Spartina'a role in
mercury cycling. Mar. Envirn. Res. 20:307-316.
Maltby, E. 1988. Wetland resources and future prospects -
an international perspective, p. 3-14. In J. Zelazny
and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Proceedings of a
Conference: Increasing Our Resources. National
Wildlife Federation, Washington, B.C.
McCormick, J. and HA. Somes. 1982. The Coastal
Wetlands of Maryland. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
McNeil, P. 1979. Island Beach State Park mosquito
control project: a progress report. Proc. NJ Mosq.
Control Assoc. 66:123-127.
Meredith, Wfl. and D.E. Saveikis. 1987. Effects of open
marsh water management (OMWM) on bird
populations of a Delaware tidal marsh, and OMWM's
use in waterbird habitat restoration and
enhancement, p. 299-321. In W.R. Whitman and WJL
Meredith (Eds.), Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium:
Proceedings of a Symposium on Waterfowl and
Wetlands Management in the Coastal Zone of the
Atlantic Flyway. Delaware Coastal Management
Program, Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, New York.
Miller, WJl. and R.E. Egler. 1950. Vegetation of the
Wequetequork-Pawcatuck tidal marshes, Connecticut.
Ecol.Monogr. 20:143-172.
Niering, WA., R.S. Warren, and C.G. Weymouth. 1977.
Our dynamic tidal marshes; vegetation changes as
revealed by peat analysis. Conn. Arboretum Bull. 22.
Niering, WA 1987. Wetlands hydrology and vegetation
dynamics. National Wetlands Newsletter 9(2):9-ll.
Niering, W. and R.S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns
and process in New England salt marshes. BjoScienc^
30:301-307.
Nixon, S.W. and C A. Oviatt. 1973. Ecology of a New
England salt marsh. Ecol. Monoyr. 43:464-498.
Nixon, S.W. 1982. The Ecology of New England High Salt
Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-81/55.
Odum, E-P. 1974. Halophytes, energetics and ecosystems,
p. 599-602. In Reimold, RJ. and WJL Queen (Eds.),
Halophytes. Academic Press, Inc. New York, New
York.
Odum, W.E. 1988. Predicting ecosystem development
following creation and restoration of wetlands, p.
67-70. In J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.),
Proceedings of a Conference: Increasing Our
Resources. National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
D.C.
Odum, WJ5., T J. Smith HJ, J JL Hoover, and C.C. Mclvor.
1984. The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Marshes of the
United States East Coast: A Community Profile.
VS. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-83/17.
Orson, RA., R.S. Warren, and WA. Niering. 1987.
Development of tidal marsh in a New England river
valley. Estuaries 10:20-27.
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands
mitigation. National Wetlands Newsletter 8(S):6-8.
Penfound, W.T. 1952. Southern swamps and marshes.
Bot. Rev. 18:413-446.
Provost, M.W. 1973. Mean high water mark and use of
tidelands in Florida. Florida Scientist 36:50-66.
Psuty, NP. 1986a. Impacts of impending sea-level rise
scenarios: the New Jersey barrier island responses.
Bull. NJ Acad. Sci. 31:29-36.
Psuty, NP. 1986b. Holocene sea level in New Jersey.
Physical Geography 7:156-167.
Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of a New England salt
marsh. Ecol. Monogr. 42:201-237.
Reimold, R J., and SA Cobler. 1986. Wetlands Mitigation
Effectiveness. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-04-0015. Boston, Massachusetts.
Ricciuti, E.R. 1982. The all too common, common reed.
Audubon 85:65-66.
Riemer, D.N. 1976. Long-term effects of glyphosate
applications to phragmites. J. Aquat. Plant Manage.
14:39-43.
Roman, C.T., RA. Zampella, and A.Z. Jaworski. 1985.
Wetland boundaries in the New Jersey Pinelands:
Ecological relationships and delineations. Water
Resources Bulletin 210.005-1012.
Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. 1983. Wetlands of the New
Jersey Pinelands: Values, Functions, Impacts and a
Proposed Buffer Delineation Model. Division of
Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal and
Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Sanders, H.L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a
comparative study. Am. Nat. 102:243-282.
Sanders, J.G. and R.W. Osman. 1985. Arsenic
incorporation in a salt marsh ecosystem. Estuar.
Coastal Shelf Sci. 20:387-392.
Shisler, JJt. and D.M. Jobbins. 1977. Salt marsh
productivity as effected by the selected ditching
technique, open marsh water management. Mosquito
News 37:631-636.
Shisler, J.K. and D. Charette. 1984a. Evaluation of
Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey. New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station Publication Numbe^
P-40502-01-84.
Shisler, J.K. and D. Charette. 1984b. Mitigated marshes
and the creation of potential mosquito habitats. Proe.
NJ Mosq. Control Assoc. 71:78-87.
Shisler, J JL and F. Ferrigno. 1987. The impacts of water
management for mosquito control on waterfowl
populations in New Jersey, p. 269-282. In W.R.
Whitman and W.H. Meredith (Eds.), Waterfowl and
Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings of a Symposium
164
-------
on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the
Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Flyway. Delaware
Coastal Management Program, Delaware Dept. of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,
Delaware.
Simpson, R.L., R.E. Good, MA. Leek, and D J. Whigham.
1983a. The ecology of freshwater tidal wetlands.
BioScience 33:255-259.
Simpson, R.L., R.E. Good, R. Walker, and B.R. Frasco.
1983b. The role of Delaware River freshwater tidal
wetlands in the retention of nutrients and heavy
metals. J. Environ. Quality 12:42-48.
Slavin, P. and J.K. Shisler. 1983. Avian utilization of a
tidally restored salt hay farm. Biol. Conserv.
26:271-285.
Smith, T.J. and W.E. Odum. 1981. The effects of grazing
by Snow Geese on coastal salt marshes. Ecology
62:98-106.
Snyder, R.M. and J.R. Clark. 1985. Coastal
wetland restoration developers challenge. Proceedings
of the Coastal and Ocean Management Coastal Zone
25 4:339-350.
Snyder, R.M. and F.R. Landrum. 1987. Estuarine
rehabitiation - a management perspective. Coastal
Zone Management (In press).
Snyder, R.M. 1987. Wetland rehabilitation the holistic
approach, p. 10-18. In JA. Kusler, M.L. Quammen,
and G. Brooks (Eds.), Proceeding of the National
Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses. Assoc. State Wetland Managers, Chester,
Vermont.
Teal, J.M. 1986. The Ecology of Regularly Flooded Salt
Marshes of New England: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.4).
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985a. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985b. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory,
Newton Corner, Massachusetts and Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Wetlands Section, Dover, Delaware
Cooperative Publication.
Tiner, R.W. 1987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland
Plants of the Northeastern United States. University
of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses of
Dredged Material. Engineers Manual 1110-2-5026.
Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Vogl, R.J. 1973. Effects of fire on the plants and animals
of a Florida wetland. Am. Midi. Nat. 89:334-347.
Ward, P. 1968. Fire in relation to waterfowl habitat of the
Delta marshes. Proc. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf .
8:254-267.
Weller, M.W. 1978. Management of freshwater marshes
for wildlife, p. 267-284. In R.E. Good, D.E. Whigham,
and P.L. Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater Wetlands:
Ecological Processes and Management Potential.
Academic Press, New York.
Whitman, WH. and R.V. Cole. 1987. Ecological conditions
and implications for waterfowl management in
selected coastal impoundments of Delaware, p.
99419. In WH. Whitman and WJI. Meredith (Eds.),
Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings of
a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands
Management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic
Flyway. Delaware Coastal Management Program,
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
165
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READING
A number of individual articles could be recommended
as reading material, but only actual texts were included.
These texts and reports provide an ideal sources for
additional reading and references concerning wetland
management in the northeast.
Daiber, F. 1982. Animals of the Tidal Marsh. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
A comprehensive textbook summarizing the literature
as it pertains to the biology and natural history of those
animals characteristic of tidal marshes. The text covers
from protozoa through mammals as they relate the major
factors of the tidal marsh. An extensive reference section
is provided that is very useful.
Daiber, F. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
The text is the best summary of literature from
various sources associated with management of tidal
wetland ecosystems. The text includes a section
"Dredged material for wetland restoration" which
summarizes wetland creation literature from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers dredging and wetlands research
programs and several other sources. Other sections deal
with vegetation management, water management, and
the future wetland management concept. An extensive
reference section, over 40 pages, is provided.
Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1987. The Smithsonian
Guide to Seaside Plants of the Gulf and Atlantic
Coasts. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington,
DC.
An important field guide to the vegetation of the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Color
photographs of 588 species along with another 361 species
are described in detailed.
Garbisch, E.W. 1986. Highway and Wetlands:
Compensating Wetland Losses. U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Report No. FHWA-IP-86-22.
An important practical guide for wetland creation and
restoration. Concepts, methods, and general
specifications for restoration and/or creation of wetland
habitats are presented. The publication includes a
number of photographs and detailed drawings showing
the fundamental methods. A number of wetland plants
are shown in line drawings along with pertinent
information concerning habitats, geographical range,
commercial sources, recommended propagules, and site
seeding potential. A small bibliography is provided that
addresses major literature sources related to the various
subjects. A list of commercial plant sources is also
provided.
Lewis, R.R. 1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal
Plant Communities. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton,
Florida.
One of the first text that addresses the restoration/
creation of coastal systems. A number of papers are
presented that address management programs from the
mid-Atlantic southward and in China. A list of world
wide commercial plant sources is provided along with list
of professional societies and journals.
McCormick, J. and HA. Somes. 1982. The Coastal
Wetlands of Maryland. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
A detailed evaluation of the coastal tidal wetlands of
Maryland that was performed as a major task for the
Department of Natural Resources in implementing
Maryland's Wetlands Act. It provides detailed
information on the types of wetland vegetation and their
functions. Detailed data are presented on the distribution,
composition (by county and watershed), values and
research needs of the wetland types in Maryland. A
method evaluation of wetland sites is present. A very
good publication to understand the various coastal
wetland systems and method of statewide evaluation.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
A comprehensive text concerned with both freshwater
and coastal wetlands of the United States. The text
formulates wetland information into a number of chapters
that addresses the various components associated with
the individual systems. An extensive reference section
with over 40 pages of citations. A very useful wetland
reference text.
Niering, WA. 1985. National Audubon Society Nature
Guides. Wetlands. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York,
New York.
A general field guide of the wetlands of the United
States that contains a lot of information that can be use
by everyone. It includes color photographs of trees,
wildflowers, fishes, insects, birds and mammals associated
with the wetlands and their distribution. An introduction
addresses the major wetlands and there functions.
Nixon, S.W. 1982. The Ecology of New England High Salt
Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-81/55.
A community profile report which summarizes the
literature of the New England high marsh habitat. The
report is broken down into several chapters that provide
basic information concerning the development, zonation,
functions and human impacts. A reference section lists
major citations associated with high marshes in
northeast.
Odum. WJ3., TJ. Smith HI, JJL Hoover, and C.C. Mclvor.
1984. The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Marshes of the
United States East Coast: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-83/17.
167
-------
A community profile report addressing freshwater
tidal marshes on the east coast, from Maine to northern
Florida. Chapters discuss geographical location,
development, community components (plants,
invertebrates, fishes, amphibians and reptiles, birds,
mammals), ecosystem process, management practices. An
important chapter compares the tidal freshwater marshes
with salt marshes and non-tidal wetlands. An extensive
reference section, 17 pages, with additional appendices
listing the major components of the freshwater tidal
wetlands with references. A very useful text.
Reimold, RJ. and S-A, Cobler. 1985. Wetlands Mitigation
Effectiveness. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-04-0015. Boston, Massachusetts.
The report provides a detailed evaluation of the five
mitigation sites in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region I, of which only two are associated with
tidal coastal wetlands. Provides information concerning
problems with the mitigation process with possible
solutions.
Shisler, J.K. and D.J. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of
Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey. New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station Publication Number
P-40502-01-84.
The report evaluates wetland mitigation sites in New
Jersey associated with the Division of Coastal Resource
program. A total 30 projects were located and field
survey. Eight were selected for quantitative sampling and
comparison. A number parameters are measured and
analyzed between mitigated sites and natural wetlands.
Recommendations and possible guidelines are presented.
Teal, J.M. 1986. The Ecology of Regularly Flooded Salt
Marshes of New England: A Community Profile. U.S.
FishWildl. Serv. BioL Rep. 85(7.4).
Another community profile report that summarizes
and synthesizes information on the ecology of intertidal,
regularly flooded Spartina altcrniflora marshes of New
England. The research at the Great Sippewissett Salt
Marsh in Falmouth, Massachusetts is focus of the report.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985a. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
A detail summary of the wetlands of New Jersey. The
reasons and methods of wetland inventory and
classification system are discussed detailed. Other
chapters discuss in detailed the formation and hydrology,
soils, plant communities, values, trends and wetland
protection in New Jersey. Extensive reference sections
are at the end of each chapter. An important source of
information concerning the wetlands of New Jersey.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985b. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory,
Newton Corner, Massachusetts and Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Wetlands Section, Dover, Delaware.
Cooperative Publication.
A detail summary of the literature of wetlands of
Delaware as compared to available information. The text
is similar to the New Jersey publication in format and
information. An important source of information
concerning Delaware wetlands.
Tiner, R.W. 1987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland
plants of the Northeastern United States. University
of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts.
The publication is a field guide to northeastern coastal
wetlands vegetation, designed for nonspecialists. More
than 150 plants are fully described and illustrated with
line drawing, and over 130 additional plants are
referenced as similar species with distinguishing
characteristics. An overview of wetland ecology in the
northeast is provided along with a series of maps that
identifying major wetland systems in the states. An
appendix lists state and federal agencies and private
environmental groups that deal with wetland protection.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Beneficial Uses of
Dredged Material. Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-5026.
Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, DC.
A comprehensive report summarizing the beneficial
uses of dredged material in the United States. The report
contains chapters on habitat development, wetland
habitats, island habitats, aquatic habitats, beaches and
beach nourishment, and monitoring studies that are
useful in coastal wetland restoration and creation aspects.
A detailed list of recommended propagules and techniques
for selected marsh species is presented in the appendix.
The appendix also includes the notes on the general
collection, handling, and planting techniques with
additional remarks concerning habitat, water level and
food value.
Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and RJt. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland
creation and restoration in the United States from
1970 to 1985: an annotated bibliography. Wetlands
6:1-88.
The bibliography provides information concerning the
engineering, preparation and plant propagation.
168
-------
APPENDIX II: PROJECT PROFILES
Wetland Type: Salt marsh. S. alterniflora.
Location: Atlantis Cove Rd., Lagoon Blvd., and Harbor
Beach Blvd. (Half Moon Cove), Brigantine, Atlantic
County, NJ.
Size: 0.8 acres.
Goals of Project:
Creation of salt marsh for destruction of 0.95 acres of
State regulated wetlands.
Judgement of Success:
Shisler and Charette (1984a) in 1983 field inspection
identified that vegetation growth has been successful on
most of the site. Peat potted S. alterniflora plants were
planted in June-July 1981 on 18-inch centers. Dredged
material was placed on fabric cloth at an elevation
(plateau) determined from adjacent wetland. Gobi bricks
were used to anchor the cloth. Problems have developed
with the use of the Gobi brick from wave energy, ice, and
vandalism. There has been an accumulation of litter,
killing the vegetation in sections. Increased diversity
associated with the gobi bricks act as rocky substrate.
Significance:
The use of Gobi bricks and the creation of a fringe
marsh on a plateau.
Reports: NJ Division of Coastal Resources
Permit No.77-0034-2.
Shisler and Charette (1984a).
Wetland Type: High marsh, S. patens.
Location: Section 1: between Route 72 and Bay Ave.,
Manahawkin, NJ. Section 2: between Railroad Ave. and
Bay Ave., Manahawkin, NJ.
Size: combined 1 acre.
Goals of Project:
The creation of a high marsh habitat. Sand was used
as a backfill material and leveled to the elevation of the
congruent marsh. Peat-potted S. patens transplants were
usedona2-ft. grid in 1977.
Judgement of Success:
Spartina alterniflora was identified as the major
vegetation species in a 1983 survey of the site (Shisler and
Charette 1984a). Problems associated with the site were
relative elevations and poor sediment characteristics.
Significance:
Pipeline alterations are major disturbances
associated with wetland habitats.
Reports: NJ Division of Coastal Resources
Permit No. w74-10-073.
Shisler and Charette (1984a).
Wetland Type: Brackish marsh.
Location: Stratford Land Improvement Corporation
(SLIC) Site, Stratford, CT.
Size: approximately 20 acres.
Goals of Project:
An after-the-fact application for Section 404 permit.
Mitigation included the construction of a 1.5 acre fresh to
brackish pond and dike alterations to increase tidal
circulation for wetland enhancement.
Judgement of Success:
Metcalf & Eddy biologists visited the site in 1984, and
concluded that the area was dominated by salt-stressed P^
australis. and that the fresh to brackish pond was
inappropriate mitigation for the habitat destroyed.
Recommendations were to plant S. patens, remove P^
australis debris, and increase the tidal circulation.
Significance:
A New England wetland project of enhancement and
restoration that was completed as an after-the-fact
permit.
Reports: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. CT-
ANSO-83-013.
Reimold and Cobler (1986).
Wetland Type: Salt to brackish marsh (high low).
Location: Taylors Point in Bourne, Barnstable County,
Massachusetts.
Size: 1.8 acres.
Goals of Project:
The mitigation project would create 1/7 acre of high
marsh and 1/5 acre of low marsh.
Judgement of Success:
The site was field inspected by Metcalf & Eddy
biologists in 1984 and 1985. They documented that the
site was basically devoid of vegetation except is some
areas that supported isolated stands of S. alterniflora. ŁL
patens, and D. spicata. Their conclusion was that the lack
of success was the result of: (1) the planting of the marsh
too early in the season when environmental conditions
were still harsh; (2) the intertidal elevation at which the
plants were planted; (3) the large year-round Canada
goose population feeding on the root and rhizomes; (4) the
occurrence of icing during the winter months; (5) the
small size of the transplants and the possibility that they
were not planted with sufficient root/rhizome material to
assure complete anchoring of the plants at the time of
transplant; and (6) the absence of a temporary protective
offshore bar to decrease wave action.
169
-------
Significance:
The use of stocked piled material and transplanting
of wetland species.
Reports: UJS. Army Corps of Engineers
Permit No. MA -POCA-81-384.
Reimold and Cobler (1986).
Wetland Type: Restoration of coastal wetland.
Location: Island Beach State Park, New Jersey.
Size: Two systems, 1 and 5 acres.
Goal* of Project:
To create open water systems with a fringe marsh in
a Phraymitga miatraliq dominated wetlands. The open
water would serve as a reservoir for indigenous fish
populations for the control of mosquito populations. Work
was done in 1977 using an amphibious dragline.
Judgement of Success:
The area is routinely inspected by the Ocean County
Mosquito Control Commission for mosquito breeding. No
pesticides have been utilized for the control of mosquito
populations since the project was completed in the 1977.
Increases in waterfowl, vegetation diversify, and fish
populations have been observed (Figures 7 & 8).
Significance:
The restoration of P. australis dominated wetland
system in a sandy substrate.
Reports: Ocean County Mosquito Control Commission,
Bamegat, New Jersey.
Candeletti, T.H. and FH. Lesser. 1977.
McNeil, P. 1979.
Wetland Type: Impoundment of P. australis to tidal
marsh.
Location: Fail-field, Connecticut.
Size: 10 hectares.
Goals of Project:
Restoration of aPhragmitea australis impoundment
into a S. alterniflora. S. patens. D. spicata marsh by the
opening of the dike.
Judgement of Success:
In 1983 the impoundment vegetation composition of
the impoundment was evaluated by researchers
(Bongiorno et al 1984). They recorded that after 3 years of
tidal inundation the marsh was quickly colonized by &
alterniflora. S. patens. D. spicata. and Salicornia spp.
Significance:
The documentation of a tidally restored wetland
system in New England. Data demonstrates natural
succession of vegetation species in an impoundment area.
Reports: Bongiorno et al. 1984.
Wetland Type: Salt hay impoundments to tidal
wetlands.
Location: Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
Size: 6900 acres.
Goals of Project:
Tidal restoration of salt hay impoundments has three
objectives: (1) control mosquito populations; (2)
elimination of insecticides for mosquito control on the
impoundments; and (3) enhancement of estuarine food
chain organisms. It involves the state purchase of salt
hay impoundments from willing sellers. Once purchased,
the county mosquito commission removes the ditch plugs,
and/or dikes subjecting the previously enclosed area to
tidal inundation.
Judgement of Success:
A number of publications have addressed the success
of the method in restoring previously impounded wetlands
into salt marsh systems.
Significance:
A large scale program that has met its objectives with
beneficial results. The program has been in operation
since the late 1960's.
Reports: Slavin and Shisler. 1983.
FerrignoetaL 1987.
Wetland Type: Salt marsh management.
Location: Coastal marshes.
Size: Various.
Goals of Project:
Open Marsh Water Management was a method
developed on coastal marshes for the control of mosquito
populations without harmful effects on the salt marshes-
estuarine system. The method had three objectives: (1)
control mosquito populations; (2) elimination of
insecticides for mosquito control; and (3) enhancement of
estuarine food chain organisms. The method included the
duplication of those habitats of the salt marsh that did not
produce mosquitoes.
Judgement of Success:
A number of publications have addressed the success
of the method in various states along the east and west
coast.
170
-------
Before
Mosquito Larval Habitat
Maritime Fore it
Sand
After
Phragmites
Maritime Forest
Jiv
\
Figure 7. Cross section of a barrier island before and after habitat restoration of the Phragmites
australis area on Island Beach State Park, New Jersey.
171
-------
10
Figure 8. The changes in vegetation over five growing seasons on the two experimental areas on Island Beach State Park, New Jersey.
-------
Significance:
A large-scale program that has met its objectives
with beneficial results associated with coastal wetlands.
The program has been in operation late 1960's.
Reports: Daiber. 1982,1986.
Ferrigno and Jobbins. 1968.
Ferrigno et al. 1969.
Ferrigno. 1970.
Meredith and Saveikis. 1987.
Shisler and Jobbins. 1977.
Shisler and Ferrigno. 1987.
Wetland Type: Salt marsh. S. alterniflora.
Location: Adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike,
Hackensack, New Jersey.
Size: 63 acres.
Goals of Project:
The restoration a 63-acres monoculture Phragmites
australis marsh into a Spartina alterniflora marsh. The
site is located along the New Jersey Turnpike where the
Cromakill Creek and Hackensack River meet. The plan
was to restore the site with tidal creeks and flats.
Judgement of Success:
The site consists of three habitats: 10-15 percent is
open water/mud flats; 10 percent dry berms; and 75
percent cordgrass meadows. There has been a documented
increase in bird species (32 vs. 16) and numbers (1592 vs.
204). Benthic invertebrates tripled in numbers and
doubled in species. No noticeable changes on mammalian,
herptilian, and fish populations were observed.
Significance:
A large private restoration project with positive
results.
Reports: Bontje 1988.
173
-------
REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CREATION AND
RESTORATION OF SEAGRASS SYSTEMS
Mark S. Fonseca1
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Beaufort Laboratory
ABSTRACT. Seagrasses occur in most coastal, marine regions and are highly productive
habitats. They are not a traditional wetland type but do meet the criteria for protection of
aquatic habitat under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Including seagrass acreage would
increase national wetland acreage approximately 17 percent. Seagrasses are described under
six Ecoregions for management. Adequate water clarity for light transmission is required
for restoration and survival of seagrass meadows.
Goals and performance guidelines for seagrass restoration and creation projects have
historically been inappropriate. Consequently, seagrass restoration has never prevented a net
loss in habitat. Suggested goals to prevent such losses include: development of persistent
cover, generation of equivalent acreage or increased acreage, replacement with the same
seagrass species, and restoration of secondary (faunal) production. These goals are to be
differentiated from measures of density and percent survival. Monitoring for cover and
persistence should continue for 3 years.
Site selection is a complex problem. The primary choice for restoration sites should be
areas previously impacted or lost. The secondary choices should be perturbed aquatic areas
irrespective of their previous plant community or uplands which can be excavated and
converted to seagrass habitat. Population growth rate determines the species chosen for the
restoration. Inclusion of specific conditions in the permit will enhance the probability of
project success.
Research needs include: defining functional restoration, compiling population growth
and coverage rates by Ecoregion, examining the resource role of mixed species plantings,
determining the impact of substituting pioneer for climax species on faunal composition and
abundance, evaluating the substitution of other species (e.g., mangroves, salt marshes) on
cumulative damage to habitat resources when suitable sites cannot be found for seagrass
planting, developing culture techniques for propagule development, exploring transplant
optimization techniques such as the use of fertilizers, and delineating seagrass habitat
boundaries. Most important would be the implementation of a consistent policy on seagrass
restoration and management among resource agencies wherein restoration technique,
monitoring, and performance and compliance guidelines would be standardized.
OVERVIEW OF REGION OR WETLAND TYPE DISCUSSED
This chapter will discuss a single habitat
type-seagrass. Seagrass is a submerged meadow
composed of one or more seagrass species. It
occurs in most coastal, marine regions of the
United States. Seagrasses have been shown to be
highly productive and serve as important
spawning, nursery, feeding, and refuge habitat
for numerous estuarine and marine fauna
(Thayer et al. 1984, Phillips 1984, Zieman 1982,
Kenworthy et al. 1988). Many seagrass bed fauna
are economically valuable.
Seagrasses have not traditionally been
considered a wetland type, but rather have been
defined as vegetated shallows. However, they
meet most of the criteria applied to other wetland
species such as saturated soil, and inundation,
and are a vegetation type adapted for life in
irThe views expressed in this chapter are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the National Marine Fisheries Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
175
-------
saturated soil conditions.
Some wetland managers feel that seagrasses
must be separated from traditional wetland
species. The Environmental Protection Agency's
"Guidelines for specification of disposal sites for
dredged or fill material" (Federal Register 1980)
describes the discrepancy between wetland
definitions and recognizes that other Federal
and State laws include vegetated shallows as
wetlands. At the very least, seagrasses fall
under the definition of shellfish beds and fishery
areas established in Section 404(c) of the Clean
Water Act. The technical definition of seagrass
as a traditional wetland species is beyond the
scope of this chapter. However, given their
proximity and known biological linkage to other
wetland systems (e.g., saltmarshes, mangroves),
it is critical that seagrasses be considered in
wetland management.
There are approximately 60 species of
seagrass in the world. Of these at least 12 occur
in the United States and adjacent waters (Table
1). Seagrasses are angiosperms; flowering
plants which have evolved to a marine
environment from a terrestrial existence.
Similar to other flowering plants, seagrasses are
characterized by vascularized leaf, root, and
rhizome (tiller or runner) systems which set
them apart from nonvascular algae or seaweeds
(especially rhizophytic algae) for which they are
often mistaken.
Some of the different growth forms of various
seagrass species are shown in Figure 1. These
plants differ from most other wetland plants in
that they lead an almost exclusively subtidal
existence (even down to 100 meters in clear,
tropical waters), carry on both sexual and
asexual reproduction in the water, reside in
either brackish or, for the most part, marine
salinities, and utilize the water column for
support.
The subtidal existence of these plants sets
them apart from other coastal vegetation in that
they are completely dependent on water clarity
for adequate light for photosynthesis and, thus,
survival. Water clarity (low turbidity) is
critical for the restoration and management of
this ecosystem as has been seen in Chesapeake
Bay (Orth and Moore 1981), San Francisco Bay
(pers. obs.), and Tampa Bay (Lewis et al. 1985).
Without adequate water clarity at a restoration
site, or the preservation of water clarity over
existing seagrass meadows, the entire concept of
seagrass restoration and management becomes
academic.
Seagrass ecosystems, intricately linked to
the maintenance of living marine resources,
have generally been disregarded in coastal
management programs including coastal
wetland inventories and protection efforts.
However, recent but rather incomplete surveys
have shown that there are at least 6.2 million
acres of seagrass habitat in the southeast U.S.
alone (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and
Martel Laboratories, Inc. 1985, J.C. Zieman, pers.
comm., R.L. Ferguson, pers. comm.). This
acreage is not included in current estimates of
wetland abundance by any agency despite the
classification of seagrass as a wetland under the
Cowardin system (Cowardin et al. 1979). This
exclusion ignores the role of seagrass as a
critical habitat type (Thayer et al. 1984, Phillips
1984, and Zieman 1982). If this acreage were
included, it would constitute an approximate 19
percent increase in the wetland acreage of the
southeast U.S. Since a majority of the nation's
coastal wetlands occur in the southeast, seagrass
acreage constitutes an increase of nearly 17
percent in our total national wetland area (for
the lower 48 states). A lack of aerial photography
with sufficient water depth penetration to map
seagrass beds is generally acknowledged as the
historic reason for not including seagrasses in
wetland inventories.
CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONS
As stated earlier, this overview of seagrasses
is of national scope, encompassing several
ecologically defined regions, or Ecoregions.
Common to all these Ecoregions is the subtidal or
nominally intertidal nature of seagrasses.
Different tidal amplitudes, predictable by latitude
and varied by local basin geomorphologies, have
helped generate characteristic seagrass
distributions. Tidal amplitudes, taken together
with differing temperature, salinity, light
tolerance, and life histories of the various
seagrass species may be described as forming
six characteristic seagrass Ecoregions. The
definition of these Ecoregions is based on
seagrass population growth and abundance data
presented in Phillips (1984), Thayer et al. (1984),
Fonseca (1987), and Fonseca et al. (1987a, b, c,
1988). The Ecoregions are 1) the northeast coast,
north of Chesapeake Bay; 2) southeastern
Temperate coast, Chesapeake Bay and south
through Georgia (although there is no seagrass
reported in South Carolina and Georgia; the only
two coastal marine States without seagrass); 3)
portions of Florida and the Gulf coast north of 28°
latitude; 4) portions of Florida and U.S.
Caribbean territories south of 28° N latitude; 5)
the west coast, including Alaska (until more is
known about restoration of seagrass beds in
Alaska, they are grouped with the west coast
in general, it is likely they will warrant
assignation of new ecoregional definitions as
data are acquired); and 6) the Hawaiian islands
and Pacific territories.
176
-------
Table 1. List of seagrass species by family, genus and species, and common names (if given) that
are found in the United States and adjacent waters.
Family and Species
Common Name
Hydrocharitaceae
Enhalua acoroidea Royle*
Halophila decipiens Ostenfeld
Halophila engelmanni Ascherson
Halophila johnsonii Eiseman
Thalassia testudinum Konig
Potamogetonaceae
Halodule wrightii Ascherson
Phvllospadix scouleri Hook
Phvllospadix torrevi S. Watson
Ruppia maritima L.
Svrinyodium filiforme Kutz
Zostera iaponica Aschers. et Graebner
Zostera marina L.
paddle grass
star grass
Johnson's seagrass
turtlegrass
shoalgrass
surf grass
surf grass
widgeongrass
manatee grass
eel grass
* One verbal report from Hawaii.
These Ecoregions do not necessarily match
the distribution of an individual seagrass
species. Rather, the seasonal growth
characteristics of a given species may be
generalized within these regional definitions.
This is a critical factor in predicting seagrass
restoration performance, planting season, and
thus, conservation of resource values.
A further subdivision of an Ecoregion may
be made when we consider the settings in which
seagrasses are found. These settings are
important because they can define the
vulnerability of a given seagrass bed to different
anthropogenic impacts. To illustrate this point,
consider that there are five basic settings in
which seagrass occurs: intertidal, rocky
intertidal, subtidal estuarine, subtidal coastal or
near shore (<10 meters), and deepwater (>10
meters) (Table 2). Intertidal and rocky
intertidal beds are particularly sensitive to oil
fouling. Intertidal, subtidal estuarine, and
subtidal coastal beds are all particularly
sensitive to dredging impacts where rocky
intertidal beds (Phvllospadix sp. in particular)
are not. All of these beds are extremely sensitive
to degradation in water quality, particularly
increased turbidity. Therefore, many non-permit
associated pollution sources such as storm water
runoff may have substantial and lasting effects
on seagrass productivity and coverage (Fonseca
et al. 1987c).
WETLAND TYPES TO BE DISCUSSED
It is important to distinguish between the
geographical range of different seagrass species
177
-------
Halophila engelmanni
Halophila decipiens
Halodule wrigtitii
Syrlngodlum filiforme
Thalaasia teatudlnum
Zostera marina
Figure 1. An illustration of the many growth forms that seagrasses of the United States exhibit.
Redrawn from originals by R. Zieman and M. Fonseca. Courtesy of NMFS/NOAA,
Beaufort, NC.
178
-------
Table 2. Seagrass Ecoregions of the United States with known habitat settings within those regions.
ECOREGION
SETTINGS
1) Northeast coast, north of Chesapeake Bay
2) Southeast temperate coast, Chesapeake Bay through Georgia
3) Florida and Gulf Coast, north of 28° N latitude
4) Florida and Caribbean south of 28° N latitude
5) West coast, including Alaska
6) Hawaiian Islands and Pacific jurisdiction
Intertidal
subtidal estuarine
coastal/nearshore
(< 10 m)
intertidal
subtidal estuarine
subtidal estuarine
coastal/nearshore
deepwater (> 10 m)
subtidal estuarine
coastal/nearshore
deepwater
intertidal
rocky intertidal
subtidal estuarine
coastal/nearshore
subtidal estuarine
coastal/nearshore
deepwater
and the Ecoregional definitions set forth above.
Such a distinction is necessary where, for
example, with eelgrass (Zostera marina) the
geographical range extends from near the Arctic
circle on both coasts of the U.S. south to North
Carolina on the east coast and to the Gulf of
California on the west coast. Across this
extraordinary latitudinal range, this species
exhibits both annual and perennial growth, with
growth peaks either in the summer or in the fall
and spring (Thayer et al. 1984, Phillips 1984).
This variation in growth season and life history
points out the need for different planting times,
projected coverage rates, and thus very different
performance and compliance criteria (Fonseca et
al. 1982,1984,1985,1987c, 1988).
This type of geographical versus Ecoregional
distinction in planning and implementation of
seagrass restorations has been utilized for the
seagrasses of Florida (Fonseca et al. 1987c). In
that paper the population growth and coverage
rate of transplanted turtlegrass (Thalassia
testudinum). manatee grass (Svringodium
filiforme), and shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii)
were compared between north and south Florida.
In the case of shoalgrass, a comparison was
made with North Carolina sites as well.
Although the comparisons were made within the
geographical range of each species, the
conclusions were that south Florida seagrasses
fell not only under a different model of growth,
but could be planted year-round. Northern
179
-------
Florida and North Carolina plantings of
shoalgrass (the one species common to both
States) were similar in their performance.
Therefore, common generalizations as to the
timing of their restoration were appropriate.
Another equally important factor regarding
the geographic distribution of seagrass may be
found where seagrasses exhibit different
tolerance ranges for such environmental
conditions as temperature and salinity across
their geographic range. Eelgrass is suspected to
have developed races (genetically defined
adaptation) in response to those conditions
(Backman 1984). The existence of these races in
eelgrass has been used as the basis for selecting
transplanting stock to match the conditions at a
planting site (Backman 1984).
On a smaller scale, the geographical
distribution of seagrasses among areas of
different currents and wave exposures pose
problems in site selection, performance and
compliance evaluation (Fonseca and Fisher
1986, Fonseca et al. 1988). The synecology of
seagrass beds in high current and/or wave areas
is such that along channel banks and shoals,
beds typically form in discrete, mounded
patches, or "leopard skin" distribution (den
Hartog 1971). In quiescent areas, seagrasses
form a more continuous cover, resembling what
one generally conceives of as a meadow. The
exception to this is when there is insufficient
unconsolidated sediment on top of underlying
bedrock for the plants to root. In these instances,
even though the area may be a quiet backwater,
seagrasses will only be able to grow in
depressions in the bedrock where sufficient
sediments exist (a minimum of about 5 cm for
some genus such as Halophila or +20 cm for
Thalassia).
These unvegetated areas are typically
but erroneously selected as areas to receive
seagrass transplants. Areas that either have
patchy beds or do not have any existing seagrass
cover at all are also selected for transplanting.
The problem of using such sites for
transplanting was addressed by Fredette et al.
(1985),
"One of the first needs for a successful
seagrass transplant is selection of a
suitable site. To the nonspecialist, it
may not be intuitively obvious that not
all shallow-water sites barren of
seagrass will suffice. On the other
hand, people familiar with a need to
have some type of proper environmental
conditions might ask, 'If seagrass does
not currently exist at the site, what
makes you believe it can be successfully
established?' This valid question
demands an answer based on thorough
investigations of the physical attributes
of a site.
If, after examination the site appears
suitable, the question that still remains is
'Why does it not support seagrass?' One
answer might be that the site historically
had supported seagrass, but an
environmental (e.g., hurricane, extreme
temperatures) or human-induced (e.g.,
pollution, hydraulic changes) disturbance
resulted in loss."
Therefore, if there are no adequate site
history records, and environmental surveys of
appropriate parameters and duration are
lacking, there is no scientific justification that
would recommend a site for planting.
On an autecological scale, there exists a
further consideration for a planting operation
regarding the life history of the different
seagrass species within an Ecoregion. Not all
seagrasses have the same growth habit, den
Hartog (1970) described most of the known
seagrasses in the world and their different
forms, while Tomlinson (1974) described the
relation between the asexual (branching)
reproduction of seagrasses and their high per
shoot productivity (see next section). The
usefulness of this seemingly esoteric
information to practical management problems
is, in fact, profound. Although all seagrasses
produce new leaf material from existing shoots
at astonishing rates (Zieman and Wetzel 1980),
not all seagrasses add new shoots (via vegetative
reproduction) at an equally astonishing rate. In
fact, many seagrasses do not add new shoots for
weeks at a time, whereas other species of
seagrass add new shoots daily. Those species
that add new shoots rapidly have a concomitantly
high bottom coverage rate, a factor of paramount
importance to seagrass restoration. Those
species that are slow in their addition of shoots
are too slow in coverage of the bottom for effective
habitat restoration on their own.
In much of the temperate and boreal United
States, there is often only one or two seagrass
species from which to choose for restoration
operations (Ecoregions 1 and 5, Table 2). In
other Ecoregions, there are often several species
from which to choose. In order to quickly
stabilize the sediment at a site, the
fastest-covering species suitable to that Ecoregion
should be chosen (Fonseca et al. 1987c). If the
species that was lost was one of the slow-covering
species, plantings of this seagrass may be
interspersed among the faster-growing species to
compress (in time) the successional process (e.g.,
planting Halodule interspersed with Thalassia)
(Derrenbacker and Lewis 1982).
Slower-covering genera such as Thalassia.
180
-------
Enhalus. Phvllospadix. and all species at the
edge of their geographic range present a
particularly difficult problem in restoration
attempts. As development occurs in the coastal
zone, the older, climax meadows are more often
the ones damaged. Because they are
slow-growing, those meadows represent decades
of development. Even artificially-assisted
restoration of these systems, such as
transplanting, will take many years.
In summary, the concept of Ecoregions
describing seagrass growth crosses the
geographic ranges of the species themselves.
Generalizations regarding planting unit
performance and compliance with permit
standards may be more accurate if made within
the Ecoregion as opposed to the geographic ranges
of the species themselves. Another basis for the
Ecoregional assessment is the suspected
existence of races of seagrass that are
specifically adapted to certain environmental
conditions. If these races could be identified, then
selection of planting stock could be matched with
the conditions at a planting site, potentially
improving restoration performance. The
potential for making such identifications should
be enhanced by working within Ecoregions.
Even applying the Ecoregion and race concepts
requires operational consideration of
synecological and autecological aspects of
seagrass responses under transplantation.
These factors control the degree of cover and the
rate at which that cover may be achieved. All
these factors together contribute to our ability to
set realistic performance and compliance
standards.
Kev Fnctions
Wood et al. (1969) described seven basic
functional roles for tropical seagrasses. Thayer
et al. (1984) added three additional functions for
temperate systems based on research findings
between 1969 and 1984. The functions described
in these two papers are universally applicable to
all seagrasses. In an abbreviated format, the
functions are:
1 ) a high rate of leaf growth,
2) the support of large numbers of epiphytic
organisms (which are grazed extensively
and may be of comparable biomass to the
leaves themselves),
3) the leaf production of large quantities of
organic material which decomposes in the
meadow or is transported to adjacent
systems. Since few organisms graze directly
on the living seagrasses, and the detritus
formed from leaves supports a complex food
web,
4) shoots, by retarding or slowing currents,
enhance sediment stability and increase the
accumulation of organic and inorganic
material,
5) roots, by binding sediments, reduce erosion
and preserve sediment microflora,
6) plants and detritus production influence
nutrient cycling between sediments and
overlying waters,
7) decomposition of roots and rhizomes provides
a significant and long-term source of
nutrients for sediment microheterotrophs,
8) roots and leaves provide horizontal and
vertical complexity which, coupled with
abundant and varied food resources, leads to
densities of fauna generally exceeding those
in unvegetated habitats, and
9) movement of water and fauna transports
living and dead organic matter (particulate
and dissolved) out of seagrass systems to
adjacent habitats.
Much of the knowledge of seagrass systems
centers around their function as a primary
producer. Less is known about how the different
meadow formations (or the mosaic of different
seagrass species) act to support the secondary
(faunal) production of the system (Heck 1979).
The role of restored seagrass meadows in
providing similar resource value is,
unfortunately, unknown.
A typical question that is posed by those
charged with managing seagrass systems is
"how much can we afford to lose?". Such a
question often cannot be answered scientifically
on a regional scale until it is too late to preserve
the resource value of the system. In order to
avoid such a result, efforts may be made to
require replanting wherever seagrasses are
destroyed. These seagrass beds are created
under the assumption that the created meadow
provides the same resource value as the natural
meadow for which it was intended to compensate.
This may be true. However, the questions of
relative resource value and the rate of
development of created vs. natural seagrass
meadows are only now being addressed
scientifically and the answers are not yet clear.
181
-------
TYPICAL GOALS FOR PROJECTS
Goals for seagrass restoration vary widely,
depending on the perspective of the project
proponents. Permit applicants under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act often find themselves
dealing with a subject about which they know
little (seagrass restoration), and for which there
is no clear guidance. This is largely due to the
lack of consistent policy on the subject between,
or indeed, even within local, State and Federal
resource agencies.
There have been few quantitative goals
established for individual seagrass restoration
projects. Goals have been of a highly qualitative
nature, such as "successful restoration of the
seagrass community". Although one usually has
a visual image of a "successful" seagrass
restoration as a thick, lush meadow, success
criteria typically fall wide of defining a
seagrass meadow with functional habitat
recovery. With this lack of functional guidance,
goals provided by the private sector have, for the
most part, been biologically unsound.
A measurement of percent survival, blade
density, biomass, or percent survival are too
frequently adopted as a single project goal (refer
to Appendix II). Consequently, post-project data
have usually been collected on percent survival,
blade density, and percent success. However,
this group of parameters do not provide useful,
functional definitions of success. For example,
there is typically a loss of plants and whole
planting units immediately after planting. Sixty
to 90 days after planting, the loss of plants and
planting units should cease, indicating that the
remaining plantings have become rooted. At this
point, the plantings are also less prone to erosion.
For slow-growing species, however,
measurements of planting unit survival may do
little to convey how the meadow is developing.
For example, if turtlegrass plantings on
one-meter centers have 100 percent survival, but
take years to begin to coalesce. The high survival
count will not reflect the extremely slow rate of
habitat development.
Blade density too may increase after
restoration simply by individual shoots doubling
or tripling the number of standing leaves without
any additional coverage of the bottom. Blade and
shoot density, along with biomass estimates vary
widely within and between natural beds, both
spatially and temporally. Blade density
and biomass are products of local gradients of
environmental conditions, a complex
relationship that is not a readily predictable or
controllable process, and therefore, a poor basis
on which to define success. Also, the term
"percent success" is a dimensionless parameter
with "success" still undefined, making an
extremely nebulous definition for habitat
restoration. Use of such vague terminology
invites non-compliance with permit conditions.
There are other less obvious problems with
using these measures of planting success. One
of the prime goals of restoring seagrass beds is to
enhance and restore faunal diversity and
abundance. Unfortunately, faunal development
of created seagrass beds is only now being
evaluated.
Goals for seagrass restorations or seagrass
mitigation plans need rigorous definition. Goals
may be generically defined and are applicable
across Ecoregional boundaries. Suggested goals
are:
1) development of persistent vegetative cover
(cover being defined as the area where
rhizomes overlap),
2) equivalent acreage of vegetative cover gained
for cover acreage lost (where with naturally
patchy distributions, such as in wave-exposed
areas, more planting area may be required to
accommodate the sum total of vegetative
cover),
3) increase in acreage where possible,
4) eventual replacement of same seagrass
species as were lost, and
5) development of faunal population structure
and abundance in the new bed equivalent to
natural, reference beds.
These goals may only be met through a
careful consideration of several project design
criteria. These are discussed below. As it turns
out, creation and restoration of seagrass systems
is not at all a trivial exercise.
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
With reference to the goals defined above
(1-5), goal 1 has frequently been achieved. But
major failures such as the attempted 200 acre
plantings in Biscayne Bay have overshadowed
the relatively small numbers of successes. Goals
2 and 3 have, to the author's knowledge, never
been met. There has never been a seagrass
restoration that has prevented a net loss of habitat
(Fonseca et al. 1988). Goal 4 is generally only
applicable to subtropical and tropical areas where
there occur several sympatric species of
seagrass. When climax species such as
182
-------
turtlegrass have been lost, there have been only
rare instances of recovery. In most instances it
was not possible to prove that transplanted
seagrasses effected the recovery as opposed to
natural colonization of the site. It should be
noted that success in recovering climax species
is so rare that out-of-kind replacement with
another seagrass species is encouraged
(Derrenbacker and Lewis 1982, Ponseca et al.
1987c). For this reason it has been recommended
that impacts to these climax species should be
avoided at all costs (Fonseca et al 1987c). There
is no evidence that Goal 5 has ever occurred.
Recovery of seagrass-associated fauna on a per
unit area of bed may be occurring (Homziak et
al. 1982, McLaughlin et al 1983, Fonseca 1987).
However, since there has been virtually no net
recovery of seagrass acreage on local or regional
bases, it is highly unlikely that system-level
recovery of faunal structure, abundance, and
function has occurred to any degree.
REASONS FOR SUCCESS/FAILURES
Where successes have occurred (defined by
meeting the above-stated goals), they have been
the result of appropriate design criteria.
Conversely, failures have been masked by
improper success criteria, site selection,
technique, and monitoring. As a result,
mitigation of seagrass losses is sometimes
viewed in the same manner as salt marsh
creation, which is technically less difficult and
has a good track record of success.
On a larger scale, the major reason for
failure may stem from the lack of consistent
terminology (and in some instances, policy) by
resource agencies on the subject of seagrass
restoration. Without enforcement of ecologically
sound and biologically relevant success criteria,
seagrass restoration will not become a
predictable management tool. Enforcement of
these success criteria have been achieved through
strictly written permit conditions (Thayer et al.
1985).
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
PRECONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Location of Project
If the area has returned to conditions that
will support seagrasses, planting sites should be
located on the impacted area. Examples of such
sites include backfilled access canals, pipelines,
and power line crossings. If a site has been
altered to the point where it will no longer support
seagrass, then the restoration site should be
located in the same water body, and as near to
the impacted site as possible. If such a site
cannot be found, then anthropogenically
impacted areas in communicating water bodies
should be selected. This selection should be
made with the realization that compensation has
not been provided for local system losses.
Sfjte Characteristics
A basic requirement in selecting a
restoration site is knowing its environmental
history. This addresses the point raised earlier
in a quote from Fredette et al. (1985): "If
seagrass does not currently exist at the (chosen)
site, what makes you believe it can be
successfully established?". If this information is
not immediately available, it should be obtained
or determined that it does, indeed, not exist. The
only alternative to this approach that may be
reliably employed is a commitment to a
scientifically valid environmental monitoring
project to evaluate temperature, salinity,
currents, sediments, and especially light
penetration to the bottom. Since this is not a
technical guide to seagrass meadow creation,
description of environmental monitoring is
beyond the scope of discussion. However, when
environmental monitoring is required, the
accurate measure of photosynthetically active
radiation reaching the bottom in both time and
space over a planting site is pivotal in
evaluating site suitability.Very small
restorations (<1000 m2) do not require
pre-planting environmental monitoring since it
costs less to plant them than to monitor
environmental conditions.
Sites should not be selected among existing,
naturally patchy seagrass meadows (Fonseca et
al. 1988). Some seagrass beds exist naturally in
this configuration due to the existence of an
annual population, their colonization of sediment-
- filled pockets in surface bedrock, a
hydrodynamically active setting, or some
combination thereof. Although a seagrass may
be transplanted in some of these areas and may
temporarily proliferate, the environmental
factors creating the patchiness will shortly revert
the area to pre-planting levels of patchiness.
Thus, only a temporary pulse of productivity
would be achieved and no persistent increase in
seagrass acreage would be generated.
An important point is that to maintain a
183
-------
given level of seagrass coverage in say,
wave-swept areas, there must be a given level of
unvegetated area as well. The seagrass cover
and its associated inter-patch spaces must be
regarded in toto as seagrass habitat; one cannot
be maintained without the other. This eventually
leads to the question "at what level of patchiness
does one perceive a seagrass habitat?".
Empirical observations by the author of aerial
photographs at a scale of 1:24,000 suggests that
when the ratio of average patch diameter to
interspace distance exceeds 50:1, seagrass habitat
continuity is difficult to discern. At this point,
patches could be dealt with as individual units,
rather than as parts of a larger seagrass habitat.
The 50:1 ratio will change with the scale of
observation and the factors controlling habitat
boundary recognition deserve further study.
Apart from between-patch spaces, sites should
also not be selected on broader,
naturally-occurring unvegetated areas. Such a
selection would displace another habitat, and it
is likely that a natural balance of vegetation and
non-vegetated areas is required for maintenance
of specific marine resource values. Recent
research findings suggest that unvegetated areas
are zones of significantly higher predation,
which mobilizes energy up the food chain
(Mclvor 1987, Rozas 1987). Under this scenario,
vegetated areas act as a reservoir of prey items
that are less energetically costly for predators to
obtain in unvegetated areas. Thus, transplanting
into these areas in an attempt to reduce
patchiness, or altering seagrass species
composition is hypothesized to negatively affect
trophic transfer of energy for some fauna.
Without clear evidence as guidance,
modifications of bed patchiness is essentially a
form of unisectoral management, likely
benefiting some species to the detriment of others.
Such an approach should be conducted only as
experimental research, not a management
alternative.
The following choices for restoration sites
are given in order of preference:
1) restore areas previously impacted by poor
water quality that once had seagrass, and the
water quality has improved,
2) convert filled or dredged areas that were
once seagrass meadows back to original
elevation and transplant onto them (some
subtropical areas, such as the Florida Keys,
may colonize on their own with pioneer
seagrass species, e.g., shoalgrass),
3) convert filled or dredged areas, irrespective
of their previous plant community, to a
suitable elevation for seagrass,
4) convert uplands to seagrass habitat.
The first two options are ecologically sound
since they will act to restore the lost balance of
plant communities in an area. The third option
may not always perform that function and along
with the fourth option creates conflicts with
terrestrial habitat values. However, in some
instances those uplands may be already zoned
for development and will be lost as a natural
resource, or, in many cases, what may appear to
be original upland habitat is actually an older
filled area. This is particularly true in
urbanized estuaries.
There are cases where a "public interest",
or "water dependent" project is approved and
none of the above choices are available. As
matters stand, the site selection conflict is
emerging as the single most difficult aspect of
seagrass mitigation projects. The only portion of
the permit process that has changed, however, is
that as permits for seagrass-conflicting projects
are issued, resource agencies are realizing they
are permitting another net loss of habitat. This
issue of site selection is the most significant "red
flag" that 404 administrators will encounter in
seagrass mitigation projects.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROJECT PLAN
Timing' of Construction
Timing of restoration is key to determining
the timing of any site construction or
modification. This is where the Ecoregions
concept discussed above is particularly useful.
Timing is determined by the life history of the
seagrasses in the area, which is, in turn, the
basis for the Ecoregional definitions in Table 2.
There are, however, several factors related to the
life history of seagrasses that place constraints
on a straightforward determination of planting
dates. One factor is that after some seagrasses
flower, the reproductive shoot dies. If a
restoration operation uses many flowering
shoots, then many shoots will die before giving
rise to new, vegetative shoots. Seeds that may be
set by transplanting the flowering shoots are an
extremely tenuous means of revegetating an
area because of low germination rates and the
variability of seed set and retention. Unless
otherwise demonstrated through field surveys,
natural seeding or vegetative fragment
recruitment should not be counted on to provide
significant coverage. Planting should be done
after the flowering shoots can be identified, or
one should over-plant by increasing the number
of shoots per planting unit by roughly 30 percent.
Knowledge of the flowering factor may be a
valuable asset in planning a seagrass
restoration, though such data are not always
available. The existence of annual forms (plants
184
-------
growing from seed and flowering the same year,
as opposed to the typically perennial form) within
an Ecoregion may preclude seagrass restoration
altogether. If a seagrass shoot has a one-year life
history, then there will be little vegetative cover
within a season, but much seed setting. Since no
proven methods exist at this time to restore most
seagrasses from seed, restoration or creation of
recurring, annual populations remains tech-
nically unfeasible. Research on Z. marina in
Chesapeake Bay is continuing to resolve this
problem for this species (R.J. Orth and K.A.
Moore, pers. comm.)
Timing of construction, which is based on
the actual timing of planting, must consider
utilization of the planting site by fauna. For
example, setting of herring eggs on eelgrass in
the Pacific northwest or shorebird nesting on
dredge material islands are natural phenomena
that may preclude the disruptive activity of site
engineering, donor site harvest, or even human
presence.
Timing of construction must consider the
lead time needed to evaluate, create, and
stabilize a site prior to recommended
transplanting times. Construction timing may
also be affected by the availability of planting
stock, especially in the case of salvage operations
(a case where destruction of a seagrass bed is
permitted, such as bridge construction, and the
seagrass may be salvaged and used as planting
stock at a new site). These times vary on a case
by case basis, but, construction timing should
always consider the planting times given below.
In Ecoregion 1 (northeast U.S.), planting should
be performed in the spring. In Ecoregion 2
(southeast temperate coast), planting of
shoalgrass should be done in the spring, while
eelgrass should be planted in the fall. In
Ecoregion 3 (north Florida and U.S. Gulf of
Mexico), planting should be done in the spring.
In Ecoregion 4 (south Florida and Caribbean)
planting may be done any time of the year,
although spring plantings may provide slightly
faster coverage. In Ecoregion 5 (west coast)
planting should be done in the spring, while in
Ecoregion 6 (Hawaii and Pacific) there are no
data on transplants to the author's knowledge,
but a spring planting is the educated guess.
Construction Considerations
Very few sites have been constructed
specifically for seagrass restoration. Most sites
where construction (or some kind of terrain
alteration) has taken place are the result of
illegal fill removal or refilling dredged areas.
In these cases, ownership of the planting site has
not been an issue. In selecting off-site planting
areas, bottom ownership has sometimes been a
critical issue.
From the relatively few sites that have been
created for seagrass planting, adequate depth of
unconsolidated sediment, and availability of
chemically uncontaminated sediment has been
of prime importance. Most seagrasses require
5-20 cm of sediment depth. The exceptions are
the surf grasses which grow in crevices among
rocks as well as in unconsolidated sediment.
If a site is specifically constructed for
seagrasses, then considerations of wave energy,
tidal currents, and flushing effects on
temperature and salinity have to be considered.
Since light is of utmost importance in seagrass
growth and survival, a site should be constructed
to minimize sediment resuspension (i.e., reduce
wave energy) while maintaining appropriate
temperature regimes. Environmental tolerance
ranges for the various species are described in
Phillips (1984), Thayer et al. (1984), and Zieman
(1982). Contouring of a site should provide the
natural, ambient tidal range elevations for the
given seagrass species. Slopes should be gentle
and the site devoid of angular unconformities
that would refract waves and focus wave energy
on the planting site.
One of the most commonly asked questions
in planning a seagrass site, whether for
construction of a new site or selection of an
existing one, is "how deep should it be?". This
relates to the above mentioned environmental
tolerance ranges. Even if a site were constructed
or selected that had perfect temperature, salinity,
wave energy, sediment depth, etc., without
sufficient light, the seagrass plantings would
die.
Seagrass survival does not depend solely on
maximum light intensity. Rather, it has been
demonstrated that seagrass survival depends on
the amount of time in a day that light levels are
above a critical intensity, or the photosaturation
period (Dennison 1987, Dennison and Alberts
1985, 1986). In other words, seagrasses can only
use so much light per unit time, making it
necessary for them to have sufficient light over a
longer period of time (e.g., Z. marina: 12 hours
at 200 microEinsteins/m2/sec) to balance their
metabolism. It is not easy to obtain a reliable
measure of this condition since it requires
special equipment and relatively long-term
monitoring to discern the light characteristics of
a given site. Such a determination is difficult if
the site has not yet been constructed and nearby
areas must be monitored while plans are being
made.
Fortunately, because of the low cost of the
instrument, Secchi depth measurements may be
correlated with the lower limit of seagrass
growth (Kenworthy, pers. comm.). Secchi
measurements require extensive field mon-
185
-------
itoring to average out conditions at a given site.
In lieu of these data, plans should provide depths
equivalent to adjacent seagrass beds. If no beds
are adjacent to the site, then a statistically valid
monitoring of the light conditions is prudent.
Hydrology
As mentioned above, the wave and current
regime of a site influences the quantity of light
reaching the plantings through sediment
resuspension. A more immediate effect of these
forces is to move the substrate, buffeting and
sometimes eroding the planting units from the
bottom (Fonseca et al. 1985). Erosion of 1-2
mm/day can cause a 50 percent loss in planting
units during the first 60 days after planting
(Fonseca et al. 1985) whereas burial of more than
two-thirds of the photosynthetic tissue appears to
be fatal (author, pers. obs.). Site hydrology also
affects the form in which a meadow develops
(Fonseca et al. 1983). In high current areas,
patchy beds develop. While the patches and
between-patch area may be correctly termed a
seagrass habitat, performance of planting is
measured by the actual area of seagrass cover
(the area where the long shoots overlap).
Therefore in high current or wave areas, a
greater area will need to be planted to obtain the
desired total area of bottom coverage. In
quiescent areas, a relatively continuous meadow
will often be attained, and planning of planting
acreage is straightforward.
Prolonged freshwater inflow and lowering
of salinities in seagrass beds is often fatal to the
plants. Widgeongrass and shoalgrass are two
euryhaline exceptions to this rule.
Sediments within the sand size range and
smaller have not been shown to limit seagrass
growth per se. Other co-varying factors such as
nutrient supply, currents, and in the case of
fine-grained sediments, resuspension and light
reduction, have been related to seagrass growth.
Transplanting bare-root sprigs (Derrenbacker
and Lewis 1982, Fonseca et al. 1982, 1984) has
been criticized as being of limited use in highly
organic sediments (Alberte, pers. comm.)
although successful restorations have been
performed in high organic sediments in North
Carolina (Kenworthy et al. 1980). Concomitantly,
low light conditions which do not allow the plant
to generate and transport oxygen to the roots to
fight sulfide intrusion may explain the poor
performance of some restorations placed in
sediments with high organic content (M.
Josselyn, pers. comm.).
Fertilization of plantings may be useful in
areas with little or no organic matter in the
sediment. Depending on the sediment type,
phosphorous (in carbonate sediments) or nitrogen
(in siliceous sediments) may be limiting. This
is an area of intense debate in seagrass research
(Bulthuis and Woelkering 1981, Short 1983 a,b,
Short and McRoy 1984, Pulich 1985, Williams
1987). Some studies have been completed
specifically on fertilizer effects on seagrass
transplants (Orth and Moore 1982 a,b, Fonseca
et al., 1987b) but the results are equivocal, based
on inconsistent performance and assessment of
the fertilizers used. At present, fertilization is
considered to be acceptable in low (<2 percent )
organic sediments, but no reduction in planting
intensity is recommended (Fonseca et al. 1987b).
Revegetation
There is a large body of information on
revegetation and transplanting projects in
general. The reader is referred to Appendix I,
particularly the review by Fonseca et al. (1988)
for specifics regarding the subject. By way of a
general summary, seagrass revegetation projects
are conducted largely with wild-harvested,
vegetative shoots. A timely paper by Lewis (1987)
describes the hazards of damaging existing
natural beds and the options available in the
State of Florida for alternative planting stock.
Previous work by Riner (1976) and more recently
by Roberts et al. (1984) have pioneered research
into the use of seeds for temperate species.
Turtlegrass has been easily transplanted by seed
for many years (Thorhaug 1974). Some work is
being conducted on cultivation of turtlegrass
seeds, but this process still is only a grow-out
procedure, dependent on the harvest of wild seed.
Seagrass transplants are typically fragile
and must be handled with care. The plants are
extremely susceptible to desiccation and must be
kept soaked, or preferably, in ambient
temperature water during the whole planting
process. Large plants also are prone to breakage.
The technique of transplanting is
well-documented and involves using bare-root
shoots stapled into the bottom, or plugs (see
review, Appendix I). While the technology is
well-developed, its application is not.
Of the 12 species that occur in the United
States, only 7 have been reported as being
transplanted (Halophila decipiens. T .
testudinum. H. wriehtii. Ruppia maritime, g^
filiformeT Zostera iaponica. and Z. marina). Of
these, only T. testudinumT H. wrightiir S_±
fjljjf_o.r_m,ef and Z. marina have enough
quantitative planting data to consider their use
in revegetation projects. These four species
probably constitute the majority of seagrass cover
in the United States, but the others have not
enjoyed similar scrutiny and managers are not
in a position to declare their relative importance.
For example, it is now known that there are at
least one million acres of Haloohila off the west
186
-------
coast of Florida (Continental Shelf Associates,
Inc. and Mattel Laboratories 1985). This species
has been transplanted on one occasion at depths
over 10 meters (author, unpubl. data).
Reintroduction of fauna is usually a passive
process in seagrass revegetation projects. There
have been some attempts to introduce scallops to
restored Z. marina areas in Long Island, New
York, but these have not been successful (Chris
Smith, NY Sea Grant Extension Service, pers.
comm.). In a wild, uncontained system, the
relatively sedentary scallop is one of the few
candidates for introduction to a created seagrass
bed. There is no information known at this
writing concerning the use of seagrass in
contained systems for commercial animal
production purposes.
There is little known about the rate at which
created seagrass beds take on the faunal
composition or abundance of their natural
counterparts (Homziak et al. 1982, McLaughlin et
al. 1983, Fonseca 1987). Studies are now
underway that indicate that in monospecific,
temperate seagrass communities, faunal
composition and abundance comparable to
natural beds may be reached in two years if the
plantings persist and achieve cover similar to
natural beds (Fonseca 1987).
Protective Stnifftaines
Limiting impacts to revegetated areas is
critical during the initial establishment period of
seagrass restoration (first 60-90 days). Any
upland sources of sediment should be contained
as these may create persistent turbidity or
actually bury the restoration. Offshore berms or
sandbars have been employed to provide
protection from waves, but these must be
constructed so as to not impound water and raise
in-meadow temperatures. Floating-tire wave
breaks have promise in this regard. Artificial
grass has been considered as a means of
retarding water and sediment movement until
plantings are established, but this method is
untested. Previous models of plastic grasses
have suffered from epiphytic fouling, causing
them to fall to the sediment surface. Recent
advances in epiphyte-sloughing forms of
artificial grass for use in freshwater systems
makes this concept worthy of further
investigation.
Long Term Management
With long term management the ownership
question comes into play. Unless the planting
site is owned by the permitting agency, vis-a-vis
the Federal or State agency, it is conceivable that
long-term use conflicts could arise that would
compromise the intent of the revegetation project
and permit issuance. Because permits have a
relatively short life span in comparison to the
life span of a seagrass meadow, these conflicts
have not yet emerged, although restored beds are
susceptible to destruction.
A particularly vexing destructive process
which can easily negate long-term management
plans is propeller scarring. For the most part,
this is the result of misjudgment of water depth
and accidental grounding of small craft.
However, with the advent of hydraulic trim
controls on outboards, small craft frequently
chance short cuts over shallow areas, many of
which contain seagrass. The aboveground
foliage can be removed by the propeller and in
severe cases, cutting of the rhizome occurs.
Zieman (1976) has demonstrated the persistence
of these impacts for years in some seagrass beds,
and large areas of the seagrass beds in the
Florida Keys have been eliminated by prop
scarring (C. Kruer, pers. comm.). Kruer has
suggested that improved channel marking would
eliminate much of this destruction. Without such
aids to navigation around beds or restoration
sites, long-term management for many of the
shallower seagrass beds will be difficult.
Maintenance of seagrasses adjacent to
dredged material islands is another problem.
Maintenance dredging operations routinely
require fresh deposition of material on existing
disposal sites. If seagrass restorations have been
established adjacent to these sites, careful
engineering is required to prevent their
subsequent destruction. Innovative placement of
material can assure the persistence of the planted
areas although recent thin-layer application are
not promising. The concept of preventing
subsequent impacts to created seagrass beds is
new, and while of merit, has not been explored at
a management level.
MONITORING
What to Monitor
A major shortcoming in seagrass planting
as a management tool has been poor monitoring
or the lack of monitoring. Without monitoring,
there can be no objective assessment of
restoration performance and permit compliance
(assuming that the permit had appropriate
conditions in the first place).
Monitoring specifications have been proposed
in at least two publications (Fonseca et al. 1987c,
1988). These publications point out that no one
data type can stand alone in a monitoring
program.
Several factors must be considered to lead to
187
-------
an ecologically valid characterization of
seagrass restoration success. The number of
planting units that survive should be recorded.
This may be expressed as a percentage of the
original number, but the actual whole number is
critical as well. A random (as opposed to
arbitrary) sample of the average number of
shoots and area covered (m2) per planting unit
should be recorded until coalescence (the point
where individual planting units grow together
and the planting unit origin of individual shoots
cannot be readily observed). The number of
surviving planting units may then be multiplied
by the average area per planting unit to
determine the area covered on the planting site.
The data from pre-coalescence surveys may be
compared with existing data to assess
performance relative to other, local plantings by
plotting the average number of shoots per
planting unit (not area) over time. The
comparison may be statistical or visual (which
often suffices to detect grossly different
population growth rates).
Shoot addition is recommended over area
addition as a measure of transplant performance
(contrasted with compliance). For example, in
high current areas shoots grow more densely,
and measuring shoot addition is a more accurate
means of assessing the asexual reproductive
vigor of the plantings. After coalescence, the
area of bottom covered should be surveyed using
randomized grid samples (Fonseca et al. 1985).
These data may be collected over time to assess
persistence of the planting as well as total
seagrass coverage, both of which are the
measurement of compliance.
Population growth and coverage data do not
exist for all seagrass species in all Ecoregions at
this time. Ecoregions 1, 5, and 6 are particularly
lacking in these data. If collection of these data
could be instituted, then regional offices would
quickly develop the capability to objectively and
efficiently deal with seagrass mitigation
projects.
How To Do It
It is often desirable to secure funding for the
planting from those responsible ahead of permit
issuance. This is because experience has shown
that after a permit is issued and a project
completed, it is difficult, short of legal action, to
get the planting done. Performance bonds or
letters of credit from applicants to contractors
have been used with success in this regard. In
any event, points of finance, as well as the
technical language of restoration technique, site
selection and monitoring are critical elements of
a 404 permit.
Random samples should be collected on
survival, number of shoots, and area covered per
planting unit. If a planting site is sufficiently
small, all 'planting units should be surveyed for
presence or absence (survival survey). The
existence of a single short shoot on a planting
unit indicates survival. If a site is large, then
randomly selected rows or subsections (area in
m2) should be sampled. Because each row or
subsection is actually the level of replication, at
least 10 replicates should be performed at the
level at which one wishes to generalize one's
findings (e.g., over the whole planting site). At
the very least, stabilization of the running mean
of survival or shoots and area per planting unit
should be obtained as a measure of statistical
adequacy.
Presence or absence, and number of short
shoots per planting unit are straightforward
measures, although they usually require
snorkeling or SCUBA diving to assess (a factor
that is surprisingly not considered, or equipped
for, by many attempting these data collections).
The area covered by a planting unit may be
measured by recording the average of two
perpendicular width measurements (in meters)
of the planting unit over the bottom. These
numbers are averaged, divided by 2, squared,
and multiplied by pi to compute the area of a
circle (pi r2), and in this case, the planting unit.
This procedure tends to give a higher value than
use of a quadrat, criss-crossed with string on 5
cm centers, that is laid over the planting unit. In
this case, the number of 5 X 5 cm grids (or half
grids if there are only 1 or 2 shoots in the 5X5
cm grid) that have seagrass shoots are totaled
and converted to square meters of cover for the
planting unit. The quadrat method is more
appropriate for seagrasses that propagate in long
runners (e.g., shoalgrass), and do not form a
clear radial growth pattern (e.g., eelgrass). An
individual can be trained to perform these counts
in a few hours, and can count individual
planting units in 5-10 minutes or less at early
stages of a restoration's development.
How Long To Do It
Monitoring of shoot numbers and area
covered per planting unit should proceed
quarterly for the first year after planting and
biannually thereafter for two more years (a total
of three years). After planting units begin to
coalesce and the planting unit from which shoots
originated can no longer be discerned, areal
coverage data should be recorded and counts on a
planting unit basis suspended.
How To Interpret Tlie Results
The population growth and coverage data
may be compared periodically with published
values (dependent on species and Ecoregion) as a
relative indicator of performance. More
important, the computations described above
188
-------
allow a direct comparison on a unit area basis of
planted versus lost acreage (average
area/planting unit times number of surviving
planting units). Success may then be based on
whether the appropriate ratio of coverage ( e.g.,
1:1, or 2:1) has been generated; a quantitative
measure commensurate with ecological function.
If the restoration project is for mitigation, then
compliance may thereby be interpreted as both
acreage generated and the unassisted persistence
of that acreage over time (the three year period).
The persistence issue is also critical. If the
planting does not persist, then resource values
have experienced a net loss and the project has
not been effective.
Mid-course Corrections - What
Can Go Awrv?
In a seagrass restoration, just about
anything can go wrong. Typical problems are,
in order of frequency: natural physical
disruption (i.e., storms and associated waves and
sediment movement), biogenic impacts
(smothering by macroalgae, decapod
excavations, and grazing, e.g., pinfish), and
anthropogenic impacts (overzealous clammers
and errant boat operators, i.e., mo tor boat prop
scarring). These impacts are part of the risk in
restoring seagrass systems.
A common problem is impact of a project
upon adjacent beds. For example, a permit may
be issued for laying of an underground pipeline
with replanting of seagrass in the backfilled
area over the pipe. But, during the operation,
maneuvering of barges and other activities,
cause erosion and burial of adjacent seagrass
habitat not specifically identified in the permit.
The permit should contain language identifying
such potential impacts and develop contingency
plans for the mitigation of adjacent habitat loss.
If losses are detected early enough in the
planting season, additional planting units may
be added as a mid-course correction. If there are
fewer than 90 days left before the first major
seasonal decline of local, natural grasses,
replanting should be postponed until the next
year. If replanting is performed, then the
monitoring clock should be reset to zero.
Otherwise, a site could experience chronic
planting failures without any impetus to change
procedures.
Another mid-course correction may be needed
upon examination of the population growth and
coverage data. If the population growth is within
expected limits for the species and Ecoregion,
then one may be assured that the observed
coverage rate is the best that can be expected for
that site. If the coverage rate is lower than
expected while the shoot rate is as predicted, then
the projected timetable for grow-out should be
lengthened appropriately. Although this would
not necessarily change the permit conditions or
length of commitment of the applicant, it allows
an objective evaluation that is fair to all parties.
In other words, the restoration is performing as
well as can be expected and the anticipated
coverage should be reached, albeit at a later date.
Low shoot generation and coverage rates, as well
as large losses of whole planting units indicate
that a restoration is in trouble. Timetables may
again be altered, but replanting may be
warranted or a new site sought if the rate of shoot
addition to planting units was not significantly
different from zero after the first year of growth.
Chronic failure of plantings need to be
carefully examined. It is important to
distinguish between acts of nature and acts of
incompetence or non-compliance. For example,
if a permit applicant does everything asked of
him by resource agencies and still cannot, after
three years, come up with the acreage required, is
the applicant required to finance planting in
perpetuity? There needs to be some measure of
agency responsibility in the site selection and
approval process that prevents this situation. At
what point has the applicant fulfilled the permit
requirements? In reality, seagrass restoration
has been and will continue to be a risky
management option. This point becomes more
profound if one considers that a terrestrial crop
cannot be guaranteed, despite millennia of
collective practice. The agencies involved should
proceed with a clear realization that they are
taking a calculated risk in their ability to
prevent a net loss in habitat. If chronic failure is
due to chronic non-compliance with established
(in the permit) procedures, then existing, formal
methods of ensuring compliance should be
instituted.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH:
LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
Throughout the text of this chapter,
limitations in our knowledge of seagrass
systems and their restoration has been implicitly
and explicitly stated. The information for
management purposes fits closely with the basic
research needs identified by investigators
relating to basic autecological and gynecological
functions of seagrass systems. There at least are
189
-------
nine information gaps that require immediate
attention for effective management of these
systems:
1)
2)
3)
4)
A definition and evaluation of "functional
restoration" of a seagrass bed must be made.
Is it just a floristic survey? Will faunal
abundance follow? Will ecologically and
economically valuable functions be realized,
and if so, how long will it take?
Population growth and coverage rates should
be compiled for seagrasses in all regions so
that Ecoregion boundaries may be better
defined. Parent data sets on transplant
performance should be centrally compiled on
an Ecoregional basis as a measure of
performance. Areas lacking in these data
should have experimental plots initiated and
monitored. Species lacking these data are
Enhalus acoroides. all Halophila species,
eelgrass on the west and northeast coasts, all
seagrasses in the northern Gulf of Mexico
(S. filiformer T. testudinum. H. wrightiir
Ruppia maritima. and all Halophila
species), Z. laponica. and all Phvllospadix
species.
The resource role of mixed
plantings should be evaluated.
species
The impact of substituting pioneer for
climax species in "compressed
successionaT transplanting (Derrenbacker
and Lewis 1982) on faunal composition and
abundance should be investigated for
resource maintenance.
5) The substitution of other species (e.g.,
mangroves, salt marshes) when suitable
sites cannot be found for seagrass planting
should be evaluated for their potential
cumulative damage to habitat resources.
6) Culture techniques for propagule
7)
development (seed and tissue culture) should
be refined, bypassing the need to damage
donor beds when salvage is not available.
Transplant optimization techniques should be
explored, especially the use of fertilizers.
8) A consistent definition of seagrass habitat
boundaries should be developed.
9) The development of a consistent national
policy on seagrass management should be
explored. Special consideration should be
given to artificially-propagated seagrass
meadows. Site evaluation methodologies,
especially for light availability, should be
standardized and adopted by all resource
agencies. The cumulative impact of
small-scale, piecemeal loss of seagrass by
deliberate (e.g., dredging) and accidental
(prop-scarring) impacts should be considered
in local and Ecoregional assessments for the
protection and maintenance of this valuable
habitat.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the many anonymous
reviewers for their insightful and helpful
comments. Thanks are given also to Jon Kusler
and Mary Kentula for both their guidance and
extraordinary effort in seeing this document to
completion. Thanks are extended to Jud
Kenworthy and Gordon Thayer whose
stimulating discussion, debate, and research
over the years on the subjects of seagrass ecology
and restoration provided much of the impetus
and citable works on the subject. Sandy
WylMe-Echeverria researched and wrote the
original draft of Project Profile 3. Special
thanks are given to Carolyn Currin for
providing conclusive, critical evaluation at
many points during the writing and final
editing of the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Ashe, D.M. 1982. Fish and wildlife mitigation:
description and analysis of estuarine applications.
Coastal Zone Manage. J. 10:1-52.
Backman, T.WJL 1984. Phenotypic expressions of
Zoatera marina L. ecotypes in Puget Sound,
Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ.
Washington, Seattle.
Bulthuis, D.A., and WJ. Woelkerling. 1981. Effects of
in situ nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment of the
sediments on the seagrass Heterozostera taamanica
in Western Port, Victoria, Australia: a decade of
observations. Aq. Hot. 19:343-367.
Churchill, A.C., A.E. Cok, and M.I. Riner. 1978.
Stabilization of subtidal sediments by the
transplantation of the seagrass Zostera marina L.
N.Y. Sea Grant Rep. NYSSGP-HS-78-15.
Clark, W. 1984. North Carolina's mitigation policy: a
new challenge. Natl. Wetlands Newsletter
Nov.-Dec.i3-16.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Martel
Laboratories, Inc. 1985. Florida Big Bend Seagrass
Habitat Study Narrative Report. A Final Report by
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. submitted to the
Mineral Management Service, Metairie, LA.
Contract No. 14-12-0001-30188.
190
-------
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
den Hartog, C. 1970. The Seagrasses of the World.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
den Hartog, C. 1971. The dynamic aspect in the ecology
of sea-grass communities. Thalassia jugosl.
7:101-112.
Dennison, W.C. 1987. Effects of light on seagrasses:
photosynthesis, growth and depth distribution. ASU
E2t 2715-26.
Dennison, W.C. and R.S. Alberte. 1985. Role of daily
light period in the depth distribution of Zostera
marina (eelgrass). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 25:51-61.
Dennison, W.C. and R.S. Alberte. 1986. Growth and
photosynthesis of Zoatera marina (eelgrass)
transplants along a depth gradient. J. EXP. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 101257-282.
Derrenbacker, J.A. and R.R. Lewis. 1982. Seagrass
habitat restoration in Lake Surprise, Florida Keys,
p. 132-154. In RJL Stoval (Ed.), Proc. 9th Ann. Conf.
on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Comm. Coll., Tampa, Florida.
Federal Register. 1980. Guidelines for specification of
disposal sites for dredged or fill material.
45(249):8533&85357.
Fonseca, M.S. 1987. Habitat development applications:
use of seagrass transplanting for habitat
development on dredged material, p. 145-150. In
M.C. Landin and HJL Smith (Eds.), Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material; Proc. of the 1st Inter-agency
Workshop, 7-9 Oct., 1986, Pensacola, FL. USAGE
Tech. Rep. D-87-1.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1982.
A Low Cost Planting Technique for Eelgrass
(Zostera. marina L.). Coastal Engineering Technical
Aid No. 82-6. U.S. Army Engineer Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
Fonseca, M.S., J.C. Zieman, G.W. Thayer, and J.S.
Fisher. 1983. The role of current velocity in
structuring seagrass meadows. Eatuarine Coastal
Shelf Sci. 17:367-380.
Fonseca, M.S., WJ. Kenworthy, KM. Cheap, CA. Currin,
and G.W. Thayer. 1984. A Low Cost Transplanting
Technique for Shoalgrass (Halodule wriphtii) and
Manatee Grass (Svringodium filiforme). Instruct-
ion Report EL-84-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fonseca, M.S., WJ. Kenworthy, G.W. Thayer, D.Y.
Heller, and K.M. Cheap. 1985. Transplanting of the
Seagrasses Zostera marina and Halodule wriphtii
for Sediment Stabilization and Habitat Development
on the East Coast of the United States. Technical
Report EL-85-9. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
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 distribution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
2915-22.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer.
1987a. Transplanting of the Seagrasses Halodule
wrightii. Svringodium filiforme. and Thalaasia
testudinum for Habitat Development in the Southeast
Region of the United States. Technical Report
EL-87-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, K.A. Rittmaster, and
G.W. Thayer. 1987b. The Use of Fertilizer to
Enhance Transplants of the Seagrasses Zostera
marina and Halodule wrightii. Technical Report
EL-87-12. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fonseca, M.S., G.W. Thayer, and W.J. Kenworthy.
1987c. 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.
Fonseca, M.S., WJ. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1988.
Restoration and management of seagrass systems: a
review, p. 353-368. In D.D. Hook, W.H. McKee, Jr.,
H.K. Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr., M.R.
DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H. Stolzy,
C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and T.H. Shear (Eds.),
The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Vol. 2:
Management, Use and Value of Wetlands. Timber
Press, Portland, Oregon.
Fredette, T.J., M.S. Fonseca, WJ. Kenworthy, and G.W.
Thayer. 1985. Seagrass Transplanting: 10 Years of
Army Corps of Engineers Research, p. 121-134. In
F.J. Webb (Ed.), Proc. of the 12th Ann. Conf. on
Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Comm. Coll., Tampa, Florida.
Heck, K.L. 1979. Some determinants of the composition
and abundance of motile macroinvertebrate species
in tropical and temperate turtlegrass (Thalasgia
teatudimim) meadows. J. Biogeoifraphv 6183-200.
Homziak, J., M.S. Fonseca, and W.J. Kenworthy. 1982.
Macrobenthic community structure in a transplanted
eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadow. Mar. Ecol.
EmgJSfiT, 9:211-221.
Kenworthy, WJ., M.S. Fonseca, J. Homziak, and G.W.
Thayer. 1980. Development of a transplanted
seagrass (Zoatera marina) meadow in Back Sound,
Carteret County, North Carolina, p. 175-193. In D.P.
Cole (Ed.), Proc. of the 7th Ann. Conf. on the
Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. Hillsborough
Comm. Coll., Tampa, Florida.
Kenworthy, W J., G.W. Thayer, and M.S. Fonseca. 1988.
The utilization of seagrass meadows by fishery
organisms, p. 548-560. In D. D. Hook, WJL McKee,
Jr., HJC. Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr., MJl.
DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H. Stolzy,
C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and TJI. Shear (Eds.),
The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Vol. 1:
Ecology of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland,
Oregon.
191
-------
Lewis, R.R. 1987. The restoration and creation of
seagrass meadows in the southeast United States, p.
153-173. In M.J. Durako, E.G. Phillips, and R.R.
Lewis (Eds.), Proc. Symp. on Subtropical-Tropical
Seagrasses of the Southeastern United States. Fl.
Mar. Res. Publ. Ser. No. 42.
Lewis, R.R., M.D. Durako, M.J. Moffler, and R.C.
Phillips. 1985. Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay: a
review, p. 210-246. In S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R.
Lewis, and R.L. Whitman (Eds.), Proc. Tampa Bay
Area Scientific Information Symp. (May 1982).
Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Mangrove Systems, Inc. 1985. Combined Final Report,
Florida Keys Restoration Project. Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Mclvor, C.C. 1987. Marsh fish community structure:
roles of geomorphology and salinity. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Univ. Virginia, Charlotte sville,
Virginia.
McLaughlin, PA., SA. Treat, A. Thorhaug, and R.
Lemaitre. 1983. A restored seagrass (Thalassia) bed
and its animal community. Environ. Cons.
10247-254.
Orth, RJ. and KA Moore. 1981. Submerged aquatic
vegetation of the Chesapeake Bay: past, present, and
future. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf.
46271-283.
Orth, RJ. and K.A. Moore. 1982a. The biology and
propagation of Zostera marina, eelgrass, in the
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec.
Rep. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Eng. 265.
Orth, RJ. and KA Moore. 1982b. The effect of fertilizers
on transplanted eelgrass Zostera marina in the
Chesapeake Bay, p. 104-131. In FJ. Webb (Ed.), Proc.
of the 9th Ann. Conf. on Wetlands Restoration and
Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
Florida.
Phillips, R.C. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows in
the Pacific Northwest: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/24.
Pulich, W. 1985. Seasonal growth dynamics of Ruppia
maritima Aschera in southern Texas and evaluation
of sediment fertility types. Aq. Bot. 23:63-66.
Riner, M.I. 1976. A study on methods, techniques and
growth characteristics for transplanted portions of
eelgrass (Zostera marina). M.S. Thesis, Adelphi
Univ., Garden City, New York.
Rozas, L.P. 1987. Submerged plant beds and tidal
freshwater marshes: nekton community structure and
interactions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Roberts, MB., RJ. Orth, and KA Moore. 1984. Growth
of Zostera marina seedlings under laboratory
conditions of nutrient enrichment. Aq. Bot.
20-^21-328.
Short, F.T. 1983a. The response of interstitial
ammonium in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) beds to
environmental perturbations. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
EsaL 68:195-208.
Short, F.T. 1983b. The seagrass, Zostera marina : plant
morphology and bed structure in relation to sediment
ammonium in Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Aq. Bot.
16149-161.
Short, F.T. and C.P. McRoy. 1984. Nitrogen uptake by
leaves and roots of the seagrass Zostera marina L.
27:547-555.
Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984.
The Ecology of Seagrass Meadows of the Atlantic
Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv.
FWS/OBS-84/02.
Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and WJ. Kenworthy. 1985.
Restoration of seagrass meadows for enhancement
of near shore productivity, p. 259-278. In N.L, Choa
and W. Kirby-Smith (Eds.), Intl Symp. on the Util.
of the Coast. Zone. Planning, Pollution, and
Productivity, Rio Grande, Brazil, 1982.
Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and W.J. Kenworthy. 1986.
Wetland mitigation and restoration in the southeast
United States and two lessons from seagrass
mitigation, p. 95-118. In Estuarine Management
Practices. Proc. 2nd Nat'l Est. Res. Symp., Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, 1985.
Thorhaug, A. 1974. Transplantation of the seagrass
Thalasaia testudinum Konig. Aquaculture 4:177-183.
Tomlinson, P.B. 1974. Vegetative morphology and
meristem dependence - the foundation of productivity
in seagrasses. Aquaculture 4107-130.
Williams. S.L. 1987. Competition between the
seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Svringodium
filiforme in a Caribbean lagoon. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 35:91-98.
Wood, E.J.F., W.E. Odum, and J.C. Zieman. 1969.
Influence of sea grasses on the productivity of
coastal lagoons, p. 495-502. In A. Ayala Castanares
and F.B. Phleger, (Eds.), Coastal Lagoons.
Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad
Universitaria, Mexico, DJ.
Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical
damage from motorboats on turtle grass beds in
southern Florida. Aq. Bot. 2127-139.
Zieman, J.C. 1982. The Ecology of the Seagrasses of
South Florida: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish.
Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/25.
Zieman, J.C. and R.G. Wetzel. 1980. Productivity in
seagrasses: methods and rates, p. 87-116. In R.C.
Phillips and C.P. McRoy (Eds.), Handbook of
Seagrass Biology, An Ecosystem Perspective.
Garland STPM Press, New York.
192
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READING
The following community profiles on seagrass Zieman, J.C. 1982. The Ecology of the Seagrasses of
published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: South Florida: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/25.
Phillips, B.C. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows
in the Pacific Northwest: A Community Profile. U.S. Specific readings on seagrass restoration and
Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/24. management:
Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. Churchill, Cok, and Riner (1978).
1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of the
Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish Fonseca et al. (1982; 1984; 1985; 1987c; 1988).
Wildl. Serv. FWS\OBS-84\02. Reprinted 1985.
Lewis, R.R. (1987).
193
-------
APPENDIX H: PROJECT PROFILES
Project profiles 1 and 2 are quoted in their entirety with
minor editing from Thayer et al. (1986) with
permission of the authors.
EAST COAST
In Thayer et al. (1986) p. 108; example 1.
In December 1983, the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC) adopted a mitigation
policy, which applies, in part, to seagrasses. This
policy requires that adverse impacts to coastal lands
and waters be mitigated or reduced through proper
planning, careful site selection, compliance with local
standards for development, and creation or restoration
of coastal resources. Shortly after promulgation of this
policy, a project was submitted to the North Carolina
Office of Coastal Management (OCM) that requested
the removal of salt marsh and seagrass for
construction of a marina. This project eventually was
granted mitigation status by CRC, meaning that there
was sufficient public benefit and water dependency to
consider mitigation alternatives to compensate for the
wetland loss.
By April 1984, the authors had been asked to
participate as representatives of the National Marine
Fisheries Service in a review of the seagrass
mitigation plan and to make recommendations not
only on the plan but also on subsequent seagrass
mitigation efforts. As part of this process, numerous
meetings were held with state and federal agencies to
apprise them of available data on seagrass restoration
technology. These data were derived from a
cooperative research program on the restoration of
seagrasses between the National Marine Fisheries
Service (Beaufort Laboratory) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Waterways Experiment Station,
Environmental Laboratory).
At this point it became clear that though a policy
had been adopted by CRC, no technical guidelines had
been developed to implement it. In essence, CRC had
stated that the concept of mitigation was acceptable, but
no direction on specific and acceptable actions had
been provided. The policy lacked specific directions
concerning site selection criteria, acceptable resource
trade-offs, performance and compliance standards,
accepted methodology for monitoring, and reporting on
the above. The lack of any such guidance on
mitigation severely compromised the ability of state
and federal agencies to enforce the Coastal Area
Management Act, the Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act, and the National Environmental
Policy Act. This first mitigation proposal received by
OCM had no guidelines by which to control the project.
The agencies and the applicant were then forced to
develop mitigation guidelines and a mitigation plan
for the marina project at the same time.
The first problem encountered centered on the
inadequacy of a resource inventory of the impact site.
A cursory inspection by the applicant misidentified the
seagrass species present (Halodule wrightii actually
was present, but Zostera marina was reported). The
spatial and temporal separation of these species in
North Carolina strongly supports the argument that the
meadows are not ecological equivalents. The
restoration process for H. wrightii is also different
than that for Z. marina. This point of ecological
equivalency was contested by the applicant and, in one
sense, rightfully so. Data simply do not exist on
ecological equivalency among species of seagrasses.
The resource agencies, however, had to make a
decision based on the best available information and
ecological principles. The fact that two seagrasses are
separate species—with each one having distinct
environmental requirements for growth (different
seasons), different life histories, and different depth
ranges and morphologies—supported the contention that
unique ecological functions may be supported by each
species in the estuarine system. The decision on the
part of the agencies' to promulgate this more
conservative view was a statement that we must make
ecological decisions based on ecological data, and,
lacking those data, any action that may compromise
the integrity of habitat function must be denied. Such
an approach is totally consistent with the North
Carolina mitigation policy that emphasizes ecosystem
protection and enhancement (Clark 1984) and is
emphasized by other work (Ashe 1982).
Another aspect of the ecosystem function concept
arose when off-site mitigation was proposed for this
project. The initial proposal called for on-site
mitigation using an adjacent area at that time devoid
of seagrass. This site was rejected by the resource
agencies after a time series of aerial photographs
demonstrated a perpetual lack of seagrass cover. The
applicant had claimed that the site was barren as a
result of previous dredging of a channel, which was
consistent with agency requirements for selecting a
disturbed site for restoration. Because aerial
photographs revealed that cover was absent prior to the
channel dredging, it was concluded that the site was
naturally and chronically without seagrass cover and
any planting would run a high risk of failure. At best,
the plantings at the proposed site would be a temporary
pulse in system productivity since they would likely
fail, providing inadequate compensation for the impact
site meadows that had persisted through many years.
Once species, acceptable sites, and transplanting
procedures were verified and approved, it was quickly
realized that there were no provisions for monitoring
the site to ascertain performance and compliance with
mitigation standards. In fact, there were no standards.
Fortunately, there was research on seagrass
restoration in the area so that guidelines could be
developed based on testable data.
GULF OF MEXICO
In Thayer et al. 1986. p. 110. example 2.
Examples of the use of research data on seagrass
restoration to mitigate construction-related damage
exist. One is the restoration of seagrass meadows (65.8
acres) that were damaged or destroyed during the
construction of replacement bridges through the
195
-------
Florida Keys (Mangrove Systems, Inc., 1985).
Regulatory agencies were provided with a thorough
discussion of the value of the affected seagrass
meadows. As a consequence, steps were taken to
accurately determine the extent of damage and the
technology available to restore these areas.
The project followed the four interrelated aspects
that have been shown to be critical to the success of a
mitigation effort: (1) site resource inventory; (2)
transplanting technology, (3) site selection; and (4)
monitoring and performance evaluation.
The site and resource inventory, which employed
ground-truth methods to verify aerial photography,
allowed the categorization of impact areas and
non-restorable areas altered so as to no longer support
seagrass. This categorization of restorable and
non-restorable habitat was made based on
environmental criteria important to the growth and
development of the seagrasses used, particularly the
criteria of sufficient sediment depth. Mitigation plans
based on environmental requirements of the target
species such as this one are rare and should be
encouraged. Two areas of 30.5 and 35.3 acres were
determined to be unrestorable and restorable,
respectively. The inventory also identified additional
disturbed areas as planting sites that were unrelated to
bridge construction but were available for seagrass
mitigation. The availability of these sites (17.0 acres)
may have gone unnoticed had the inventory effort not
been made. As a consequence, the restoration ratio
reached 0.8:1 as opposed to the 0.54:1 that would have
occurred had these areas not been identified.
Transplanting technology and site selection were
related to the site inventory. Observations made
during the inventory suggested the need for suitable
anchoring devices for appropriate species. Available
technology was employed to meet these criteria
(Fonseca et al. 1982, Derrenbacker and Lewis 1982).
Selection of sites started with all available on-site
(affected by construction) plantable areas. After these
areas were eliminated as choices, other disturbed areas
in the immediate vicinity were considered.
In this mitigation, site selection was made much
easier since even the unrelated impact sites had either
previously supported seagrass, or were contiguous with
existing meadows. More important, each site had a
definable source of impact that had since been
alleviated.
An important aspect was the establishment of a
comprehensive monitoring of the seagrass growth in
both planted and control (implanted) areas. Data were
collected not only on survival of transplant units, but
also on the rate of coverage. The use of a coverage
criteria rather than other non-repeatable methods (e.g.,
leaf length) allowed verification of performance over
time that was mutually beneficial to the contractor as
well as to the agency determining compliance. The
contractor was able to accurately estimate performance
and, thus, efficiently plan for replanting or selecting
alternative sites where needed. The monitoring agency
was able to .have a quantifiable (and more importantly,
verifiable) means of determining compliance. By the
end of August 1984, 47.54 acres of seagrass had been
planted with almost 73 percent at acceptable coverage
levels. This overall success and coverage is, in large
measure, the result of proper site evaluation and
application of techniques appropriate both for the sites
and the plants used.
Finally the cohesive nature of these four actions
(site survey, site selection, appropriate technology, and
monitoring program) has provided an information set
that has proved repeatable in other areas. The ability to
apply this information elsewhere in other unrelated
projects has enhanced the original value of the project
significantly by adding to guidelines for planting on a
wider geographical basis.
WEST COAST
In 1986, Wright-Schuchart Harbor Company
submitted a proposal to the City of Eureka to construct
an oil platform module assembly yard on the western
shoreline of Humboldt Bay. Humboldt Bay and the
City of Eureka are located on the Pacific coast of
northwest California. Accordingly, the City of Eureka
issued a coastal development permit for the upland
portion of the project which fell within their
jurisdiction. Final approval of the project, however,
rested with the California Coastal Commission whose
jurisdiction applied to the portion of the project located
in the waters of Humboldt Bay. The California Coastal
Initiative Act of 1972 led to the creation of the
California Coastal Commission in 1976. The
responsibilities of the Commission include managing
the resources of the coastal zone and ensuring coastal
access.
In the review of Wright-Schuchart1 s application
and the City of Eureka's coastal development permit,
the Commission staff noted that the construction and
dredging associated with the project would result in a
net loss of 0.43 acres of eelgrass fZoatera marina')
habitat. The staff identified this habitat as a valuable
coastal resource, and therefore, project approval was
granted with the condition that the applicant submit a
plan to mitigate the loss prior to project construction.
Final review and approval of this plan would be
conducted by the California Department of Fish and
Game.
In accordance with the condition of the permit, the
applicants sought the services of an environmental
consulting firm and requested that the firm develop a
transplant plan. What follows is the Coastal
Commission's response to the Eelgrass Transplanting
Plan that was prepared.
"In consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game, the applicant has submitted an
Eelgrass Transplanting Plan prepared by a local firm,
April 1986. This preliminary plan proposed to
transplant the eelgrass from the project site to three
recipient sites nearby. The total acreage for these three
sites is 0.93 acres. This represents a mitigation
replacement of 2.17 to 1. All three sites are located on
the edges of sub-tidal channels on either side of
Woodley Island in currently unvegetated areas. All
sites also have adjacent eelgrass beds. While it is not
known why the recipient sites do not have eelgrass,
past studies have shown that eelgrass can be
successfully transplanted. The plan, contains a
transplanting and monitoring program, however
specifics are still being developed. Department of Fish
and Game staff have reviewed this plan and believe
that it has a reasonable chance of success. Given a
final plan which details the transplanting program,
196
-------
including timing, monitoring and performance
standards, that is reviewed and approved by the
California Department of Fish and Game, the project is
consistent with Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act and
with the City's LCP ( Local Costal Program ) policies.
The project is the least environmentally damaging
alternative which has been mitigated, as conditioned,
to the maximum extent feasible."
Before moving to a critical analysis of the
Commission's report, some background statements are
in order. First, Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act
states in part that:
"(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open
coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and
lakes shall be permitted in accordance with
other applicable provisions of this division,
where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative,
and where feasible mitigation measures
have been provided to minimize adverse
environmental effects, and shall be limited
to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and
coastal-dependent industrial facilities,
including commercial fishing facilities."
Second, a Local Coastal Program (LCP) is
developed by the local decision making body (City,
County, etc.) and is approved by the Coastal
Commission. The area of jurisdiction covered by an
LCP is restricted to the upland area surrounding the
coastal waters, and estuaries in question. The
Commission, however, has jurisdiction over the area
below the mean high tide line. Third, the Commission
is required to use the expertise of The California
Department of Fish and Game to evaluate projects
regarding resources where mitigation is required.
This is mandated by the Coastal Act.
At first glance, the mitigation required by the
Coastal Commission appeared adequate. For example,
the replacement ratio of 2.17 to 1 indicates that there
could possibly be a net habitat gain. Also, the fact that
"currently unvegetated areas" would be planted,
suggests that valuable habitat might be created in
areaswhere none had existed. This also suggests that
soft bottom habitat is not valuable. Finally, the
requirement that California Fish and Game both
review and approve the project also seemed adequate.
On close examination, however, there were some
significant problems. These problems include site
selection, monitoring and performance standards, and
"up front mitigation". The mitigation is described as
"up front" because the transplant took place before the
construction began.
The site selection process bears further review.
The Commission states that the sites suggested by the
applicant in "consultation with The California
Department of Fish and Game" are "in currently
unvegetated areas". The Commission did not consider
this site selection as a conflict with other habitat types.
They further state that "While it is not known why the
recipient sites do not have eelgrass, past studies have
shown that eelgrass can be successfully transplanted".
No other criteria regarding site selection is mentioned.
Therefore, the only criteria for site selection was the
absence of vegetation.
Although it was not entirely clear how the criteria
for site selection was developed, the six-month report,
following the transplant, states:
"While looking for suitable planting sites in
Humboldt Bay, it was noted that there were
very few areas available. Areas which would
support eelgrass growth already had growth on
them. After discussions withthe Department of
Fish and Game it was decided to plant in
areas between or just above existing eelgrass
beds or hi areas where vegetation waa sparse."
Ironically, the consulting firm explains the
contradiction not stated by the Coastal Commission.
Namely that "Areas which would support eelgrass
already had growth on them". Even after noting this
fact, however, the transplant was conducted under the
Coastal Commission's criteria of site selection.
It is also important to note that The Coastal
Commission does not give a reference for the statement
that "past studies have shown that eelgrass can be
successfully transplanted". Although several seagrass
meadows in the southeastern region of the United
States have been transplanted with relative success
(Fonseca et al. 1985), the success rate of similar
transplants in Northern California has been relatively
low (author's personal observation).
The discussion involving monitoring and
performance standards for the project indicated that no
monitoring or performance standard guidelines are
presented by the Commission. It would appear that the
environmental consulting firm in consultation with
the Department of Fish and Game had been given the
responsibility of designing as well as implementing
the monitoring program. Although it made sense for
the consultants to design the monitoring program, it
was inappropriate for them to establish the performance
standards. This becomes apparent upon examination of
the company's recommendations.
"Typically, (the consulting firm) uses a
survival rate of 80% for terrestrial revegetation
and land restoration project (sic). Due to the
seasonal variation in density and the extreme
variation in survival rates for past projects,
any set percentage of survival would be
suspect. Based on past projects, the best
estimate of a realistic survival rate over the
two year monitoring period would be 50%.
Density is also typically used as a measure of
success in terrestrial vegetation restoration
projects. Densities vary markedly in the
eelgrass beds of Humboldt Bay, however,
making comparison difficult. To be consistent
with the above standard of a 50% survival rate
over two years, we recommend a density
standard of 50% that of the control (donor)
sites."
Since there are no references given, we cannot
report on the past projects. More important, however,
there are no methods given describing how the data
regarding relative density of Humboldt Bay eelgrass
beds was obtained. The Coastal Commission had not
done adequate research to determine the usefulness of
the performance standards promulgated by the
consulting company. It should also be mentioned that
197
-------
a 50% survival rate drops the 2.17 to 1 mitigation ratio
tol.09tol.
Regarding the monitoring of the transplant the
consulting company presented the following:
"Post-project monitoring will begin
immediately upon completion of the
transplant and continue for at least two
years. For the first six months, monitoring
of physical parameters will be done twice a
month. For the remainder of the program,
monitoring will be done on a monthly basis.
Monitoring of shoot growth will be done
seasonally (except during winter when
growth is at a minimum). Additionally,
monitoring will be conducted after the first
major storm event following the transplant.
Three sites will be used as controls. One
small site will be near to the harvest site.
This site will be a control for the
transplanting method. The parameters
(author's note: it is presumed they are
referring to environmental parameters) at
this site should be essentially the same as the
harvest site due to the proximity of the two.
The variable at this control site is the fact
that the material has been transplanted.
Consequently, plant losses or die-backs at
this site will indicate that the transplanting
methods were flawed.
The other control sites are within the existing
eelgrass beds on the south side of Indian
Island. These sites are near to or adjacent to
the transplant sites. The progress of the
transplanted material will be measured
against the established beds."
It was unclear how this monitoring program
would yield data of sufficient quality to evaluate the
transplant. No systematic plan or sampling technique
was presented. Some general notions about "control
sites" are mentioned but it is not clear how these
"control sites" in the statistically defined nature of the
term were to be selected or evaluated. Although it is
claimed that "monitoring of shoot growth" will be
undertaken, the methodology for this data collection is
not explained and "growth" is not defined (this may be
taken to mean productivity as to shoot addition rate).
There is no reference to parameters such as cover,
survival, or addition of new shoots per planting unit.
Although the consulting firm intended to conduct an
extensive monitoring program, this was not clear from
their description of that program. Apparently this issue
was never raised by the Coastal Commission. Also,
loss of plants was to be attributed to planting methods
without consideration of unsuitability of the
environment.
Perhaps the most ironic consequence of the
Humboldt Bay Eelgrass Transplant Plan was that the
project proposed by the City of Eureka and
Wright-Schuchart Harbor Co. was never constructed.
The eelgrass transplant did, however, take place and to
the consulting firm's credit, monitoring is taking
place.
In summary, habitat that the Coastal Commission
identified as being a valuable coastal resource may be
lost. The entire project represents inadequate planning
and lack of agency guidance from the beginning. In
retrospect, agencies mandated to manage and preserve
the natural resources should have taken a more
assertive role in this emerging area of wetland
mitigation. Most alarming was the complete failure of
"up-front mitigation", a practice widely believed to be a
panacea (the author included) for seagrass mitigation
practices.
198
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF FORESTED WETLAND
VEGETATION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNTIED STATES
Andre F. Clewell
A. F. Clewell, Inc.
Russ Lea, Director
North Carolina State Hardwood Research Cooperative
School of Natural Resources
North Carolina State University
ABSTRACT. This chapter describes forested wetland creation and restoration project
experience and establishment methods in the region from Virginia to Arkansas south to
Florida and Louisiana. In contrast to marshes, forest replacement is more complex and
requires a much longer development period. A wide variety of forest establishment techniques
have been employed, some with initial success but none of them proven. Most projects began
during the 1980's and are too new for critical evaluation. Most of these projects pertain to
bottomland hardwood and cypress replacement. The two most significant trends in project
activity have been the direct seeding of oaks on abandoned croplands and the replacement of
all trees and sometimes the undergrowth at reclaimed surface mines. Although some young
projects appear promising in terms of species composition and structure, it is still too early to
assess functional equivalency.
Project success depends largely on judicious planning and careful execution. The most
critical factor for all projects is to achieve adequate hydrological conditions. Other important
factors may include substrate stability, availability of adequate soil rooting volume and
fertility, and the control of herbivores and competitive weeds. A checklist of these and other
important issues is appended for the benefit of personnel who prepare project plans and review
permit applications.
Success criteria for evaluating extant projects throughout the southeast are either
inadequately conceived or usually lacking. Emphasis needs to be placed upon the presence of
preferred species (i.e., indigenous trees and undergrowth characteristic of mature stands of the
community being replaced) and on the attainment of a threshold density of trees that are at
least 2 meters tall. Once such a stand of trees is attained, survival is virtually assured and
little else could be done that would further expedite project success. At that point, release from
regulatory liability should be seriously considered.
Several critical information gaps were identified:
1. The sylvicultural literature does not cover all aspects of wetland tree establishment.
Further investigation is warranted.
2. The conditions conducive to effective natural regeneration need to be elucidated.
3. Techniques for undergrowth establishment should be developed. Although the
undergrowth accounts for more than 90 percent of forest species composition, its
intentional introduction has scarcely been attempted.
4. Baseline ecological and floristic studies need expansion for certain plant communities
and regions, otherwise project planning will be inadequate.
5. Research is needed to determine if successful forest replacement in terms of structure and
species composition will provide the functional services of the original ecosystem that is
being replaced.
6. Most extant projects are not being monitored. The time is ripe for a coordinated
southeastern regional monitoring effort.
199
-------
INTRODUCTION - MAGNITUDE OF BOTTOMLAND FOREST LOSS
Eighty-one percent of the terrain that
originally supported bottomland forests in the
United States has been converted to other land
uses. The southeastern United States sustained
about 92 percent of all forested wetland losses
during a period from the mid-1950's to the mid-
1970's, mostly from clearing and drainage for
agriculture (Haynes and Moore 1988). The
economic and ecological profundity of these
losses has been tardily recognized. Many
functional services ceased with bottomland forest
removal, including timber production, flood
abatement, food chain support (particularly
detrital export to estuaries), improvement of
water quality through nutrient and pollutant
filtering and organic matter transformations,
sediment retention, wildlife and endangered
species habitat, and others. Appreciable attempts
at recovering bottomland forests has begun only
within the present decade.
MARSH VS. FOREST REPLACEMENT
Most national and regional efforts to recover
wetlands have been directed at marsh ecosystems
and involve the creation or restoration of
replacement marshes. Bottomland forest
replacement strongly contrasts with marsh
replacement in scope and approach. Marsh
replacement is accomplished within a few years
at most, sometimes resulting in functional
equivalency and a close approximation of
original marsh vegetation. Techniques for
marsh replacement are relatively well known
and widely accepted.
In contrast, bottomland forest replacement
requires decades, and techniques being used are
not yet developed with repeatable precision.
Functional equivalency has yet to be addressed
for bottomland forest projects. Efforts thus far
have been directed at the complex task of
vegetational establishment. Our presentation,
therefore, focuses on vegetational composition
and structure, rather than ecosystem functions or
services rendered by the replacement plantings.
Until such time as functional aspects have been
carefully assessed, we make the working
assumption that ecosystem function is intimately
related to the vegetation, that is, composition and
structure. We feel that this approach is
reasonable ecologically and pragmatic in terms
of fostering the mitigation projects needed to
offset the loss of bottomland forest regionally.
Forest replacement is not nearly as dramatic
as marsh replacement. For at least several
years, young trees co-occupy the terrain with
brush and weedy herbs, causing new project sites
to appear disheveled. Plants that will persist and
eventually contribute to a replacement forest are
initially small in stature and present only a
fraction of the phytomass of a mature bottomland
forest. It is nearly impossible to document
success in these immature stands in a way that
appeases skeptics. Prolonged establishment
periods and largely unproven methodologies for
bottomland forest replacement have generated
caution from both the regulatory community and
agencies supporting forest projects. Environ-
mental permitting is generally more complex
than for marsh restoration, because project goals
are less easily defined and require more time
for attainment.
FOREST REPLACEMENT OVERVIEW
In the southeastern United States, there have
been two concentrations of effort in bottomland
forest replacement. The first has been the
reforestation of bottomlands that were cleared for
agriculture and later abandoned, especially in
the Mississippi Delta. The focus there has been to
establish a forest canopy of selected tree species,
particularly of oaks and other heavy-seeded trees
with limited dispersal. Trees of other species and
all undergrowth plants are ignored or are
expected to become established by natural
regeneration. The overriding concern is to
produce a tree canopy over large tracts of land.
The second kind of bottomland forest
replacement has been associated with surface
mining, primarily for phosphate in central
Florida. There, the projects are intensive and
restricted to small tracts on reclaimed lands.
Plantings attempt not only to replace the full
spectrum of tree species but also undergrowth
components, with considerable attention given to
establishing the appropriate hydrology and
hastening soil development.
APPROACHES TO FOREST RECOVERY
The two main approaches to bottomland
forest recovery are restoration and creation.
Most tree planting projects on abandoned
farmlands of the Mississippi Delta are examples
of "restoration". In these projects, soils and
hydrology are largely intact, and the principal
task is to reconstitute the former vegetation.
Most surface mining projects and upland
conversion to wetlands represent bottomland
forest "creation", whereby the entire habitat must
be engineered, including abiotic components
and vegetation. Creation projects are often more
complex than restoration projects. Nonetheless,
there are no fundamental differences between
such projects in terms of planning, revegetation
techniques, and monitoring. Differences between
200
-------
restoration and creation projects generally
reflect the physical site attributes more than the
basic approaches to establishing the vegetation.
Enhancement (or rehabilitation) is a third
approach to bottomland forest recovery. During
enhancement, young or degraded forests undergo
stand improvement (thinning, Intel-planting,
drainage, competition removal, etc.) to improve
growth, species composition, or a specific
function or service. Timber stand improvement
and certain wildlife management activities are
frequently practiced in southeastern bottomlands.
Such enhancement projects are peripheral to the
thrust of our presentation, which focuses on
restoration and creation.
OVERVIEW OF REGION - CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGION
The region covered in this chapter ranges
from Virginia to Arkansas south to Louisiana
and Florida and includes the states of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The climate
is generally warm-temperate with prolonged
growing seasons, mild winters, high humidity,
and seasonally distributed precipitation that
overall exceeds evaporation. Physiographically,
most of the region lies within the Atlantic
Coastal Plain, Gulf Coastal Plain, Mississippi
Embayment, and Piedmont. These four
provinces contain a wealth of forested wetlands,
both in terms of variety and acreage. Many of
these wetlands extend up the numerous river
valleys into the southern Appalachian, Ouachita,
and Ozark mountain regions, where cooler
climates prevail. Parts of Kentucky and
Tennessee occupy the Interior Plateau province.
Soils of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont are
mostly sands and weathered clay loams,
respectively, and are generally deficient in plant
nutrients. In contrast, the alluvium along larger
streams is quite fertile and supports luxuriant
and floristically rich forests. Much of this
alluvium originated in the highlands, where
erosional processes carried nutrient-rich soil
particles into streams. Not all southeastern
bottomlands are fertile. Some are peaty and acid,
including many isolated swamps, tributary
headwaters, and the bottomlands associated with
backwaters and smaller streams. Forests in such
habitats are relatively depauperate floristically
and are usually less productive than those along
alluvial streams.
FORESTED WETLAND TYPES
Several broadly defined forested wetland
vegetation types are recognized in this chapter
and are briefly described below. All are
palustrine forested wetlands, according to
Cowardin et al. (1979). Many occupy hydric
habitats, in which substrates are at least
seasonally flooded by river overflow or saturated
by groundwater seepage. Some occupy mesic
habitats, which are only temporarily flooded or
saturated. Plants of mesic habitats must tolerate
flooding or saturation a few days or weeks at a
time but ordinarily enjoy moist, aerated soils.
Appendix I lists scientific equivalents for
vernacular names of plants used in the text.
1. Muck-swamps. Baldcypress and/or water
tupelo (or sometimes Ogeechee tupelo)
swamps on fertile floodplains of larger
alluvial streams of the Coastal Plain, where
flooding is prolonged and often deep.
2. Cypress Heads or Strands. Pondcypress,
often in combination with swamp tupelo,
growing on the Coastal Plain in peaty, acid
isolated ponds ("cypress heads"), where
inundation is prolonged and often deep, and
within shallow, slowly moving streams
draining bogs or peaty, acid swamps
("cypress strands").
3. Bottomland Hardwoods. Mainly deciduous,
dicotyledonous trees (e.g., red maple, river
birch, water hickory, green ash, swamp
cottonwood, sycamore, overcup oak, willow
oak, sweetgum, and elms, to name just a
few), often containing several dominant
species in a given stand and growing on
fertile alluvial floodplains subject to
seasonal flooding. Also occurring in valleys
above usual elevations of overbank flooding,
where groundwater maintains constantly
high soil moisture. Common throughout the
Southeast.
4 Mesic Riverine Forest. The extension of
bottomland hardwood forest on higher
terraces and levees of flood plains and
protected valley walls. Consisting of those
typical bottomland hardwood species that are
less tolerant of frequent flooding or more
tolerant of well drained soils (e.g., water
oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak) and often
some evergreen hardwoods (e.g., southern
magnolia, live oak), and/or some conifers
(e.g., loblolly pine, spruce pine). Common
throughout the Southeast. Portions of this
forest may not be classified as jurisdictional
wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
201
-------
5. Bay Swamps. Broadleafed, coriaceous,
evergreen trees such as sweetbay, swamp
bay, or loblolly bay, and sometimes conifers
(especially slash pine) occupying peaty, acid
headwater swamps of streams ("bayheads"),
colluvial swamps along tannic blackwater
streams, seepages in some ravines, those
back swamps of larger floodplains that are
ordinarily unaffected by river overflow, and
isolated depressions within uplands. Bay
swamps often encircle cypress heads, where
soils are less flooded. In peninsular Florida,
red maples, swamp tupelos, and other
deciduous hardwoods are often intermixed
with the evergreen bays. Bay swamps are
abundant in, and essentially limited to the
Coastal Plain.
6. Peat Swamps. Titi, gallberry and other
hollies, fetterbush and other ericads, and
often conifers (especially pond pine),
regionally called "pocosins", "Carolina
bays", or "titi swamps", which occupy the
often expansive areas of deep peat
accumulation and the banks of small,
blackwater streams. Generally consisting of
shrubs and small trees on slightly elevated
terrain surrounding bay swamps, these
shrub bogs suffer fires that spread into them
during particularly dry years from
surrounding pine flatwoods or herb bogs.
Recovery is primarily by coppice-sprouting
without an intervening serai stage. Abund-
ant in, and essentially limited to the Coastal
Plain.
7. White Cedar Swamps. White cedar, growing
in monotypic stands in deep, peaty, acid,
more-or-less isolated, headwater swamps
near the coast in Virginia and North
Carolina and growing as conspicuous and
often dominant trees within bay swamps and
cypress strands in panhandle Florida. A
few, isolated white cedar forests also occur in
northern peninsular Florida and along the
toe of slopes in the fall line sandhill region
of North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia.
8. Wet Flats. Swamp tupelo, pondcypress, slash
pine, and red maple, singly or in
combination, growing on sandy to clayey
surface soils, underlain by a plastic horizon
that severely restricts filtration. This type
occupies isolated wet depressions between
streams in the coastal plain from South
Carolina to Florida and westward to
Louisiana and Arkansas and shares many
plant species with bay swamps and cypress
heads.
KEY FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
Southeastern forested wetlands provide
a variety of functions, depending upon the type of
wetland. Some of the more important functions
are listed alphabetically below:
1. Aesthetics, in terms of sensory experience.
2. Air quality improvement by forest trees
filtering particulates from adjacent urban,
agricultural, and industrial areas.
3. Crawfish, finfish, and shellfish production.
4 Detrital transformations and export of tree
leaves and other particulate organic matter,
which forms the basis of fresh water and
estuarine food chains that support shell and
fin fisheries.
5. Flood abatement and concomitant flood
control, by resistance of stream flow offered
by trees and by the retention of stormwater
runoff in isolated systems.
6. Honey production.
7. Maintenance of ecosystem functions in
terms of biotic diversity, food chain support,
stream flow mediation, and water quality
transformation, and filtering.
8. Noise abatement by forest trees in urban
• areas.
9. Recreational opportunities.
10. Sediment retention.
11. Sinks for pollutants and excess nutrients.
12. Timber production, particularly bottomland
hardwoods and cypress.
13. Water storage on floodplains, which
contributes to stream flow in dry seasons.
14 Water storage in isolated systems, which
contributes to the groundwater and thus to
soil moisture of surrounding uplands in dry
seasons.
15. Wildlife habitat, including for some
endangered species and rookeries for
wading birds.
202
-------
GOALS OF FORESTED WETLAND CREATION/RESTORATION
The goals of project work have been to:
1. Create a forest that resembles in species
composition and physiognomy a locally
indigenous forested wetland community on
sites that did not previously support that
community or that had been drastically
altered, e.g., surface-mined and reclaimed
land.
2. Restore the same type of forested wetland
vegetation, which was previously removed,
without much disturbance to the soil or
hydrologic regime. (The distinction between
"creation" and "restoration", although
sometimes subtle, should not be confused.)
3. Enhance an existing forest to accelerate
serai processes or to improve a particular
function or service, e.g., to provide suitable
habitat for an endangered species.
The ideal of creation/restoration projects is
to duplicate an original forest stand in terms of
species composition, structure, and function.
This goal can only be approximated, because
natural forests are themselves in constant flux.
The ideal can be satisfactorily approached,
though, with prudent project planning and
execution. Duplication of original forests may
not always satisfy current functional needs or
local land use plans. In such instances, an
altered forest community should be designed.
Altered forest restoration/creation may represent
the only option at those sites where land use
activities have modified soils or water balances
to the point that duplication is impossible. With
the exception of temporary cover and nurse crops,
only plants of preferred species should be
intentionally planted, unless there is project-
specific justification to the contrary. Preferred
species are defined as those indigenous species
that are typical of mature, undisturbed, local
stands of the community being restored.
Excluded are naturalized exotics and those
species that normally occur in association with
canopy disturbances or systems under stress
(Clewell and Shuey 1985).
Species introductions can be active
(intentional seeding or planting) and/or passive
(regeneration from "volunteer" colonization by
means of natural dissemination of seeds and
spores). The forest products industry in the
Southeast depends almost exclusively on natural
regeneration which follows timber harvesting of
bottomland hardwoods and cypress (Figure 1).
Many trees regenerate from coppice sprouts from
stumps, and other trees are replaced by advanced
regeneration (i.e., saplings that were not
harvested), seeds in place, or from seeds from
mature timber nearby. For full-scale projects,
provision should be made to introduce
undergrowth (herbs, shrubs, understory trees), as
well as potential overstory trees. Undergrowth
replacement can be accomplished concomitantly
with tree establishment at some project sites. At
other sites, undergrowth replacement may have
to be postponed until potential overstory trees are
released from competition by means of
herbicides or other treatments that would benefit
undergrowth.
EXTENT OF PROJECT WORK
There have been relatively few intentional
efforts to create or restore forested wetlands in
the Southeast. Most projects are still in the
planning stage or have been "in the ground" for
only a year or two and are too young for
assessment. However, large acreages of tree
farms, intended to create a canopy of one or few
tree species, have been planted across the entire
Southeast and can be useful in evaluating
species-site relationships and estimating
performance for creation projects.
There is a dearth of published information
on forested wetland projects, as revealed by a
recent bibliography (Wolf et al. 1986) and in the
issues of "Restoration and Management Notes."
Monitoring reports are scarce, even in the
"gray". We made a thorough, but not necessarily
exhaustive, effort to identify extant projects. We
contacted environmental personnel at all
southeastern regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (including Waterways
Experiment Station), key personnel in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation
Service, Forest Service, various state agencies
(departments of transportation, natural
resources, wildlife), universities, some
consulting firms actively engaged in restoration
work, and organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited. This search yielded some
information, but most was unsuitable for
inclusion in this document.
Just before this manuscript went to press, an
annotated bibliography was published on the
reestablishment of bottomland hardwood forests,
which cited several reports not referenced herein
(Haynes et al. 1988). Abstracts of those reports
elaborated on topics that we have treated and
apparently did not introduce entirely novel
themes or project descriptions.
203
-------
Figure 1. Natural regeneration of bottomland hardwoods (oak, hackberry, hickory, ash) at least 40
years old on a levee in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. Photo by M. Landin.
204
-------
KINDS OF PROJECT WORK
MINE RECLAMATION PROJECTS
There are two major kinds of on-going
forested wetland creation/restoration projects in
the Southeast, (1) phosphate mine reclamation
and (2) reforestation of bottomland hardwoods on
floodplains that had been cleared for row crops.
Other types of projects include:
1. Borrow pit reclamation in South Carolina
(Kormanik and Schultz 1985).
2. Shellrock mine reclamation in Florida
(Posey et al. 1984).
3. Coal mine reclamation in the southern
Appalachians (Starnes 1985).
4. Wildlife habitat enhancement by oak
hammock plantings in Florida pine
flatwoods (Moore 1980).
5. Cypress swamp creation in the Mississippi
embayment (Bull 1949, Peters and Holcombe
1951, Gunderson 1984, page 439 in Mitsch and
Gosselink 1986).
6. Artificial retention pond (for stormwater
runoff at industrial and residential
developments) tree plantings in Florida (S.
Godley pers. comm. 1987).
7. Highway corridor reforestation across river
bottoms by state road departments in
Alabama (J. Shill pers. comm.) and
Arkansas (W. Richardson pers. comm.).
8. Shoreline erosion control with planted
bottomland hardwoods and cypress at
reservoirs (Silker 1948, Anding 1988).
9. Cooling reservoir (for thermal discharge
from a nuclear reactor) shoreline restoration
with cypress-hardwood plantings in South
Carolina (Wein et al. 1987).
10. White cedar swamp restoration in the Big
Dismal Swamp of Virginia-North Carolina
(Carter 1987).
11. Enhancement of second-growth hardwood
hammocks in the Florida Everglades by
selective herbicidal removal of Brazilian
peppertrees (Ewel et al. 1982).
12. Urban lake shoreline enhancement by
planting cypress and bay (Cox 1987).
13. Sustained-yield timber management in
commercial forests. We do not consider
these operations as "restoration", although
they provide valuable information on
reforestation techniques (Malac and Heeren
1979).
Many forest creation projects occur at
phosphate mines in central Florida. Some
attempts have been made to recreate headwater
streams and their attendant riverine forests in
surface-mined and physically reclaimed land.
Other projects are designed to provide forests on
reclaimed land bordering mine-pit lakes and
reclaimed marshes. Although tree planting on
phosphate-mined lands began earlier, the first
project to create a forest along a stream flowing
on reclaimed land started in 1980 at Sink
Branch, shown in Figure 2 (Robertson 1984).
After 6 years, planted bottomland hardwood trees
(containerized nursery stock) averaged 3.4
meters tall (Gurr & Associates, Inc. 1986).
Dogleg Branch restoration began in 1983 and
was the first project that was specifically
designed to restore undergrowth as well as trees
(Clewell and Shuey 1985, Clewell 1986a). The
largest project is Agrico Swamp, which covers 20
hectares of bottomland hardwoods and bayhead
(Erwin 1985, Erwin et al. 1985). This project site
borders natural wetlands along a nearby stream.
Several other forested projects have been
initiated, e.g., Miller et al. (1985) and Clewell
(1986b), and most were listed by Ruesch (1983).
Haynes (1984), Robertson (1985), Marion (1986),
and Robertson (in Harrell 1987) provided
overviews of wetland restoration associated with
phosphate mining. Some phosphate mine projects
restored riverine forests within unmined
corridors such as riverine forests that were
cleared for power lines, pipelines, and dragline
crossings (Clewell 1986c,d). Most project reports
are available through inter-library loan from the
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, 1855 W.
Main St., Bartow, Florida 33830; (813) 533-0983.
The extensive literature on the revegetation
of coal surface-mined lands contains relatively
little information on reforestation, and most of
that pertains to non-wetland, upland reclamation
sites. Often, the steep valleys typical of many
coal-mined sites in the Appalachians offer little
opportunity for forested wetland creation (Starnes
1985).
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD CREATION
ON FALLOW FIELDS
Restoration of former bottomland hardwood
forests is being accomplished on floodplains
which had been cleared since about 1950 and row-
cropped, primarily with soybeans. Most project
sites occur in the Mississippi River delta or
along tributaries of that river. The objective of
reforestation is the reestablishment of forest
canopy, particularly by oaks and other heavy-
seeded trees that could not volunteer readily by
natural dissemination from adjacent forests.
205
-------
Undergrowth and some tree species are expected
to volunteer passively. Undergrowth plants
usually are not introduced intentionally,
although some regulatory authorities encourage
such plantings.
The largest project is currently underway
near Monroe, Louisiana, where 1,821 hectares
have been purchased by the state and are being
reforested to create a corridor between existing
wildlife management areas (Harris 1985). At
Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in
Mississippi, 445 hectares are being reforested
(Anonymous 1986). At the Malmaison Wildlife
Management Area in Mississippi, 405 hectares
are being reforested (Anonymous 1984). In
1985-86, 218 hectares of open land were reforested
at the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge in
Louisiana, and another 809 hectares of marginal
crop and pasture lands are scheduled (Larry
Moore pers. comm. 1988).
Haynes and Moore (1988) summarized
bottomland hardwood restoration projects in 1987
for all southeastern National Wildlife Refuges.
They identified projects at 12 refuges. The
prevalent species planted were Nuttall oak,
cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, and
pecan. Direct seeding of acorns began six years
previous (ca. 1981), and seedlings were planted at
older projects. They reported that fertilizers and
cultural practices such as mowing, disking, and
herbicidal applications were seldom used. Three
projects exceeded 10 years of age; the oldest was
19 years old and contained oaks 12 meters tall
with diameters of 23 to 27 centimeters. Research
plots to test reforestation techniques have been
established in several locations, notably at the
Delta Experimental Forest in Mississippi by the
U.S. Forest Service (Johnson and Krinard 1985a,
b, Krinard and Kennedy 1987). Other
experimental projects have been installed in
southwestern Tennessee (Waldrop et al. 1982), at
the Thistlethwaite Game Management Area in
Louisiana (Toliver 1986-87), and are being
planted primarily with oaks both as acorns and
seedlings.
NEW PROGRAMS
Two new programs will likely result in
bottomland reforestation; however, no specifics
are yet available. One is the Conservation
Reserve Program of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The other
stems from a provision in the 1987 Farm Bill,
whereby defaulted farmland may be reforested
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mark
Brown of the University of Florida (pers. comm.
1988) is calling for forest plantings along
drainage canals which are presently maintained
in herbaceous vegetation at great expense. He
also suggests that construction of ponds intended
as effluent sinks would make excellent habitats
for planted forests because water tables are
carefully maintained.
VEGETATION TYPES BEING RESTORED
Existing projects in the Southeast focus
primarily on bottomland hardwoods and
secondarily on cypress restoration. Will Conner
of Louisiana State University (pers. comm. 1988)
reports that the state of Louisiana began restoring
bald cypress forests by planting seedlings
beginning in 1983. The first planting has
attained a mean height of 3.2 meters in 5 years
with about 95 percent survival. Phosphate mine
projects are often mixtures of deciduous
bottomland hardwoods, evergreen hardwoods
typical of bayheads, and cypresses. Such
mixtures reflect strand and low hammock
vegetation in peninsular Florida.
We are unaware of any projects attempting
to restore shrub bogs. We are also unaware of
any restoration of cane, a bamboo-like grass.
Dense stands called "cane breaks" formerly
interrupted .bottomland hardwood forests
throughout much of the Southeast and were
heavily frequented by wildlife. Land
management practices have essentially
eliminated cane breaks, and we encourage the
restoration of this vanishing community.
PROJECT SUCCESS
Most creation projects are still too recent to
predict their ultimate success. Performance
targets for most projects are necessarily
imprecise, owing to an absence of stated project
goals. Success criteria have not been identified
for most projects and were inappropriately
conceived for others. There has been an implicit
attitude that success criteria will become self-
evident, once the planted trees mature. Mon-
itoring data are inadequate or absent for all but a
few creation projects.
In spite of these drawbacks, existing data
and general observations shed light on the
suitability of various restoration techniques and
allow optimism for the success of some projects.
The photograph of Sink Branch (Figure 2)
reveals a closed canopy of relatively tall;
vigorously growing mixed hardwoods. Trees at
several younger phosphate project sites are
emerging above the brush cover. Undergrowth
establishment has been recorded at some projects
(Clewell 1986a).
Bottomland hardwood test plots in the
Mississippi Embayment have demonstrated
impressive tree growth, mostly on fallow
cropland on floodplains. One such study
206
-------
Figure 2. Riverine forest creation along Sink Branch on reclaimed, phosphate mined
land in central Florida. Sweetgum, oaks, and other hardwoods are in their
eighth year, after being planted as containerized nursery stock.
(Broadfoot and Krinard 1961) provided
photographs of plots of planted cypress and
bottomland hardwoods representing 11 species,
which were from 17 to 25 years old and which
averaged from 13 to 19 meters tall, depending on
the species. Six-year-old eastern cottonwoods were
also pictured, which averaged 16 meters tall.
These photos graphically demonstrated that rapid
vegetational restoration is possible. Krinard and
Johnson (1976) reported that cypress trees planted
21 years previously averaged 15 centimeters in
diameter, maximum 35 centimeters. Krinard
and Kennedy (1987) reported average heights for
trees planted 15 years previously: cotton wood 18
meters, sycamore 12 meters, green ash 11 meters,
sweetgum 9 meters, Nuttall oak 8 meters, and
sweet-pecan 7 meters. Figure 3 shows 45 year old
hardwoods established by the Tennessee Valley
Authority to stabilize road crossings at a
reservoir.
Haynes and Moore (1988) suggested that
planted bottomland hardwood forests on
abandoned farmland could become self-
regenerating communities in 40 to 60 years.
Toliver (1986-87) predicted saw-sized timber
could be harvested from similar restoration
projects in 35 to 60 years.
We are sufficiently impressed by the
existing evidence to state that forested wetland
creation/restoration projects that are carefully
planned and executed will be successful in terms
of plant species establishment and
physiognomonic traits. Success in terms of
functional equivalency to natural forested
wetlands has not, however, been documented.
We feel confident that a close correlation exists
between forest form (i.e., composition and
physiognomy) and most functional attributes.
Cairns (1985, 1986) previously suggested this
207
-------
Figure 3. Water tupelo (left) and willow oak (right) planted 45 years ago by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) along Kentucky Lake.
relationship but with reservation. Our confidence
is supported by published results and by our
personal observations and experience at project
sites. This optimism is further supported by the
prevalence of cleared lands throughout the
Southeast that have regained their forest cover
solely by natural regeneration. In other words,
intentional restoration activities were not always
required for success, as long as the integrity of
the physical environment was maintained and
propagule delivery was adequate.
We believe that the eight forested wetland
types listed earlier can be restored, but not
necessarily under all existing habitat
conditions. Problems with submergence and
stability would presumably preclude restoration
of deep-water cypress-tupelo and white cedar
forests; however, these community types may be
established as shallow water systems. Peat
swamp restoration, other than tree farming, has
not been attempted, but we know of no
unsurmountable obstacles to such restoration.
Bay swamp creation is more difficult than
deciduous bottomland hardwood creation on
phosphate-mined lands, because soil moisture
levels and organic matter requirements are
more critical. In general, project success is more
a matter of proper design and implementation
than of forest type.
AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Many forested wetland restoration projects
are required as mitigation for permitted
activities. Permit negotiations are adversarial
by nature. Once a permit is issued, it behooves
agency personnel to become partners in the
project, offering expert advice in project design
208
-------
and providing frequent surveillance. By doing
so, project engineers gain the benefit of prior
agency experience, and agency personnel
improve their expertise from surveillance
activities.
CRITICAL FACTORS
Six critical factors interact to determine
whether or not a project will be successful. They
are: hydrology, substrate stabilization, rooting
volume, soil fertility, control of noxious plants,
and herbivore control. Hydrology is universally
the critical factor. The other factors vary in
importance from project to project. In the next
section, we will suggest methods for reducing the
adverse impacts which may be posed by these
factors.
TTvrlmlogv
Forested wetlands are closely controlled by
hydrology, in terms of annual inundations and/
or soil moisture regimes. Engineers,
hydrologists, and soil scientists must cooperate to
determine whether water delivery timing, depth,
and quality are synchronous with the natural
systems being emulated. If any of these aspects
become asynchronous with the life cycles or
growth requirements of the species being
established, then planted vegetation will become
stressed and subject to limited performance or,
in the extreme case, mortality. Whenever
possible, control should be asserted over adjacent
waters that dictate the hydrological regimen.
Flashboard risers, flap gates, retention ponds,
and spillways are examples of engineering
alternatives that should be considered for
implementation before revegetation begins. Such
alternatives will mitigate losses from storms,
river floods, and other stochastic events that
cannot be foreseen. Newly planted vegetation is
particularly susceptible to water stress, especially
when seedlings of species that are adapted to
shaded swamps are planted in exposed project
sites. Supplemental water may be released as
needed through control structures until young
plantings are adequately rooted.
Substrate
Project sites are often open and subject to
erosion, which hinders establishment of trees
and desirable undergrowth. Eroded sediments
may accumulate, blocking drainage, smothering
vegetation, and reducing water quality. Top-
ographic relief must be planned with substrate
stabilization in mind, and final grading must be
done with considerable care. Without such care,
the reclaimed stream may become gullied,
causing the project to be forfeited because of
inconsistent water delivery across the project
site. Project engineers should expect to make
repairs to control erosion and deposition during
the first 6 to 18 months.
Rooting Volume
Roots of planted trees must have an adequate
volume of soil in which to gain anchorage and to
exploit moisture and nutrients. Factors limiting
rooting volume are the depth to the wet season
water table and mechanical resistance in terms
of bulk density and compaction. Roots require
oxygen for metabolism. Oxygen is abundant in
aerated soils but is soon depleted in saturated
soils. As a result, root growth is generally
restricted to soil horizons above the water table.
In seasons of active growth, roots of most trees
die within a few days following oxygen
depletion, and tree mortality quickly follows root
death. Trees of only a few species are capable of
translocating oxygen to their roots and into the
rhizosphere and therefore surviving for extended
periods in waterlogged substrates. Most wetland
trees are necessarily shallow-rooted for that
reason. If project sites have high water tables,
trees may be unable to attain sufficient
anchorage and will eventually topple. If soils
are infertile, the volume of aerated soil may be
too small to supply adequate nutrients for growth.
With regard to mechanical resistance, roots of
some trees are physically unable to penetrate
clays or other soils with bulk density values
exceeding 1.6. Density is increased by
compaction caused by heavy equipment at project
sites (Holland and Phelps 1986). At forest
creation sites, organic matter is also generally
lacking, and other soil properties and
macrofauna that contribute favorable structure
and fertility for plant growth are diminished.
The existing mineral substrate may require
conditioning prior to tree planting. A common
problem at mine project sites during dry seasons
is the hardening of otherwise sandy substrate by
relatively small increments of clay. Plant roots
are unable to penetrate these "crusted" soils,
causing moisture stress.
Soil Fertility
Native substrate fertility varies considerably
with the project site. Fertilizer supplements are
usually necessary. Otherwise, trees may
languish too long as saplings and become
suppressed by weeds. Strategies for application
may be required to prevent weeds from being the
major beneficiaries of fertilizer amendments.
Adjustments of pH are sometimes necessary by
means of amendments of lime.
Noxious Plant Control
Noxious or "nuisance" species include (1)
aggressive colonizers or "weeds" of open
environments, such as Johnson grass, giant
ragweed, saltbush, and primrose willow, (2)
209
-------
perennial turf grasses, such as burmuda grass
and particularly bahia grass, (3) certain
perennial cover crops, especially tall fescue, (4)
naturalized exotics that compete successfully
with indigenous vegetation, including kudzu,
honeysuckle, Chinaberry, Brazilian peppertree,
and (5) preferred species that may proliferate to
the point that they suppress young overstory trees,
e.g., box elder, wild grapes, blackberries,
greenbriers, hempvine, morning-glory.
The Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (PL95-87) mandates herbaceous
plantings for sedimentation control. However,
tall fescue and other widely planted cover
plants substantially reduce the survival and
growth of tree seedlings (Klemp et al. 1986).
Vogel (1980) determined that cover, particularly
grasses, should be removed (scalping, herbicide,
cultivation) prior to tree planting. Leguminous
cover crops sire beneficial, as long as they do not
suppress initial seedling growth, because they
contribute nitrogen and stimulate the
development of soil fauna.
Bahia grass and burmuda grass are widely
planted throughout most of the Southeast. They
have been used as cover crops at project sites or
have seeded onto project sites from nearby fields.
Both species, particularly bahiagrass, are
strongly competitive for nutrients and moisture,
and both are known to be allelopathic (Fisher
and Adrian 1981, Whitcomb 1981). Both grasses
are low-growing and preempt space in which
taller weeds could grow. Smaller saplings suffer
both from competition and from the lack of shade
ordinarily provided by taller weeds. Perennial
turf grasses represent a major threat at any
project site.
On the other hand, tall weeds, such as dog
fennel and broomsedge, are beneficial, because
they shelter young trees and desirable
undergrowth from sun and wind without
crowding them. We should be tolerant of such
species, because they directly parallel old field
succession, whereby young trees are protected by
plants of these same species (Kurz 1944, Kay et
al. 1978). For this reason, many weeds are
beneficial, although their profusion may hide
young trees from cursory view and may
unjustifiably influence performance reviews by
regulatory personnel.
Herbivore Control
Herbivores often inflict heavy damage to
planted trees. Squirrels and chipmunks exhume
direct-seeded acorns, and rodents girdle seed-
lings (Johnson and Krinard 1985b). Raccoons,
rabbits, and deer enjoy free meals of tree
seedlings (Toliver 1986-87, Haynes and Moore
1988). In winter, newly planted seedlings provide
an attractive supplement to scarce food supplies
for nuisance animals. Beavers can essentially
"clearcut" tree seedlings the night after they are
planted. Beavers may also drown planted
seedlings by blocking drainage in culverts and
at other points of constricted flow. Among the
worst transgressors are nutria, a semi-aquatic
fur-bearing rodent introduced from South
America in the 1930's which relishes tap roots of
cypress seedlings (Conner et al. 1986,
Anonymous 1988). Conner (pers. comm. 1988)
reported that nutria in Louisiana consumed
approximately 1,500 of 2,000 cypress seedlings
within a few days after they were planted in 1987.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
FEE-CONSTRUCTION
CONSIDERATIONS
Although a replacement wetland is ideally
placed in the same location as the original
wetland, there are instances when other
placements are more desirable within the
immediate watershed for several reasons:
1. To take advantage of optimal topography or
hydrology created by land reclamation.
2. To allow the direct transfer of topsoil from a
forest being removed to a replacement forest
creation site without stockpiling.
3. To reduce the distance to a forest that will
serve as a seed source of preferred species.
4. To facilitate proposed land uses.
5. To avoid concentrations of contaminants
that are known to exist on-site.
6. To provide a wildlife corridor between
natural areas.
7. To coordinate with approved regional
watershed planning concepts.
The last two items may serve to mitigate
cumulative impacts caused by prior land uses.
210
-------
Project Size
Wetlands can only comprise that portion of a
watershed where the surface water is available or
the groundwater table lies at or near the soil
surface. In other words, the watershed controls
the size and water balance of wetlands. If a
restoration project occupies a greater acreage
than the original forest being restored, then the
restored forest will be proportionately less hydric
and more mesic. For that reason, project size
should not exceed the acreage of the original
forest, unless the water balance is concomitantly
improved. Designs to improve the water balance
for an enlarged project should assess potential
secondary and cumulative impacts to other
environmental systems in the watershed.
Site Characteristics Planning-
Site characteristics planning must begin by
answering the question of whether or not the
project site will support the kind of restoration
proposed, in terms of relief, exposure, hydrology,
soils and fertility, erosion potential, and seed
banks. Recent or proposed drainage projects
within the immediate watershed require
particular study, because an altered water table
may cause project failure.
Water TVTa-napenie'nt
The regulation of stream flow is often
desirable or essential during the initial years.
The stream in question may be a river that
seasonally overflows onto a project site or a
created stream within a project site. Weirs or
other control structures may be available to
regulate flows. If so, flow can be augmented in
dry seasons to encourage plant growth. Like-
wise, peak flows in wet seasons can be diverted
to prevent erosion. Without controls, successful
reforestation has proven to be quite difficult in
Mississippi River bottomlands in Louisiana.
Attempts to replace hardwoods with cypress have
sometimes been unsuccessful, due to the absence
of control structures to prevent inundation of
seedlings.
Channel erosion along newly created
streams is always a consideration in designing
reclamation projects. To reduce potential
channel erosion, headwaters could be placed
adjacent to impoundments. An impoundment
would receive much runoff that would otherwise
pass directly into the new stream and cause
erosion and sedimentation problems. Soils in the
restored wetland next to the new stream would
stay wet from groundwater seepage under
hydrostatic pressure from the impoundment.
This concept is under consideration for mining
projects and holds considerable promise (King et
al. 1985).
Sometimes hydrologic conditions have been
altered off site and must be accommodated in the
restoration plan. For example, operators of
reservoirs upstream may release asynchronous
discharges, causing floods in normal dry
seasons, or they may reduce seasonally high
flows in wet seasons. Although such scheduling
of discharges may assist in tree establishment, a
continuation would likely prove deleterious to
forest ecosystem function and development. In
another example, some power generating
facilities produce thermal discharges. Species
selected for thermally enhanced project sites
must be favored by high temperatures and must
not require prolonged winter dormancy (Sharitz
and Lee 1985).
Proper watershed management is a
necessary component of any wetlands creation
project. If watershed activities are not
coordinated with the revegetation efforts, serious
problems may develop that require expensive
engineering solutions. For example,
approximately 45 hectares of phosphate-mined
land was physically reclaimed to pre-mining
elevations and planted with a temporary cover
crop. Concurrently, a new stream and 2 hectares
of attendant bottomland forest were created
within this new watershed (Clewell 1986b). Once
the upland cover crop died, it was not
immediately replaced. Runoff from
thunderstorms was no longer retarded by the
cover crop and passed unchecked into the new
stream. As a result, flash floods occurred and
caused channel erosion. Repeated repairs were
required to stabilize the stream channel. Eroded
sediments had to be removed with difficulty from
sites in which trees had already been planted. In
retrospect, revegetation activities of the
surrounding watershedshould have been
coordinated with wetland creation activities.
SITE PREPARATION AND PLANNING
Site Preparation Principles
The goal of site preparation is to configure
and stabilize a physical habitat in which a
restored/created forest can be established that
will function to provide multiple ecological
services. For many restoration projects, little or
no site preparation is needed. On reclaimed land
or at highly disturbed sites, contouring and
stream creation may be required. Site
preparation should create land forms that
resemble natural features. Tall dikes, for
example, will appear unnatural indefinitely and
should be installed only if no other alternative is
available. Structural alternatives should be
designed, if possible, so that they may be
removed when no longer needed (e.g., weirs), or
so that they will subside in a few years and blend
211
-------
into the landscape (e.g., berms and stream
deflectors, described below).
Substrate stabilization is essential for newly
prepared sites, in order to prevent sheet erosion
or gullying and to allow newly planted trees to
become rooted. Temporary cover crops may
provide sufficient control at some sites. Where
erosion potentials are greater, a series of
planting techniques are available, and detailed
instructions for their use have been provided by
Allen and Klimas (1986). Plantings are
generally less expensive and less intrusive than
engineering alternatives. The plants used,
though, should either represent species typical of
the forest being restored or should not be expected
to persist indefinitely at the site.
Regardless of the cover crop or erosion
plantings to be used, they should be sown or
planted as soon as the site is available. A delay
not only invites erosion but also allows
undesirable weeds to become established and will
compete with planted trees and preferred
undergrowth plants. Weed prevention must be
taken seriously. Once established, weeds may
require unexpectedly costly control. Weeds will
reduce tree survival, impair tree growth, and
will delay project release from regulatory
liability.
Contouring Strategies
Contouring must be accomplished carefully
with regard to elevation and seasonal
fluctuations of the water table. If water table
movements cannot be predicted, final grading
may have to be delayed until groundwater
measurements are available from piezometers.
In general, original contours should be reestab-
lished, unless other factors take precedence, such
as availability of fill materials, safety
requirements, proposed land use criteria, and
design for flood abatement.
Contours should be as gentle as possible.
Sharp breaks in topographic continuity invite
gullying. Permanent repair may require
burying a culvert along the length of a gully
across a topographic discontinuity.
Sheet erosion must be controlled by
establishing a fast-growing cover crop, such as
winter ryegrass or (in summer) millet. Spot-
seeding may be necessary later in the season for
bare areas. Perennial cover crops may also have
to be, planted unless native herbaceous plants
colonize the site during the first year. If
vegetative cover is insufficient, low berms (0.5
meters or less) can be plowed on slopes parallel
to topographic contours. Runoff collects behind
berms and infiltrates into the soil. Berms were
effective at one project, where they were needed
for the first year (Clewell and Shuey 1985).
Subsequent rains have since eroded them nearly
to the natural grade.
For terraces subject to seasonal flooding, we
recommend an uneven or corrugated surface,
like that prepared with a bedding plow. Later,
trees will be planted on the elevated microsites
where rooting volume is favorable. Construction
engineers and bulldozer operators may require
convincing to do what appears to be an untidy
job.
Stream (Thflrmpl Construction
If stream channels are to be created within
the wetland, they should be relatively broad and
shallowly parabolic in profile. This
configuration forces the water column at peak
flow to spread out and experience maximum
friction with the bottom (Pig. 4). Flows are
deterred by friction and their erosive forces
spent. Deflectors can be positioned every 30
meters or so to initiate meandering. A deflector
can be constructed by piling about 7 logs
perpendicular to the flow of the stream. Sand or
hay bales should be placed behind each deflector
to prevent its being undercut by the stream.
Meandering increases the length of the stream
between any two points. Friction of the water
column with the channel is thereby increased,
and the erosive force of the current is reduced
accordingly.
Topographic breaks in the stream channel
should be avoided or will require riprap,
boulders, or other devices to prevent gullying. If
strong flows are expected, the channel may have
to be lined with cobbles, packed clay, or other
materials to prevent gullying (Starnes 1985). For
lesser flows, effective erosion control is realized
by sprigging stoloniferous marsh plants and
allowing them to proliferate across an entire
channel in seasons of low flow. Suitable
plantings may include pennywort, spikerush,
pickerelweed, and bulrush.
Where vegetation alone is inadequate,
erosion matting can be effective. Mats of
excelsior, sandwiched between nylon netting, are
easily pegged to the soil. Plants can readily
grow through the mesh, replacing it as it
biodegrades.
Soil Conditioning
Substrates at newly created project sites may
be inadequate in their structure, fertility, and
organic matter content. Tree planting might best
be delayed until soil conditioning activities are
completed. These activities may include green
manuring, by alternately growing and disking
fast-growing covercrops. Other possibilities are
to spread and disk organic matter, such as straw,
bark, wood fiber, or sludge. Straw was successful
212
-------
.
Figure 4. Recently created stream segment of Dogleg Branch on reclaimed, phosphate
mined land in central Florida.
213
-------
in preventing soil crusting in microplot studies
(Best et al. 1983). At one project site, willows and
wax myrtles had previously colonized an
abandoned phosphatic clay settling pond. These
shrubs were herbicided, chopped, and disked into
the soft substrate in preparation for tree planting
(Ericson and Mills, 1986). At a new site designed
by A.F. Clewell, water hyacinths were disked
into a mineral substrate in 1988 to provide
organic matter. Trees are scheduled to be planted
later that year. Starch gel polymers have also
been used as soil amendments (Clewell and
Shuey 1985) and are gaining in popularity. They
improve moisture retention and diminish soil
crusting. Subsoil rippers have been used
effectively in conjunction with tree planting on
clayey soils (Powell et al 1986). Rippers augment
rooting volume in compacted soils and "fold in"
surface organic matter into the planting slit.
Sludge amendments should be considered as
a means for introducing or attracting an
abundance of soil micro-fauna. Composted
sludge may be the preferable form because it
would also introduce wood fiber. We encourage
sludge application both as a soil amendment and
as positive method of waste disposal. State and
local standards may limit or preclude sludge
application near water bodies. Sludge
applications should be limited to aerated
substrates which favor soil microfauna.
Soil fertility may be improved with
amendments of sludge or fertilizers and by the
planting of leguminous cover crops, whose
symbionts contribute nitrogen. Highly acid soils
may require extensive conditioning. Lee et al.
(1983) conditioned pyritic soil in Mississippi with
amendments of crushed limestone, rock
phosphate, and chicken manure. The pH was
improved from 2.9 to 5.5, and the survival of
planted trees and shrubs was correspondingly
improved.
Introductions of mycorrhizal fungi have
been attempted, primarily to enhance
phosphorous availability. Tests have shown that
planted trees in the Southeast give little or no
response to mycorrhizal inoculation, either
because of the abundance of native mycorrhizal
fungi already in the soil (Schoenholtz et al. 1986)
or because of the adequate availability of
phosphorus in the soil (Wallace and Best 1983).
Some workers have demonstrated a positive
response (Wallace et al. 1984), but others have
reported that initial responses were temporary,
and untreated trees eventually attained the same
size (Rice et al. 1982).
If vines or perennial turf grasses are
abundant, they should be largely or entirely
removed concurrently with soil conditioning. A
combination of herbicidal treatment and disking
may be required. Honeysuckle, grapes, kudzu,
greenbriers, and ground nut all rampantly
proliferate and smother young trees. Hempvines
massively enshroud saplings, causing 2.5-meter-
tall cypresses to bend until their tops touch the
ground (Clewell 1987). Some vines are preferred
species but must be temporarily considered as
noxious until planted trees attain sufficient
height to withstand their competition.
Timing of Project Activities
Final grading of project sites should be
scheduled, if possible, in the dry season, in order
to engage heavy equipment in otherwise boggy
terrain and to minimize the erosion of loose
substrates (Lea 1988). Orders of plant materials
must be made early. Tree seedlings and other
nursery stock are often unavailable unless
special-ordered and contract-grown as much as a
year in advance. Plantings should be scheduled
for the most appropriate season for each species,
particularly bare root seedlings. Tree planting
should be delayed as needed to accommodate soil
conditioning procedures or the removal of vines
and rhizomatous turf grasses. Introductions of
the more vulnerable species, particularly
undergrowth, may best be delayed a year or more
and interplanted when the initially harsh
conditions,of the open site are ameliorated by an
established vegetative cover.
Species Selection
The problem of species selection and
planting stock is not trivial. Plants representing
hundreds of woody species comprise forested
wetlands in the Southeast. Inappropriate choices
of species may result in non-attainment of
project goals. Mortality of trees and undergrowth
plantings may be unacceptably high, growth may
be retarded, and capture of the site may be
inadequate by the intended vegetation.
Reconnaissance of surrounding plant
communities provides a valuable first step in
deciding basic components of the forest type to be
established. Baseline ecological studies or
published accounts of local vegetation provide a
detailed basis for planning the vegetational
composition at a project site. Lists of indigenous
species should be prepared from reconnaissance,
baseline studies, and appropriate literature.
From these lists should be culled all exotic
introductions and those weedy, short-lived'
colonizers typical only of forest gaps (from tree
fall) and disturbances (e.g., along trails). These
colonizing species will appear all too readily
without assistance.
Remaining species on the list are the
preferred species, mentioned earlier. They
represent the trees and undergrowth typical of
mature, undisturbed forest vegetation. Project
plans should call for the introduction of as many
214
-------
of the preferred species as possible. The only non-
preferred species to be planted are temporary
cover and nurse crops.
Nursery or cutting stock should be derived
from regional sources to improve the chances of
introducing ecotypes that are adapted to local
climate and soils. If local sources are not
available, planting stock is most likely to be
adaptive if secured from a region north of the
project site, according to results of provenance
tests on sweetgum (Stubblefield 1984). We suggest
that planting stock from the south would be less
cold-hardy and that stock from the east or west
would be adapted to different precipitation
regimes.
The on-site environmental conditions
necessary for species survival will vary along
gradients, particularly for soil water balance.
Only a minority of species are adapted to a
plethora of site conditions that can be
successfully planted over a broad range of
environmental gradients. When species are
indiscriminately melded across a project, the
resulting vegetation will not resemble baseline
forests, and plantings will suffer undue
mortality and low vigor. Several references
(e.g., Teskey and Hinkley 1977) supply
information on species tolerances, which the
project manager may use in committing species
to those environmental gradients at the project
site. The resulting created forest may have less
species overlap along gradients than in natural
systems. The dominant species in natural forests
have the luxury of establishment on microsites
for which they are specially adapted and that
may be unavailable at projects sites, e.g., on
decaying logs. Undergrowth plants are strongly
influenced by flooding and moisture
availability, and hydric sites generally have
less species diversity than mesic sites (Bell 1974,
Clewell et al. 1982).
Not all species intended for introduction can
be planted successfully at new project sites.
Serai development may be prerequisite for some
species. A targeted mixed hardwood community
may have to develop beneath an initial canopy of
pioneer species, such as willows or cottonwoods.
Some of the desired hardwoods may penetrate
this canopy within a few years, while the
emergence of others may be delayed for several
decades until the gap replacement process begins.
Nurse Croos
One method of hastening serai development
is to introduce nurse crops prior to, or
concurrently with the establishment of preferred
species. Nurse crops may provide shade, preempt
space occupied by highly competitive species such
as turf grasses, contribute humus from
abundantly produced leaf litter, or produce
nitrogen through their symbionts. Species
suitable as nurse crops are those that will grow
rapidly and are either relatively short-lived or
can be harvested economically upon serving
their purpose. The planting of a nurse crop
requires a knowledge of stand successional
patterns as well as clear institutional memory to
implement the later phases of this option.
Black locust and European alder are
commonly planted on coal surface-mine spoils.
Although they are not planted specifically as
nurse species, they fulfill that purpose. They
begin to die after 17 to 20 years as the result of
competition from potential over story trees that
volunteer beneath their cover (Thompson et al.
1986).
Cottonwoods are potential nurse species.
They grow rapidly, provide shade, contribute
much humus, and eventually succumb to the
competition of hardwoods that are interplanted
with them. Volunteer willows are being
intentionally used as nurse species (J. G.
Sampson pers. comm.). Slash pines could serve
as a nurse species. Their seedlings survive and
grow faster than hardwoods when planted in
competition with bahia grass. Hardwood
seedlings could be interplanted later, as the pines
shade-out the grass. If the pines were not
desirable as canopy trees, they could be harvested
for sale as fence posts. Wax myrtle is another
potential nurse species, because of its nitrogen-
fixation and the shelter provided by its dense,
evergreen foliage (Clewell 1986e).
NATURAL REFORESTATION
Natural Regeneration
In many instances, natural regeneration of
preferred, bottomland forest species may be
passively employed to reclaim degraded or
perturbed wetlands. Natural regeneration might
also be judiciously incorporated into certain
forest creation plans, as long as back-up
plantings were required in case of seed failures.
A seed source must be contiguous with the project
or the site must be available to flood waters that
transport seeds. There are examples of
mitigation sites that have been overrun with
volunteer vegetation, which out-performed
planted stock. Clewell (1986f) reported 8-year-old
natural regeneration, primarily of red maples
and sweetgums with a density of 15,324 trees per
hectare, adjoining a "seed wall", i.e., the edge of
the nearest reproductively mature forest facing
the site.
Other documentation of natural regeneration
was provided by Farmer et al. (1982), Rushton
(1983), and Wade (1986). In many cases, the
naturally regenerated forest is more desirable,
215
-------
because the plants of the component species are
precisely distributed according to the
environmental gradients and microsites to
which they are best adapted. On the other hand,
species richness from natural regeneration may
be inadequate, especially if the seeds reaching
the project site represent only a few species.
Supplementary plantings of additional species
may be appropriate in such instances.
Sites which should be considered for natural
regeneration are:
1. Those that are narrow (no greater than two
tree heights from the surrounding seed wall).
2. Those exposed to flood waters bearing seeds.
3. Those in which the original soil and
hydrological regimen have suffered little or
no alteration. Undisturbed soils are often
reforested from coppice sprouts of cut trees or
from seed banks.
Natural regeneration usually attracts an
abundance of noxious species, particularly vines,
which may interfere with the establishment of
preferred species. Noxious species, from the
standpoint of timber management, include
boxelder and river birch, which may capture the
site, particularly if the adjacent seed wall is
depauperate in seed supply of preferred species.
Conner et al. (1986) reported that natural
regeneration is largely unsuccessful in
restoring cleared stands of cypress in the
Southeast; maples and other hardwoods tend to
replace the cypress. Too many factors must exist
simultaneously for successful germination and
establishment. Erratic flooding interrupts that
constellation of factors, in part due to
anthropomorphic activities associated with flood
control, road construction, and petroleum
exploration.
When natural regeneration is prescribed for
restoration projects, sites should be disked or the
existing vegetation otherwise largely removed
prior to the dormant season. If overbank flooding
does not occur or there is a seed failure in the
seed wall, the procedure may have to be repeated
the next year. Natural regeneration may require
several years before full stocking is realized,
especially in those areas remote from the seed
wall or isolated from flood waters that carry
seeds.
On the fertile floodplains of the Mississippi
River, natural regeneration may be negligible
for oaks and other large-seeded trees such as
sweet-pecan, relative to the suite of more
competitive species that rapidly colonize exposed
substrates.
Direct seeding by planting acorns
(manually or by machine) has proven quite
effective in reforesting bottomlands, where oaks
are absent (Johnson and Krinard 1985a,b). In
contrast, direct broadcast seeding of hardwoods
has met with mixed success (Tackett and Graves
1979,1983; Cross et al. 1981; Wittwer et al. 1981)
and is not recommended. At best, broadcast
seeding generally results in patchy, overstocked,
monotypic stands of low diversity.
Pelletized seeds are being developed for
direct seeding, in which the coatings contain
fertilizers, fungicides, and other substances
designed to enhance successful germination
(Almagro et. al. 1987).
ARTIFICIAL REFORESTATION
Many options exist for artificial regeneration,
including planting of:
1. Bare root seedlings.
2. Containerized seedlings.
3. Stem cuttings.
4 Transplanted saplings or larger trees,
usually by tree spade.
Bare Root Seedlings
The standard stock for forest plantations has
been bare root seedlings. The technology for
producing them is well developed, and they
survive and grow well in moist substrates.
Seedlings should be grown from local sources,
preferably those trees whose seeds have been
progeny-tested to determine acceptable growth
performance.
Good quality seedlings should possess a
multitude of attributes in order to survive and
grow well. For details, the inexperienced planter
should consult Williams and Hanks (1976).
From our personal experience, we offer the
following recommendations:
1. Seedlings should be hardened or fully
dormant when planted.
2. Preferably, seedlings should be planted
directly; otherwise they should be properly
chilled to 1 to 4 degrees C and stored after
lifting.
3. Seedlings that have begun to flush with new
growth are a poor risk and should not be
planted.
4 Seedlings should have well developed
terminal buds, and the roots should be highly
216
-------
fibrous to facilitate initial absorption of
water and nutrients when outplanted.
5. When planted, hardwood seedlings are
typically much larger than pine seedlings,
and hence they cannot be planted with the
same speed or ease. Many planting failures
have resulted from a field boss encouraging
higher production by root and top pruning. If
a seedling has been properly handled in the
nursery, no root pruning is necessary, and
planting crews should be discouraged from
doing so.
6. In terms of physiological characteristics,
seedlings should be grown in ways that
promote optimal carbohydrate and mineral
reserves. Seedlings should be free of
symptoms of mineral deficiencies and
should be turgid. Weak seedlings cannot
cope with physiological drought that occurs
before their roots re-establish contact with
soil at the planting site.
7. Seedling size is the most important
characteristic for hardwoods. In our
experience, stem caliper at the root collar
should be between 10 to 13 mm and never less
than 6 mm. Most nurseries do not cull
seedlings during packaging. Inferior
seedlings should be discarded by planting
personnel and not counted as planted. The
cost of bare root seedlings is low, relative to
other project costs. Project managers have no
economic rationale for cutting corners and
skimping on quality control by planting
inferior seedlings.
8. Seedlings suffer the cumulative insults
wrought upon them from the lifting and
packing operation to their shipping,
handling, and field planting. Seedlings
should be in transit as short a time as
possible, to reduce the time they are subject to
molding and desiccation. The planter
should be encouraged to accept a
consignment of seedlings at the nursery, in
order to eliminate delays in shipment. Bags
of seedlings should be transported in the
shade and protected from desiccating wind
and kept at 1 to 4 degrees C, making certain
to avoid freezing temperatures. Initial
growth reflects the care provided to seedlings
at every stage of handling.
Containerized Seedlings
Container-grown seedlings have been
successfully established in sites that are too
harsh for adequate survival of bare root
seedlings. They may be planted further into the
growing season than can bare root seedlings.
Several types of containers have evolved in
nursery practice, and all have potential in
wetland mitigation:
1. "Tubelings", also called "plugs" or "tray
trees", each consisting of a tree seedling and
a minimal soil mass enclosed by the root
system in plastic or styrofoam containers,
which may be removed before shipping.
2. Paper sacks or other biodegradable
containers that are planted along with the
seedlings.
3. Systems in which the container and the
growth medium are one and the same, such
as molded peat or wood fiber.
4. Gallon-sized (usually) plastic pots or bags,
each with a tree from about 7 to 24 months
old, which is delivered in its container and
planted with its potting medium intact.
The technology for containerized stock is
expanding because such stock best survives
mishandling and inhospitable site conditions.
However, container-grown seedlings cost several
times that of bare root seedlings, are more
difficult to plant, and should be limited to
unsuitable sites for bare rootstock because of
economic constraints.
In spite of their endurance relative to other
nursery stock, containerized seedlings must be
transported with extreme care in summer.
Temperatures may rise above 35° C in closed
trucks, and transpirations! stress may be lethal
to trees carried in open trucks. If containerized
trees sit in the sun for a few hours before
planting, transpiration may deplete all soil
moisture, and their black plastic pots may absorb
enough heat to kill roots. We have seen well laid
plans for plantings go awry when a brief thunder
shower prevented hot trucks from being
unloaded. The trucks became stuck in the rain-
softened substrate so that trees could not be
unloaded where they could be stored temporarily
in the shade for a few hours before planting.
Puttings
Certain hardwood trees lend themselves to
being propagated vegetatively by rooted cuttings.
Poplars, willows, sycamore, green ash,
sweetgum, and several others will grow from
such cuttings. Hardwood cuttings or "whips" are
sections about 30-55 cm long, harvested from one-
year-old twigs in the dormant season and stored
in plastic bags just above freezing until planting
in the spring. Optimum whip diameters range
from 8 to 13 mm.
Willow and poplar whips are safely out-
planted. For other species, greater survival and
217
-------
early growth is achieved if cuttings are pre-
rooted in a nursery and then handled as bare
root seedlings. Normally, cuttings are planted
vertically, the stem apex flush with the soil
surface or with no more than 3 cm exposed, the
buds pointing up. Allen and Klimas (1986)
provided additional details on planting whips
along shorelines.
Saplings
Small saplings that are less than three years
old have occasionally been transplanted from
natural forests to project sites (e.g., Cox 1987).
Transplanting large saplings is often
prohibitively expensive and is likely to produce
mixed results on mitigation sites. Transplanted
trees sometimes suffer high mortality, even if
properly balled, bagged, and pruned. Saplings
often fail to grow for several years because of the
severe reduction in root biomass upon lifting and
the interruption of optimum growing conditions
that were provided in the nursery or in the
undisturbed forest interior.
Seedlings planted correctly will probably
grow to the same size as tree-spaded saplings in 5
years. A notable exception is cabbage palm,
mature specimens of which can be successfully
transplanted in moist but well aerated soils.
The most extensive use of transplanting is at
two projects in Palm Beach County, Florida,
where entire forests of mature cabbage palms,
dahoon hollies, red maples, laurel oaks, and
slash pines were tree-spaded to new locations
(Posey et al. 1984).
Planting Options
From our observations throughout the region,
the successful plantings are those that have had
proper site preparation prior to planting, followed
by surveillance after planting to insure that the
post-planting maintenance activities are properly
and timely implemented. For example, a season
of severe weed competition without control can
negate hundreds of man hours of effort.
Intensive site preparation is also essential for
several reasons:
1. Planting and maintenance will be safer and
less expensive.
2. Debris will not scour the planting site at
flood stage.
3. Access to trafficking the site by foot or
machinery will be easier.
4. Post-establishment monitoring will be
facilitated.
A desirable treatment is a late growing
season harrowing to control weeds and brush
prior to planting and to loosen crusted or
impacted soils. If fertilizers are to be applied,
they should be timed with the planting effort.
The options available for tree planting are
many and varied, depending on the type and size
of the planting stock, the size and land form of
the project site, the presence of stumps and debris,
and the availability of equipment and labor. For
large acreages, unrooted cuttings or seedlings
can be planted expediently using continuous-
furrow planting machines. Where more control
of species is required, cuttings and seedlings
may be planted by hand using any of a variety of
dibbles, hoedads (a commercially available tree
planting hoe), shovels, or other hand tools.
Planting crews can be contracted either on a
negotiated fixed fee with first-year survival rates
guaranteed or on a variable scale, where the
price per hectare can be adjusted within a range
to reflect the quality of the planting job. In either
case, responsibility for quality control ultimately
lies with the project manager.
When planting, the seedlings or cuttings
should be put in a hole large enough to
accommodate the entire root system without
recurving or "J-rooting", and at a depth equal to
or slightly above the root collar. Exposed roots
and J-rooting reduce vigor and invite pests and
disease. Seedlings should be planted erect. In
our experience, hardwoods exhibit less apical
dominance than conifers and may not straighten
up if planted with a lean exceeding 10 percent of
perpendicular. Leaning seedlings will either
sprout a new leader from near ground level or
die. Finally, the seedling should be heeled into
the ground, firmly packing soil around the roots.
A firyn tug on the shoot will indicate whether or
not a seedling has been properly planted.
In the Southeast, the preferred time to plant is
from January to March. Seedlings should not be
planted in frozen soil. A good day for planting
will be cool but above freezing, with little or no
wind. Seedlings should never be carried with
their roots exposed. On cold or windy days, fine
roots desiccate in the time required to remove the
seedling from the bag and place it in the ground.
On marginally acceptable days, roots should be
protected in canvas planting bags or in buckets
of water.
Pitfalls
The degree of success, relative to pre-
determined project goals, is generally
proportional to the amount of on-site supervision
by qualified professionals during site
preparation and planting and to the frequency of
monitoring during the first few months
218
-------
thereafter. We strongly recommend that permit
conditions require competent supervision and
monitoring. We have listed some grievous
errors, made at forested wetland creation sites in
the absence of supervisory personnel, that
emphasize the importance of our
recommendation:
1. Vigorous saplings were loaded at a nursery
into open trucks and delivered .to the project
site dead from wind-burn and desiccation.
They were planted, because nobody told the
planting crew otherwise.
2. Potted trees were delivered on a Friday
afternoon and allowed to roast in the direct
summer sun before being planted dead on
Monday.
3. Gallon-sized trees were removed from flat-
bottomed pots and were planted in holes dug
with pointed spades. Air pockets remained
beneath their root-balls and stressed or killed
many saplings.
4. Nurseries shipped trees of the wrong species.
They were planted.
5. Mesic trees were planted in hydric sites.
6. Cuttings of willows and cottonwoods were
planted upside down.
7. Project sites were not fenced or staked, and
work crews planted up to 40 percent of their
tree seedlings on adjacent land.
8. Gallon-sized stock was ordered without
specifications for hardening and was
heavily fertilized at the nursery shortly
before being shipped. The tree roots continued
to exploit the potting mix and did not extend
into project soils. Upon the arrival of the dry
season, the root systems were insufficient to
obtain adequate soil moisture, and the trees
suffered stress and retarded growth.
9. Rhizomatous turf grasses were sown as cover
crops at several sites. Many or most gallon-
sized trees succumbed to competition within a
year of being planted.
NON-ARBOREAL VEGETATION
Visually, taller trees characterize forests.
Most plant species in southeastern forests,
though, are the herbs, shrubs, woody vines, and
small trees, which collectively comprise the
undergrowth. For example, of the 409 species of
vascular plants recorded in one riverine forest,
only 36 (8.8%) were trees and the other 373 species
comprised the undergrowth (Clewell et al. 1982).
Floristically, the undergrowth characterizes the
forest and should be considered in forest creation
projects. Otherwise, the project may become little
more than a tree farm. Besides representing an
important floristic element, the undergrowth
contributes functional values, including wildlife
food and cover (Harlow and Jones 1965), critical
habitat for predacious arthropods that control
insect populations (Altieri and Whitcomb 1980
and references), nutrient cycling (Bormann and
Likens 1979), and soil stabilization and
sediment trapping at flood stage.
Most projects tacitly assume that the
undergrowth will voluntarily appear. This
assumption was not supported by an extensive
survey of abandoned phosphate mines, which
were allowed to revegetate in a manner similar
to old field succession (Florida Bureau of
Geology 1980). In this survey, there were 27 sites
that had been abandoned from 45 to 70 years,
which:
1. Covered at least 20 hectares.
2. Contained forests with at least 20 meters-
square of basal area per hectare—all
representing natural regeneration. The
mean number of undergrowth plant species
per stand was 63 and the maximum was only
92, many or most of them weeds and exotics
that persisted on forest edges. These numbers
of species pale in comparison to the above-
mentioned 373 undergrowth species recorded
in only 4.6 hectares of an undisturbed
riverine forest within the same mining
district.
The purposeful introduction of undergrowth
plants can be accomplished in four ways:
1. Direct planting (sprigging) from natural
forests.
2. Out-planting of nursery-grown stock.
3. "Topsoiling" or "mulching" with topsoil
from a donor forest.
4 Transferring blocks of forest topsoil intact
with a tree spade from a donor forest. Donor
forests may already be permitted for mining
or other development, and the use of their
topsoil represents the conservation of a
resource at a replacement wetland, which
would otherwise be lost.
The richness of seed banks from forest soils
has been demonstrated in microplot studies
(Farmer et al. 1982; Wade 1986) and in pilot plots
(Clewell 1983). At one project site (Clewell 1986a),
topsoil transfer was accomplished with scrapper
pans and bulldozers, which thoroughly mixed the
219
-------
soil. Plants of many undergrowth species
sprouted from this topsoil. Plants of some
undergrowth species of the donor forest appeared
at the project site only at the bases of trees that
were transplanted with a tree spade. Apparently,
not all species can be transferred successfully,
unless the soil is kept intact. Undergrowth
transfers that survived the harsh, exposed
conditions of the project site were those planted in
constantly moist or wet soil, in which tell weeds
quickly grew and provided partial shade.
Once weed growth is suppressed by the initial
tree canopy closure, undergrowth plants are
expected to proliferate. For that reason, it is not
essential to establish large numbers of
undergrowth plants. Instead, we recommend that
a few plants each of selected undergrowth species
be evenly distributed throughout a project site.
Some undergrowth species may be introduced
immediately (Figure 5). Other species
introductions may have to be delayed a few
years, until shaded openings appear beneath
thickets of larger saplings.
Topsoiling is advantageous, because
pedogenic benefits accrue apart from
undergrowth transfer. These benefits include the
widespread introduction of mycorrhizal fungi
and soil micro-fauna, as well as organic matter
that enhances moisture retention, crumb
structure, and cation exchange capacity.
Availability of a donor site or cost considerations
may necessitate spot introductions of topsoil,
sprigging, or dependence on natural
regeneration of undergrowth species.
A passive method of augmenting preferred
species is to attract seed vectors, i.e., birds or
other animals that consume seeds and pass some
of them unharmed in their feces. King et al.
(1985) recommended the installation of brush
piles and poles (for bird perches) to attract
animals to project sites. Such installations have
been recently attempted, and tall dead trees were
"transplanted" as bird perches at one site, much
to the amusement of the work crew (J. Sampson
pers. comm.). We applaud these novel approaches
and hope that they prove effective. Nonetheless,
we caution that brush piles could attract rabbits
and cotton rats which may cause serious damage
by eating tree seedlings and saplings.
POST-PLANTING MANAGEMENT
Protection
Project sites should be fenced whenever
possible prior to revegetation. Unfenced sites are
subject to cattle grazing, dirt bikes, RV vehicles,
etc. Control of herbivores should be considered.
Indirect methods of control are usually the most
cost-effective. For example, weed control around
young trees can discourage browsing by rodents
which are reluctant to venture beyond cover. A
frequently disked buffer zone around the project
area will deter rodent trespass and will also
provide a fire break. Large debris piles harbor a
variety of pests and should be eliminated. Direct
methods of herbivore control are sometimes
unavoidable. For example, Louisiana foresters
planted 10,000 cypress seedlings in 1988, each
enclosed in a chicken wire sheath to discourage
nutrias (Will Conner pers. comm.), even though
such sheaths are not always effective (Conner
and Toliver 1987, Conner 1988).
The insects standing by to ravage any
project are legion-defoliators, borers, sapsucking
insects, gall producing insects, etc. A complete
discussion of them is beyond the scope of this
chapter. Rather, our discussion of this potential
problem is to encourage frequent vigilance, so
that remedies can be applied to save plantings.
Vigorous planting stock usually overcomes
insect depredations.
A major goal of planning should be to
minimize the need for maintenance activities.
The value of careful planning and competent
supervision of site preparation and planting in
eliminating unanticipated maintenance
costs and accelerating project release cannot be
over-emphasized. Unlike production forestry,
total removal of competition is not necessary as
long as acceptable survival and resistance to
climatic extremes, diseases, and pests are
obtained. Intensive competition control can
double or triple initial growth of planted trees.
But such efforts may not be economically
justified in mitigation projects. Instead,
acceptable competition control can often be
attained by site preparation.
Post-planting weed control, if necessary, can
be achieved by mowing or disking between trees
or with pre-emergent herbicides applied in
circles or strips centered on trees. The most
benefit, in terms of tree survival and growth, is
derived from first-year weed suppression;
however, substantial benefits may be accrued by
a several year program of control. Herbicidal
applications should be prescribed with the goals
of minimizing losses of preferred undergrowth
and protecting water quality.
Hardwoods are generally quite sensitive to
herbicides, and extreme care should be exercised
in their use. Direct contact with systemic
herbicides must be avoided. Foliage and green
bark must be protected. The effectiveness of pre-
emergent chemicals is based largely on their
retention in the soil above the root zone of planted
stock. Heavy rains or disruption of the soil
220
-------
Figure 5. Ferns and shrubs planted the previous year in a moist, semi-open site to
augment preferred species distribution along reclaimed Dogleg Branch on
phosphate mined land in central Florida.
profile can cause excessive leaching of
herbicides into the soil, resulting in high
mortality, especially in newly planted stock.
Equipment must be calibrated to assure
herbicidal application at recommended rates.
Even if all precautions are heeded, risk of injury
to young plants cannot be completely eliminated.
Ultimately, it is the experience of the operator
under familiar conditions that provides the best
knowledge of herbicidal behavior.
The USDA, Forest Service (1988) issued
detailed evaluations of several herbicides,
including glyphosate, which is relatively
immobilized in soil and which biodegrades
rapidly. In all instances, herbicides should be
applied by a licensed operator who is familiar
with best management practices for using
herbicides in wetlands.
Other common maintenance activities
include repairs to prevent erosion and
sedimentation that occur within the first year or
two of the project, to replant trees as needed to
achieve prescribed densities of stocking, and to
repair fences. Replacement trees require the
same cultural care as the initial trees; otherwise,
the replanting effort may fail.
Fire protection should be considered. Fire
breaks may need annual harrowing. Herbicidal
removal of highly flammable, noxious species
may be judicious, e.g., colonies of congon grass.
Manual removal of weeds by machete or weed
eaters is futile and results in the inadvertent loss
of at least some planted stock or other preferred
vegetation.
221
-------
MONITORING
Monitoring Functions
The reasons for monitoring are to alert the
project engineer to additional project activities
that may be needed and to allow agency
personnel to know when a project can be released
from regulatory purview. Two modes of
monitoring are needed:
1. Inspection tours.
2. Quantitative sampling events.
Inspection tours allow the identification of
problems as they arise, so that maintenance can
be prescribed and implemented promptly. Such
tours may be needed weekly for the first few
weeks after final earth-moving activities in
order to check for erosion and sedimentation and
to make sure any water control structures and
irrigation equipment are properly functioning.
Thereafter, inspection tours should be made
monthly until the project is released.
Quantitative sampling allows the periodic
assessment of the degree to which each of the
specific project goals has been achieved. These
goals should be carefully developed during
initial planning, before any project site activity
begins. The goals should be stated in terms of
success criteria that can be objectively measured
by monitoring protocols.
Quantitative monitoring events should occur
annually for at least the first 5 years and longer
if major project activities are continuing.
Quantitative monitoring may not be needed
thereafter, except for the final event, which must
document that all success criteria have been
attained. Then the project should be released
from regulatory liability.
Monitoring data should be incorporated in
reports that include photos. The first report
should describe the project site, list permit
requirements, list success criteria, describe site
preparation and initial planting activities,
describe quantitative monitoring methods, and
present initial monitoring data. Subsequent
reports should present monitoring data and
describe maintenance activities undertaken
since the issuance of the previous report. Each
report should evaluate monitoring data in terms
of the degree of attainment of success criteria.
Reports should be made accessible to
restoration professionals by deposition in the
library of a research facility or institution
actively involved in restoration work.
Success Criteria
The development of success criteria
(performance standards) is necessarily site-
specific and depends on project goals, logistical
and legal constraints, proposed land use, and the
resources of the local environment. Success
criteria should allow project release from
regulatory purview and liability as soon as the
project can withstand the stresses of the local
environment (floods, droughts, etc.). That time
will usually correspond with the time of initial
canopy closure and should arrive within five or
six years for a carefully conceived and well
executed project. Thereafter, any further
activities would not likely produce substantive
benefit to the project or alter the inertia of serai
development. If the project can no longer be
significantly manipulated, then it should be
released.
Intermediate operations, such as pre-
commercial thinning, may accelerate serai
development or improve timber values. These
operations, though, are ancillary to successful
forest establishment. They may be opted by the
owner or land management agency after
regulatory release, in accordance with long term
land use plans. We recommend no intermediate
forest practices until a bottomland hardwood
forest is 20 years old because natural succession
processes better dictate which tree species are
better suited for a mitigation site than do project
personnel.
Because of changes in agency personnel and
priorities, institutional memory may not extend
beyond five or six years. Thereafter, the project
could become an institutional liability. Of equal
importance, the owner cannot be expected to carry
the costs of a project indefinitely, and a later
change of ownership may complicate the
interpretation of project responsibilities. For
these reasons, we recommend the earliest
possible release. Early release, though, demands
careful project planning and critical
surveillance which should be the focus of agency
and owner interest during project development.
Agency personnel, who are responsible for
ensuring that projects are indeed successful, are
understandably reluctant to release projects
without overwhelming cause. We urge careful
scrutiny of existing projects with the object of
testing the validity of our rationale for proposing
early release.
222
-------
Reference Wetlands
For marsh restoration/creation projects,
reference wetlands are sometimes used as a
standard for measuring particular ecosystem
functions, such as providing acceptable water
quality or wildlife habitat. Water quality
parameters are measured. Macro-invertebrate
and wildlife populations are sampled. Data are
compared with reference data.
Forest projects differ from marsh projects.
Trees are not planted with the object of providing
immediate water quality benefits. If water
quality is a potential problem at phosphate mine
projects, the site is reclaimed initially as a
marsh, into which trees are planted. Trees and
preferred forest undergrowth will eventually and
gradually assume the function of providing good
water quality from marsh plantings. Figure 6
shows that process at a site where maidencane,
softrush, etc., were initially introduced. Three
months later, after marsh vegetation captured the
site, the trees were planted. The trees will not
fully assume the water quality function from
marsh vegetation for at least several more years.
Most of the other functions of forested
wetlands require full forest development before
they can be compared with reference wetlands.
For that reason, reference wetlands for forest
projects are necessarily limited for functional
comparisons, but they may be employed for
certain vegetational comparisons, particularly
preferred species composition. Forests are much
more complex than marshes in terms of
composition and physiognomy. With complexity
comes ecosystem stability. Added stability brings
with it a margin of safety in equating
vegetational composition and structure with
functional attributes.
We advise against the adoption of success
criteria that require direct comparisons with one
specific, natural, "reference" wetland, which is
a specific requirement in some, recently issued
permits. Climax theorists have imbued three
generations of ecologists with the idea that a
given environment allows little variation
between pristine stands of the same community.
Even though classical climax theory is outdated,
its archetypal nuances stubbornly linger. A
pertinent example is the presumption that
relatively high similarity indices exist between
any two stands of the same community.
Experience dictates to the contrary. Similarity
values for canopy trees were calculated for 71
pairs of stands within a mature, undisturbed,
contiguous riverine forest (Clewell 1986a).
Similarity values ranged from 0.04 (virtually no
species in common between two sites) to 0.98
(virtually all species in common and with the
same relative densities). Differences in
undergrowth paralleled disparities in arboreal
composition. Inter-stand discrepancies reflected
a multiplicity of stochastic events, such as
accidents of dispersal (initial floristic
composition phenomena) or localized effects of
fire or weather-related phenomena.
Similarity indices are invalid measures of
project success for several reasons, not the least
of which is the disparity in similarity between
natural stands and thus the subjectivity in
selecting a particular reference wetland.
Another reason is that natural volunteer seeding
could drastically alter tree species composition
and density at a project site specifically planted
to match a particular reference wetland. A third
reason is the disparity in serai stage between
recently installed projects and indefinitely old
reference stands.
In lieu of specific reference wetlands and
similarity indices, we recommend a comparison
of species composition at the project site with its
generalized forest ecosystem, as it naturally
occurs in that locality. The developing forest at
the project site should fit into the gamut of
variation known for that forest type. To that end,
lists of preferred species are critical. The new
canopy should consist only of preferred tree
species. Their relative densities should
approximate those in regional forests of the same
type, with allowances for natural regeneration
and disproportionate natural thinning.
Undergrowth plants representing a wide
array of preferred species should be well
distributed throughout the project site. Their
frequency is more important than their density
or cover initially, because they will proliferate in
response to forest canopy development at the
expense of the initial weed flora. For that reason,
the presence of weeds and most other non-
preferred species can be ignored, unless their
competition is interfering with tree
establishment.
Monitoring'protocols
The only focus of a monitoring program
should be to answer the specific questions posed
by the success criteria. Efficient protocols should
be adopted that avoid the elaboration of
impressive but unessential or duplicative data.
Data collection and analyses should be
accomplished in ways that document trends. For
these reasons, field methods should be consistent,
and permanent sampling stations are preferred
over the random selection of sampling points at
each monitoring event.
We offer the following five recom-
mendations for success criteria, with the
understanding that these will often require
modification or additions concomitant with the
goals and conditions of individual projects.
223
-------
Figure 6. Bayhead swamp at Hall Branch, created on reclaimed, phosphate mined land in
central Florida. Pondcypress, sweetbay, popash, etc. were planted as 45 cm tall
(approximately) containerized nursery stock 31 months prior to the photo.
Maidencane, the profusely growing grass in the foreground, was among the
marsh plants introduced at this site three months before trees were planted.
Public Law 95-87 specified additional success
criteria, as discussed by Chambers and Brown
(1983), for certain mine reclamation projects.
1. The watershed area within the same
ownership shall be functioning in a manner
that is consistent with project goals. For
example, the watershed should be reclaimed
to its approximate original grade and
suitably vegetated with a cover crop prior to
project initiation.
2. The substrate shall be stabilized and any
erosion shall not greatly exceed that expected
under normal circumstances in natural
forests similar to that being restored or
created.
3. There shall be a density of at least 980
potential overstory trees per hectare (400 per
acre) that are at least 2 meters tall. No
hectare-sized area shall contain less than 860
trees (350 trees per acre), regardless of
height. All trees shall be preferred species
(as defined above) and shall have been
rooted at the project site for at least 12
months. They shall include a prescribed
number of species (depending on baseline
information) that have a minimal density of
at least 25 trees per hectare per species
overall at the project site. They shall occur
in proper zonation, e.g., hydric trees in wet
sites.
There shall be an adequate representation of
undergrowth species. (The specifics depend
on the forest type and baseline data and must
be tailored to individual projects.) At a
minimum, there shall be at least 10 preferred
undergrowth species in each 0.4 hectare-sized
224
-------
area of the project site, all represented by
plants that have been rooted at the project site
for at least 12 months.
5. Streams and standing water bodies shall be
of sufficient water quality so as not to inhibit
reforestation or interfere with the attainment
of other success criteria.
For the watershed requirement, we
recommend monthly readings of a few,
strategically placed shallow piezometers wells
and staff gauges to monitor ground and surface
water in the project site and its immediate
watershed. Readings can be made during
monthly project tours. Without these readings, it
may be difficult to determine whether or not the
water balance is adequate to attain project goals.
For the substrate stability requirement,
narrative descriptions and photographs will often
suffice. If sedimentation threatens to be a
problem, a sediment measuring protocol should
be implemented.
For tree density monitoring, we recommend
a suitable number of randomly selected and
permanently staked transect lines that traverse
the entire project site perpendicular to stream
flow or radiating from the center of an isolated
wetland. Trees that fall within a prescribed
distance on either side of the line are tallied by
species and measured for height.
Large project sites should be clearly staked
into sectors, so that intra-stand variations in tree
density and other parameters can be determined
easily. Should tree densities fall slightly below
predetermined thresholds, the potential for
precocious seed production should be evaluated
before additional plantings are prescribed. Oaks
sometimes produce acorns five years after being
planted, and maples can produce seeds profusely
at that age. Three-year-old cypress trees
frequently produce cones, and dahoon hollies
regularly fruit in the same year in which they
were planted. These young trees may augment
existing densities sufficiently without additional
tree plantings.
For undergrowth, a floristic list of preferred
species can be made from reconnaissance within
each sector.
For water quality, EPA-approved methods
should be followed. Stream fauna sampling data,
if required, should be interpreted in context of the
stage of forest development. Streams at new
project sites are not expected to exhibit faunal
characteristics of shaded, detritus-driven
streams within mature forests.
Water quality monitoring may need to be
done only in the first and last years, unless
unusual circumstances prevail. For example, if
mine process water is used at project sites, it
should first be tested to see if it contains
petroleum derivatives or flocculants that could
kill vegetation.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH
NEEDS
The silvicultural data base is extensive, and
most important facts are already known with
regard to planting and growing trees of key
species. The Florida Institute of Phosphate
Research embarked on an ambitious tree
establishment program in 1988 to test the
effectiveness of various nurse crops, soil
amendments, cultural techniques, and competi-
tion reduction measures, and to document the
extent of precocious seed production within
project sites. This program should supplement
the arsenal of techniques already available to
forest restoration specialists. David Robertson
(in Harrell 19S7) called for more information on
direct seeding and tubeling technology.
Besides filling gaps in sylvicultural technology,
five topics of importance await consideration:
1. The extent and circumstances need to be
documented by which natural dissemination
can contribute to forest regeneration. Very
little has been published that addresses that
topic. Unless more is known about the
potentials for volunteer seeding of trees, little
can be done to exploit this natural process.
2. Techniques for undergrowth establishment
need to be developed with species-specific
precision. We have emphasized the floristic
importance of the undergrowth. We have
recommended limited interplanting of
undergrowth species upon the untested as-
sumption that plants of these species will
eventually proliferate into a diverse,
naturally occurring undergrowth. This
method needs testing in a variety of forest
types.
3. The existing data baseline needs expansion
for southeastern forest types in terms of
composition, form, and function. Too much
of our knowledge is based on narrative
evidence or on more detailed studies of sites
that do not represent the geographic range of
a forest type. Many ecological studies present
only tree data, or they concentrate the riches
of the undergrowth into a few, sterile
ecological index values.
4 The assumption needs to be tested that
functional values are directly related to
species composition and forest structure.
Through the extensive work of Ewell and
225
-------
Odum (1984) and their many associates, we
can begin to make form/function
assessments for cypress domes. Other
bottomland forest types await study.
5. Existing projects should be monitored
rigorously, with the intention of docu-
menting species composition and forest
physiognomy with respect to age and history
of project activities. In addition, the degree
to which various functional services are
being provided should be assessed. A
monitoring team should be assembled to
identify key projects throughout the Southeast
and thoroughly examine them.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, HH. and C.V. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir Shoreline
Revegetation Guidelines. Technical Report E-86-13,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Almagro, GA.F DJ1. Martin and M.J. Perez-Cruet. 1987.
Pelletization of pine and oak seeds: Implications for
land reclamation. Florida Scientist 5013-20.
Altieri, M.A., and W.H. Whitcomb. 1980. Weed
manipulation for insect pest management in corn.
Environmental Management 4:483-489.
Anding, G. 1988. Riparian zone management associated
with reservoir projects in the Vicksburg District, p.
22-25. In C.O. Martin and H.H. Allen (Eds.),
Proceedings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Riparian Zone Restoration and Management
Workshop 24-27 February 1986. Misc. Paper EL-88-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Anonymous. June, 1984. Turning farmland into forests,
p. 10-11. In Woodlands for Wildlife, Mississippi Dept.
Wildlife Conservation.
Anonymous. 1986. Results of oaks direct seeding are
promising. Tree Talk 7(2):9.11.
Anonymous. 1988. Biocontrol mistake? Aquaphyte (Center
for Aquatic Plants, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida) 8:1-2.
Bell, D.T. 1974. Studies on the ecology of a streamside
forest: composition and distribution of vegetation
beneath the tree canopy. Bull. Torrev Hot. Club
10114-20.
Best, G.R., P.M. Wallace, WJ. Dunn, and JA. Feiertag.
1983. Enhancing ecological succession: 4. Growth,
density, and species richness of forest communities
established from seed on amended overburden soils,
p. 377-383. In Proceedings, 1983 Symposium on
Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology and
Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky.
Bormann, FJL, and GJ3. Likens. 1979. Pattern and
Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Broadfoot, W.M., and R.M. Krinard. 1961. Growth of
hardwood plantations on bottoms in loess areas. Tree
Planters' Notes 48:3-8.
Bull, H. 1949. Cypress planting in southern Louisiana.
Southern Lumberman 179(2248):227-230.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1985. Facing some awkward questions
concerning rehabilitation management practices on
mined lands, p. 9-17. In R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel,
and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Wetlands and Water
Management on Mine Lands. School of Forest
Resources, Pennsylvania State University, State
College, Pennsylvania.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1986. Restoration, reclamation, and
regeneration of degraded or destroyed ecosystems,
p.465-484. In M.E. Soule (Ed.), Conservation
Biology: Science of Diversity. Sinaur Publ., Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Carter, A.R. 1987. Cedar restoration in the Dismal
Swamp of Virginia and North Carolina, p. 323-325.
In A.D. Laderman (Ed.), Atlantic White Cedar
Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder/London.
Chambers, J.C., and R.W. Brown. 1983. Methods for
Vegetation Sampling and Analysis on Revegetated
Mined Lands. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-151.
Clewell, AJ. 1983. Riverine forest restoration efforts
on reclaimed mines at Brewster Phosphates, central
Florida, p. 122-133. In D.J. Robertson (Ed.),
Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry, Florida
Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida.
Publ. No. 03436-010.
Clewell, A f. 1985. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the
Florida Panhandle. University Presses of
Florida/Florida State University Press,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Clewell, A.F. 1986 a. Vegetational Restoration at
Dogleg and Lizard Branch Reclamation Areas,
Fourth Semi-Annual Report, Autumn, 1986.
Brewster Phosphates, Lakeland, Florida.
Clewell, AJ. 1986b. Vegetational Restoration at Hall
Branch Reclamation Area, Autumn, 1986. Brewster
Phosphates, Lakeland, Florida.
Clewell, AJ. 1986c. Alafia River Crossing "A" at
Lonesome Mine, Statistical Report, Summer, 1986.
Brewster Phosphates, Bradley, Florida.
Clewell, AP. 1986d. Dragline crossing "B" restoration
at Lonesome Mine, Statistical Report, Summer, 1986.
Brewster Phosphates, Bradley, Florida.
226
-------
Clewell, A.F. 1986e. Reforestation Trials, 6th Year
Results of Bare Root Tree Seedling Establishment
and the Mulching Technique for Sand Pine Scrub
Restoration. Brewster Phosphates, Lakeland, Florida.
Clewell, A.F. 1986f. Assessment of 5.75 Acres North of
Old Dike at McMullen Branch Restoration Area.
Brewster Phosphates, Bradley, Florida.
Clewell, A.F. 1987. Vegetational Restoration at Hall
Branch Reclamation Area, 1987 Monitoring Report.
Brewster Phosphates, Lakeland, Florida.
Clewell, A.F. 1988. Bottomland hardwood forest creation
along new headwater streams, p. 404-407. 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.
Clewell, A.F., J.A. Goolsby and A.G. Shuey. 1982.
Riverine forests of the South Prong Alafia River
system, Florida. Wetlands 2:21-72.
Clewell, A.F. and A.G. Shuey. 1985. Vegetational
Restoration at Dogleg and Lizard Branch
Reclamation Areas, Second Semi-Annual Report,
Autumn, 1985. Brewster Phosphates, Bradley, Florida.
Conner, W.H. 1988. Natural and Artificial Regeneration
of Baldcypress in the Barataria and Lake Verret
Basins of Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Conner, W.H. and J.R, Toliver. 1987. Vexar seedling
protectors did not reduce nutria damage to
baldcypress seedlings. U.S. Forest Service, Tree
Planters Notes 38(3): 26-29.
Conner, W.H., J.R. Toliver, and FH. Sklar. 1986.
Natural regeneration of baldcypress (Taxodium
distichum [L.] Rich.) in a Louisiana Swamp. Forest
Ecology and Management 14305-317.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Cox, R.M. 1987. Revegetation projects in Orlando lakes.
Aquaphyte (Center for Aquatic Plants, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida) 7:15.
Cross, E.A., F.C. Gabrielson, and D.K. Bradshaw. 1981.
Some effects of vegetative competition and fertilizer
on growth, survival, and tip moth damage in loblolly
pine planted on alkaline shale surface mine spoil, p.
59-63. In Proceedings, 1981 Symposium on Surface
Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology and
Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky.
Ericson, WA. and J. Mills. 1986. Florida's non-
mandatory reclamation of phosphate lands, current
regulations and their implementation, p. 191-196. In
Proceedings 1986 National Symposium on Mining,
Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Erwin, K.L. 1985. Fort Green Reclamation Project,
Third Annual Report, 1985. Agrico Chemical
Company, Mulberry, Florida.
Erwin, K.L., G.R. Best, WJ. Dunn, and P.M. Wallace.
1985. Marsh and forested wetland reclamation of a
central Florida phosphate mine. Wetlands 4:87-104.
Ewel, J.J., D.S. Ojima, DA. Karl, and W.F. DeBusk.
1982. Schinus in Successional Ecosystems of
Everglades National Park. Report T-676, South
Florida Research Center, Everglades National
Park, Homestead, Florida.
Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum (Eds.), 1984. Cypress
Swamps. University Presses of Florida/University
of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Farmer, R.E., Jr., M. Cunningham, and MA. Barnhill.
1982. First-year development of plant communities
originating from forest topsoils placed on southern
Appalachian minesoils. J. Applied Ecology
19283-294.
Fisher, R.F. and F. Adrian. 1981. Bahia grass impairs
slash pine seedling growth. Tree Planters' Notes
(1)19-21.
Florida Bureau of Geology. 1980. Evaluation of Pre-
July 1,1975 Disturbed Phosphate Lands, Appendix F.
Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Gunderson, LJL 1984. Regeneration of cypress in
logged and burned strands of Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary, Florida, p. 349-357. In K.C. Ewel and
H.T. Odum (Eds.), Cypress Swamps. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Gurr & Associates, Inc. 1986. 1986 Annual Report,
Wetlands Vegetation Monitoring, Mobil's Stream
Reclamation Projects. Mobil Mining and Minerals
Company, Nichols, Florida.
Harlow, R.F. and F.K. Jones. 1965. The White-Tailed
Deer in Florida. Technical Bulletin No. 9, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Harrell, J.B. 1987. The Development of Techniques for
the Use of Trees in the Reclamation of Phosphate
Lands, Final Report. Florida Institute of Phosphate
Research, Bartow, Florida, Publication No.
03401-049.
Harris, SA. 1985. Sportsmen's paradise regained.
Louisiana Conservationist 37(5):24-25.
Haynes, R.J. 1984. Summary of wetlands
reestablishment on surface-mined lands in Florida,
p. 357-362. In Proceedings, 1984 Symposium on
Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and
Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky.
Haynes, RJ-, J.A. Allen, and E.C. Pendleton. 1988.
Reestablishment of Bottomland Hardwood Forests on
Disturbed Sites: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(42).
Haynes, R.J. and L. Moore. 1988. Reestablishment of
bottomland hardwoods within national wildlife
refuges in the Southeast, p. 95-103. In J. Zelazny and
J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing Our Wetland
Resources. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
227
-------
Holland, L.J., and L.B. Phelps. 1986. Topsoil compaction
during reclamation: field studies, p. 55-62. In
Proceedings 1986 National Symposium on Mining,
Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Johnson, R.L. and RJtf. Krinard. 1985a. Oak Seeding on
an Adverse Field Site. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Note SO-319.
Johnson, R.L- and R.M. Krinard. 1985b. Regeneration of
oaks by direct seeding, p. 56-65. In Proceedings,
Third Symposium of Southeastern Hardwoods. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Kay, CA.R., A.F. Clewell, and E.W. Ashler. 1978.
Vegetative cover in a fallow field: response to season
of soil disturbance. Bulletin Torrev Botanical Club
105143-147.
King, T., R. Stout, and T. Gilbert. 1985. Habitat
Reclamation Guidelines, a Series of Recom-
mendations for Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Enhancement on Phosphate Mined Land and Other
Disturbed. Sites. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Bartow, Florida.
Klemp, M.T., J.L. Torbert, J.A. Burger, and S.H.
Schoenholtz, 1986. The effect of fertilization and
chemical weed control on the growth of three pine
species on an abandoned bench and return-to-contour
site in southwestern Virginia, p. 77-81. In
Proceedings, 1986 Symposium on Surface Mining,
Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Kormanik, PJ>. and R.C. Schultz. 1985. Significance of
Sewage Sludge Amendments to Borrow Pit
Reclamation with Sweetgum and Fescue. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research
NoteSE-329.
Krinard, RM. and R.L. Johnson. 1976. 21-year Growth
and Development of Baldcypress Planted on a Flood-
Prone Site. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Research Note SO-217.
Krinard, RM., and HJE. Kennedy, Jr. 1987. Fifteen-
Year Growth of Six Planted Hardwood Species on
Sharkey Clay Soil. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Research Note SO-336.
Kurz, H. 1944. Secondary forest succession in the
Tallahassee Red Hills. Proceedings Florida
Academy of Science 7:1-100.
Lea, R. 1988. Forest management impacts on bottomland
hardwoods, p. 156-158. In J.A. Kusler, M.L.
Quammen, and G. Brooks (Eds.), National Wetland
Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.
Association of State Wetland Managers, Beme, New
York.
Lee, C.R., J.G. Skogerboe, D.L. Brannon, J.W.
Linkinhoker, and SJ?. Faulkner. 1983. Vegetative
restoration of pyritic soils, p. 271-274. In Proceedings,
1983 Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States Trees
(Native and Naturalized). U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook
No. 541.
Lyle, E.S., Jr. 1987. Surface Mine Reclamation Manual.
Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
Malac, B.F. and R.D. Heeren. 1979. Hardwood
plantation management. So. J. Applied For. 3(1): 3-6.
Marion, W.R. 1986. Phosphate Mining: Regulations,
Reclamation and Revegetation. Florida Institute of
Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida, Publ. No.
034)43040.
Miller, HA., J.G. Sampson, and C.S. Lotspeich. 1985.
Wetlands reclamation using sand-clay mix from
phosphate mines, p. 193-200. In FJ. Webb (Ed.) 1985,
Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on
Wetland Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Moore, W.H. 1980. Survival and Growth of Oaks
Planted for Wildlife in the Flatwoods. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research
NoteSE-286.
Peters, MA. and E. Holcombe. 1951. Bottomland
cypress planting recommended for flooded areas by
soil conservationists. Forests and People 1(2): 18. 32-
33.
Posey, DJkL, Jr., D.C. Goforth, and P. Painter. 1984.
Ravenwood shellrock mine: wetland and upland
restoration and creation, p. 127-134. In FJ. Webb
(Ed.), 1984 Proceedings, llth Annual Conference on
Wetland Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Powell, J.L., R.B. Gray, J.B. Ellis, D. Williamson, and
RJ. Barnhisel. 1986. Successful reforestation by use
of large-sized and high-quality native hardwood
planting stocks, p. 169-172. In Proceedings, 1986
National Meeting, American Society for Surface
Mining and Reclamation, Jackson, Mississippi.
Rice, C.W., RJ. Barnhisel, and J.L. Powell. 1982. The
establishment of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)
seedlings on mined land with Pistolithus tinctorius
ectomycorrhizae, p. 527-234. In Proceedings, 1982
Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology,
Sedimentation and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Robertson, DJ. 1984. Sink Branch: Stream relocation
and forested wetland reclamation by the Florida
phosphate industry, p. 135-151. In FJ. Webb (Ed.),
Proceedings, Eleventh Annual Conference on
Wetland Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Robertson, D.J. 1985. Freshwater Wetland
Reclamation in Florida, an Overview. Florida
Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida.
228
-------
Ruesch, K.J. 1983. A Survey of Wetland Reclamation
Projects in the Florida Phosphate Industry. Florida
Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, Florida,
Publ. No. 03-019-011.
Rushton, B.T. 1983. Examples of natural wetland
succession as a reclamation alternative. In D.J.
Robertson (Ed.), Reclamation and the Phosphate
Industry, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research,
Bartow, Florida, Publ. No. 03-036-010.
Schoenholtz, SJL, J.L. Torbert, and J.A. Burger. 1986.
Factors affecting seedling ectomycorrhizae on
reclaimed surface mines in Virginia, p. 89-93. In
Proceedings, 1986 Symposium on Milling, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Sharitz, R.R. and L.C. Lee. 1985. Recovery processes in
southeastern riverine wetlands, p. 499-501. In
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service Report RM-120.
Silker, T.H. 1948. Planting of water-tolerant trees along
margins of fluctuating-level reservoirs. Iowa State
Journal of Science 22: 431-447.
Stames, L.B. 1985. Aquatic community response to
techniques utilized to reclaim eastern U.S. coal
surface mine-impacted streams, p. 193-222. In J.A.
Gore (Ed.), The Restoration of Rivers and Streams,
Theories and Experience. Butterworth Publishers,
Boston.
Stubblefield, G.W., El. 1984. Patterns of Geographic
Variation in Sweetgum in the Southern United States.
Doctoral Thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Tackett, E.M. and DJI. Graves. 1979. Direct-seeding of
commercial trees on surface-mine spoil, p. 209-212.
In Proceedings, 1979 Symposium on Surface Mining,
Hydrology, Sedimentology and Reclamation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Tackett, E.M. and DJI. Graves. 1983. Evaluation of
direct-seeding of tree species on surface mine spoils
after five years, p. 437-441. In Proceedings, 1983
Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinkley. 1977. Impact of Water
Level Changes on Woody Riparian Wetland
Communities. Volume II: Southern Forest Region.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-77/59.
Thompson, R.L., W.G. Vogel, G.L. Wade, and B.L.
Rafaill. 1986. Development of natural and planted
vegetation on surface mines in southeastern
Kentucky, p. 145-153. In Proceedings, National
Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and
Reclamation, Jackson, Mississippi.
Toliver, J.R. 1986-1987. Survival and growth of
hardwoods planted on abandoned fields. Louisiana
Agriculture 29(2)aO-l.
ILS. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988.
Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/
Piedmont, Appendix A. Management Bulletin R8-
MB 15, Atlanta, Georgia.
Vogel, W.G. 1980. Revegetating surface-mined lands
with herbaceous and woody species together, p.
117-126. In Trees for Reclamation. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical
Report NE-61.
Wade, G.L. 1986. Forest topsoil seed banks for
introducing native species in eastern surface-mine
reclamation, p. 155-164. In J. Harper and B. Plass
(Eds.), Proceedings, 1986 National Meeting,
American Society for Surface Mining and
Reclamation, Jackson, Mississippi.
Waldrop, TA., E.R. Buckner, and A.E. Houston. 1982.
Suitable trees for the bottomlands, p. 157-160. In EJ>.
Jones, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings, Second Biennial
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Wallace, P.M. and G.R. Best. 1983. Enhancing
ecological succession: 6. Succession of vegetation,
soils and mycorrhizal fungi following strip mining
for phosphate, p. 385-394. In Proceedings, 1983
Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Wallace, P.M., G.R. Best, J.A. Feiertag and K.M.
Kervin. 1984. Mycorrhizae enhance growth of
sweet gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua) in phosphate
mined overburden soils. In Proceedings, 1984
Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Wein, G.R., S. Kroeger, and G.J. Pierce. 1987.
Lacustrine vegetation establishment within a
cooling reservoir, p. 206-216. In F J. Webb (Ed.), 1987
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on
Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
Community College, Tampa, Florida.
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 & Wildlife Service,
FWS/OBS-81/37.
Williams, R.D., and S.H. Hanks. 1976. Hardwood
Nurseryman's Guide. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook
No. 473.
Wittwer, RJP., S.B. Carpenter, and D.H. Graves. 1981.
Survival and growth of oaks and Virginia pine
three years after direct seeding on mine spoils, p.
1-4. In Proceedings, Symposium on Surface Mining,
Hydrology, Sedimentology and Reclamation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz, 1986. Wetland
creation and restoration in the United States from
1970 to 1985: an annotated bibliography. Wetlands
229
-------
APPENDIX I: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC PLANT NAMES
Scientific equivalents of common names used in this chapter are listed below. Authorities for scientific names
and sources of common names are from Clewell (1985) and Little (1979).
Scientific Name
Bahia grass
Baldcypress
Blackberries
Black Locust
Box Elder
Brazilian Peppertree
Broomaedge
Bulrush
Bermuda grass
Cabbage Palm
Cane
Cattails
Chinaberry
Cogongrass
Cottonwood, Eastern
Cottonwood, Swamp
Dahoon Holly
Dog Fennel
Elm
European Alder
Fetterbush
Gallberry
Giant Ragweed
Grapes
Green Ash
Greenbriers
Ground Nut
Hempvine
Honeysuckle
Johnsongrass
Kudzu
Rubus SPD.
Robinia pseudoacacia
Acer negundo
Schinus terebinthifoliua
Andronogon glomeratus. A. virginicua
Scirpus spp.
Cvnodon dactvlon
Arundinaria tpyantea
Tvoha SDP.
Melia azedarach
Imperata cvlindrica
Populua deltoides
Pouhia hetemhvlla
Enatnrium caillifolinn
spp.
Alnus ylutinosa
r.vnnia lucida
Ilex ylabra
Ambrosia trifida
Vitis spp.
FrnTJnus pennavlvanica
Smilax spp.
Apipg atnericana
Mikania spp.
T/inicera spp.
Soryhiim halepenae
Pueraria lobata
231
-------
Loblolly Bay
Maidencane
Millet
Morning-glory
Oak, Cherrybark
Laurel
Live
NuttaU
Overcup
Water
Willow
Ogeechee Tupelo
Pennywort
Pickerelweed
Pond Pine
Pondcypress
Primrose Willow
Red Maple
Ryegrass, Winter
River Birch
Saltbush
Slash Pine
Softrush
Southern Magnolia
Spikerush
Spruce Pine
Swamp Tupelo
Sweetbay
Sweetgum
Sweet-Pecan
Sycamore
Water Hickory
Water Tupelo
Wax Myrtle
White Cedar
Willow
Gordonia lasianthus
Panicum hemitomon
Brachiaria
Convolvulaceae spp.
Quercua falcata var. pagodifolia
laurifolia
Quercua virpiniana
Quercus nuttallii
Quercus Ivrata
Quercus nigra
Quercua phellos
Nvsaa ogeche
Hydrocotvle spp.
Pontederia cordata
Pinua serotina
Taxodium ascendena
Ludwigia peruviana
Acer mbrum
l/pljypi perenne
Betula niyra
Baccharis TialiTnifolia
Pinus elliottii
Juncug effusus
Magnolia grandiflora
Eleocharis spp.
Pinug glabra
Nyssa biflora
Magnolia viryiniana
Liqnidambar atyraciflua
Carva illinoensia
Platanus occidentalis
Carva aquatica
Nvssa aquatica
Mvrica cerifera
Chamaecvparis thvoides
Salix caroliniana
232
-------
Tall Fescue Festuca arundinacea
Cvrilla racemiflora or
Cliftonia monophvlla
233
-------
APPENDIX II: CHECKLIST FOR PERMITTING PERSONNEL
This checklist is designed to flag those issues that should be addressed in permit applications.
For elaboration, see Clewell (1988).
Personnel Yes No
1. Have appropriate skilled professionals prepared the project plan?
2. Will they provide on-site supervision of site-preparation and planting? Of
monitoring?
Forest Type To Be Created/Restored
1. Does the forest type occur locally?
2. Is there adequate baseline data to plan project goals (species composition, tree
relative densities, data on water tables, stream flows, soil conditions,
topography)?
3. Is there a source of the necessary plant materials to install this project?
4. What is the proposed land use after project release? Is it consistent with
project goals? Will the released project be protected indefinitely?
Project Siting
1. Does the soil or substrate on the site have the properties to support the
vegetation targeted for restoration or creation?
2. Does the proposed project conform to existing topographical and hydrological
conditions? ,
3. Will the project be connected hydrologically with natural waters if it is ad-
vantageous to do so?
4 Are there any off-site constraints, such as watershed obstructions, recent or
proposed drainage plans, asynchronous or thermal discharges up stream?
5. Is there any regional development plan which may affect siting?
6. Is an adequate buffer included to isolate and protect the project, if needed?
7. Will the site be fenced or staked?
8. Will the water quality be adequate to support the project biota?
9. Has natural regeneration been considered? Are seed walls sufficiently close
to the project, or will flood waters bearing seeds reach the project?
Site Preparation
1, Is there a need for, and provisions to, manipulate hydrology early in the
project (weirs, other control structures)? —
2. Will slopes be contoured to minimize erosion? If not, are there provisions to
prevent erosion (benns, cover crops, etc.)? — —
3. Will stream channels be designed to minimize erosion and encourage
meandering? (Deflectors, sprigging stoloniferous plants, engineering
options, etc.).
235
-------
Yes No
4. Will irrigation be needed initially? If so, how will it be provided?
5. Are there any noxious plants on site that should be removed, such as
rhizomatous grasses, vines, or exotics?
6. Are the soils adequate in terms of fertility, rooting volume, bulk density,
crusting, or will conditioning be needed (subsoil ripping, pH adjustment,
amendments of fertilizers or leguminous cover crops, incorporation of
organic matter, etc.)?
7. If sludge is to be used as a soil amendment, have appropriate permits been
obtained?
8. Will topsoil be conserved? If so, can it be spread on the project site without
prior stockpiling, to conserve its seed bank and other propagules?
1. Will a competent supervisor be on-site at all times during final grading and
vegetation planting?
2. Will there be provisions to harden nursery stock before delivery in terms of
reduced fertilization and watering?
3. Is there sufficient lead time to contract-grow trees?
4. Will trees be delivered for planting at the appropriate time?
5. Is the growing stock (seeds, bare root seedlings, tubelings, etc.) appropriate for
the site conditions in terms of adequate moisture and competition from cover
crops or weeds?
6. Are there provisions for introducing preferred undergrowth species?
Maintenance
1. Does the site plan allow for unanticipated maintenance activities during the
first 2 years, in terms of erosion control, sediment removal, and replanting
of trees or other plant materials that did not survive?
2. Are there strategies for minimizing competition from noxious species, such
as specific site-preparation activities, nurse crops, or rapid tree-growing
regimes? If not, are there provisions for weed removal?
Monitoring
1. Have adequate success criteria been drafted that pertain to project goals?
2. Has a monitoring protocol been devised that answers questions posed by the
success criteria?
3. Will groundwater piezometers be installed and staff gauges be placed in
water bodies, so that monthly water levels can be monitored?
4. Will there be sufficient inspection tours to allow for necessary maintenance
or remedial activities?
5. Will reports be submitted and made publicly available?
236
-------
APPENDIX HI: RECOMMENDED READING
Personnel responsible for evaluating permit
applications should be familiar with the wetland
communities proposed for creation/restoration.
There are amazingly few, adequate descriptions
of southeastern fresh water wetlands. Perhaps the
initial choices would be the works of Mitsch and
Gosselink (1986) and Wharton et al. (1982).
Forested wetland creation/mitigation is such a
new field that no appropriate texts are available
that comprehensively introduce this topic.
Several references for coal mine reclamation
provide a feel for the kinds of activities required
for forested projects. The recent text by Lyle
(1987) would be suitable. The only other
suggestion we have would be to review recent
symposium volumes, such as the National
Symposia on Surface Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, sponsored by
the University of Kentucky.
237
-------
FRESHWATER MARSH CREATION AND
RESTORATION IN THE SOUTHEAST
Kevin L. Erwin
Kevin. L. Erwin Consulting Ecologiat, Inc.
ABSTRACT, Freshwater marsh habitat has been created or restored in the southeast to mitigate
the environmental impacts associated with development activity and to provide enhancement of
water qualify. These projects vary in size, design, and function, and are inadequately discussed in
the literature. There is a question of whether agency-mandated mitigation projects have actually
been implemented and to what extent these created freshwater marshes are providing the desired
wetland functions.
Key elements to successfully constructing a functional freshwater marsh system include: (1)
realistic goals and measurable success criteria; (2) proper pre-construction design evaluation
including a hydrological analysis; (3) contour design; (4) construction technique; (5) proper water
quality; (6) compatibility of adjacent existing and future land uses; (7) appropriate substrate
characteristics; (8) re-vegetation techniques; (9) re-introduction of fauna; (10) upland buffers and
protective structures; (11) supervision by an experienced professional; (12) post-construction long
term management plan; and (13) monitoring and reporting criteria.
The monitoring required must be adequate in scope to determine the success or failure to meet
project goals. A typical monitoring plan for a created freshwater marsh should include: (1) a post-
construction, pre-planting survey of project contours and elevations; (2) ground and surface water
elevation data collection; (3) water quality data collection; (4) biological monitoring including, but
not limited to, fish and macroinvertebrate data collection; (5) evaluation of vegetation species
diversity, percent cover, and frequency, and (6) wildlife utilization.
Critical information gaps and research needs can be divided into the following categories: (1)
site selection and design; (2) project construction techniques; (3) comparative studies of the
biological communities and processes in created and natural systems; and (4) the role of uplands
and transitional habitats.
INTRODUCTION
In preparing this chapter, a search was
conducted for documentation of nonforested,
interior, freshwater wetland projects across the
Southeast United States. From the distribution of
reports in the literature and a lack of response to a
questionnaire widely distributed to regulatory
agencies, consultants and scientists, it may be
concluded that most of the marsh creation and
restoration projects have occurred within the State
of Florida. This is not to say that freshwater marsh
creation and restoration projects do not exist
elsewhere within the region, but they were not
brought to the attention of this reviewer.
The search revealed that a majority of projects
were started in the mid 1970's. They consist
primarily of enforcement-related restoration
projects and development-related mitigation. En-
forcement-related projects usually occur as a result
of unauthorized activity in a wetland. Restoration
is required to rehabilitate the habitat and,
presumably, related wetland functions.
Development projects involving mitigation
include: residential developments; surface mining;
and highway,. marina, and dock construction.
Wetland creation or enhancement is often required
where these activities are expected to result in
adverse alteration of a wetland. The intended
result is no net loss of habitat and functions.
Another type of project resulting in wetland
creation deals with utilization of the created habitat
for stormwater runoff or treated domestic waste
effluent. Wetland creation projects for stormwater
treatment are usually associated with construction
of impervious surfaces such as parking lots and
highways. The ability of some wetlands to provide
treatment of polluted surface water and secondary
or tertiary treated domestic waste effluent is well
documented in the literature citations (Richardson
et al. 1978, Kadlec 1979, Kadlec and Tilton 1979,
Tilton and Kadlec 1979i Ewel 1976, Ewel and Odum
1978,1979,1984, Spangler et al. 1977, Fetter et al.
1978).
239
-------
Marshes are also being created as detention
areas within impacted rural landscapes. Farmland
in Florida is rapidly being converted to
development. Natural water detention and
flow/drainage areas are often non-existent on these
lands in the amounts and locations required for
development, and developers are planning to create
wetlands for these purposes. The same methods
used to create wetlands on reclaimed phosphate
mines (discussed later) are readily adaptable. Sev-
eral of these wetland drainage systems should be
operational in the next few years and, if properly
designed and monitored, should reveal new
information on wetland creation techniques and
values.
Many acres of wetlands are also being built
within the water storage areas of new citrus groves
in south and central Florida to offset the drainage
impacts on wetlands within the groves. Wetlands
have several attributes that cause them to have
major influences on chemicals that flow through
them (Sather and Smith, 1984). The need for water
quality enhancement combined with the loss of
wetland habitats and the regulatory agencies'
reluctance to utilize natural wetland systems, has
led to the construction of marshes for these
purposes.
Finally, wetlands are often created simply as a
result of construction activity.
The vast majority of these marsh creation and
restoration projects have been undertaken as a
result of regulatory permit conditions. Very few
projects utilizing scientific experimental designs
have been undertaken to date. Projects described
in the special conditions of a permit are often poorly
designed or lack sufficient detail so that from the
beginning they are probably doomed to failure.
These projects are often designed through
negotiation between an applicant and the
regulatory agency, resulting in a compromise which
may not establish reasonable goals or require any
monitoring that would provide a reviewer with the
documentation needed to determine the success or
failure of the project. Race and Christie (1982)
reviewed mitigation projects involving wetland
creation and questioned the effectiveness of
artificially created marshes to provide biological
and hydrological functions and societal values of
natural marshes. Quammen (1986) notes that
several subsequent studies following that of Race
and Christie have evaluated whether agency-
mandated mitigation projects have actually been
implemented. Few have evaluated how well the
artificial marshes are functioning. A matter of
great concern is the apparent lack of follow-up on
these permitted projects. To remedy this problem,
this reviewer suggests that in the future, a list of all
projects be compiled by regulatory agencies and
certain projects selected for a periodic evaluation.
Such a process would, at the very least, provide
some useful information regarding the science of
restoration and creation, and reveal any
inadequacies of project design and monitoring.
Figure 1 is a suggested format for the tracking of
wetland mitigation projects.
WETLAND TYPES
Freshwater marshes in the southeast are a
very diverse group of habitats. They are all
dominated by sedges and grasses which are adapted
to saturated soil conditions. Otherwise, marshes
differ in their hydrology, geologic origin, and size.
This discussion addresses all marshes that are
located inland and upstream of tidal influence. The
term marsh in this chapter will also be used to
characterize the following habitat types (Mitsch &
Gosselink 1986) which for the purposes of this
discussion contain more similarities than
significant differences:
Bog A peat accumulating wetland that
has no significant inflows or
outflows and supports acidophilic
mosses, particularly sphagnum.
Fen A peat accumulating wetland that
receives some drainage from
surrounding mineral soil and
usually supports marsh-like
vegetation.
Peatland A generic term for any wetland that
accumulates partially decayed plant
matter.
Wet prairie Similar to marsh.
Reed swamp Marsh dominated by
(common reed).
Wet meadow Grassland with waterlogged soil
near the surface, but without
standing water for most of the year.
Slough An elongated marsh often bisected
by a creek with slowly flowing
surface water.
Pot hole Shallow marsh-like pond.
Playa A term used in the Southwest
United States for a marsh-like pond
similar to a pothole, but with a
different geologic origin.
A thorough description and history of wetland
definition, classification, and inventory, including
240
-------
Projects Wetland Mitigation
Permit #:
County/State: Reviewer:,
Description of Wetland Type:
Acres Destroyed: Acres Created:
Acres Restored: Acres Enhanced:.
Other: Acres of Upland Compensation:
Upland Type:
Mitigation Method:
Mitigation Site:
Species Used:
Control Depth: Estimated Cost:
Estimated Commencement: Deadline:
Estimated Completion:
Wetland Construction Contractor and Supervisor:.
Phone:.
Comments:.
Monitoring and Management
PlanRec'd: Approved:
Duration: Monitoring Contractor:.
Phone: Sampling Mehods:
Date Reports Due: Baseline Req'd: Y/N.
Date Received:
Report:
#1 Initial/Baseline Rec'd;
#2 Due: Rec'd: #6 Due: Rec'd:
#3 Due:.
#4 Due:.
#5 Due: Rec'd: #9 Due: Rec'd:
#10 Due: Rec'd:.
Rec'd: #6 Due:
Rec'd? #7 DMA;
IWrf.
#8 fhift-
Date Inspected: Reviewer:
Action Required:
Comments:
Figure 1. A form for tracking wetland mitigation projects.
241
-------
the use of these terms, can be found in Mitsch and
Gosselink (1986).
Five basic types of nonforested, interior,
freshwater wetlands or marshes are found in the
southeast:
Riverine Those associated with shoreline
fringes of non-tidal streams and
rivers.
Isolated Marshes completely surrounded by
upland habitat.
Headwater systems or seepage zones
Marshes formed as a result of
ground water seepage exposed at the
base of a upland recharge zone
where soils are often saturated but
inundation may be infrequent.
Slough or flow-way systems
Broad, shallow, slow flowing
systems such as the Florida
Everglades.
Lake fringe Marshes common to the shorelines
and shallow interior zones of lakes.
The types of marshes described above reflect
tremendous diversity in both geomorphology and
physiognomy. Species richness and diversity
often range widely depending on the geomorphology
or zonation (vegetation) of a particular system, its
hydrology, and the extent of human induced or
natural perturbation.
Most of our wetlands, including marshes, have
been altered by human influence, mostly in the
form of direct impacts of habitat development such
as dredge and fill related activity, or hydraulic
manipulation resulting in altered hydroperiods. As
the high, well-drained, upland sites, historically
preferred for development activities, become scarce,
greater pressure will be put on wetlands. The
transitional areas will be affected most with
perhaps greater damage resulting via destruction of
adjacent upland habitat (Figure 2). Many of those
wetlands preserved within the developed areas of
the region should be considered urbanized wetland
systems. Because of the urban related impacts on
the system's hydrology, the wetlands are currently
undergoing significant changes in character and
function. In the future this will lead to significant
alteration of those systems and, perhaps, a
complete loss of their preferred values such as
wildlife habitat.
KEY FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
As different as inland marshes are with regard
to physiognomy and geomorphology, the basic
functions and values attributable to these habitat
types are generally similar. The Federal Highway
Administration's wetland functional assessment
methodology recognizes eleven wetland functions
(Adamus 1983): groundwater recharge,
groundwater discharge, flood storage, shoreline
anchoring, sediment trapping, nutrient retention,
food chain support, fishery habitat, wildlife habitat,
active recreation, and passive recreation and
heritage. Inland marshes can perform all of these
functions (depending upon the circumstances).
These functions are described in the
proceedings of a national symposium on wetlands
held in 1978 (Greeson, Clark, and Clark 1979) and
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 EXTENT TO WHICH CREATION/RESTORATION HAS OCCURRED
GENERAL REASONS FOR MARSH
CREATION OR RESTORATION
As noted above, marsh creation and restoration
in the Southeast has occurred primarily as a result
of a permit condition in response to a need for
enhancement or mitigation such as: mitigation
under Section 404, reclamation under the Surface
Mining Act, or as mitigation for dredge and fill
activity permitted by local or state government, e.g.,
under Chapter 17-4 of the Florida Administrative
Code and Henderson Wetlands Act of the State of
Florida. The largest and more thoroughly
documented projects have been undertaken as a
result of surface mining in Florida. The Florida
Department of Natural Resources requires
reclamation of similar habitat as a permit condition
for all surface mining activity.
Two of the largest wetland public works
projects currently underway are the Kissimmee
River and Everglades restoration projects. Each of
242
-------
B
Figure 2. The regulation of isolated wetlands results in the "preservation" of the wetland without regard
to its adjacent landscape. A: Original setting of the wetland; B: Setting of the wetland after
development of the adjacent area.
243
-------
these projects is a major effort. Both are being
undertaken by the State of Florida. At this point
the projects are taking two distinct courses.
The Kissimmce River project is an effort to
restore the hydroperiod and inundation to the
channelized Kissimmee River and marsh flood plain
by placement of dams in the manmade channel.
This will cause reflooding of the historic floodplain.
The objective of the Kissimmee River Run
Revitalization is to return full flow to a total of
43.443 kilometers, or about one third of the original
meandering course of the 158 kilometer river. This
includes restoring flow to 35.4 kilometers of oxbows
and re-establishing 520 hectares of wetlands. At
present, most of the river's flow bypasses oxbows.
The plan will divert the full flow of the river into
selected old river runs located alongside existing
water control structures. Under pre-channelization
"flood conditions", excess flow will be routed
through the main canal channel while maintaining
full flowing oxbows.
The Everglades project seeks to restore pre-
1900 conditions to the Everglades systems.
Although the plan involves a wide range of areas for
action, most activity to date has been expended for
land acquisition to create buffers for the Everglades
National Park/Big Cypress Preserve system. This
buffer is for watershed purposes and for the
protection of critical habitat of the Florida panther.
Neither of these projects involves the actual
construction or restoration of marsh habitat. Their
goals are related to the enhancement of existing
wetlands by various structural and nonstructural
means.
TYPICAL GOALS FOR PROJECTS
The major initial shortcoming of wetland
creation or restoration projects is a failure to
identify realistic goals. Since the majority of
projects in the region were not undertaken by
wetland managers but by wetland regulators and
contractors, the implied goal is reclamation of the
habitat impacted by permitted activities. Typical
stated goals for projects often include the creation
of wildlife habitats, where a nonspecific design is
aimed at providing any type of marsh or aquatic
system that would be suitable for waterfowl and
wading birds. This broad goal usually means that
the developer of the project and the regulatory
agency will accept whatever marsh vegetation is
created and the biota it attracts.
Recently the State of Florida has adopted a
much more specific "type for type" mitigation policy
which includes replacement ratio guidelines. This
policy leans toward restoration of a specific habitat
including soils, hydrophytes, macrobenthos, and
wildlife. However, complete "restoration" of any
type of system, including marsh, down to minute
details is impossible and, therefore, unrealistic.
Most of the documents reviewed in the
literature were of a nontechnical nature and did not
state project goals. Technical information on marsh
creation was implied in the titles, but not provided
in the texts. Many of these papers were reports of
permitted projects lacking detailed design and/or
monitoring information.
The largest number of papers dealing with
wetland creation and restoration in the Southeast
come from the last decade of the Proceedings of
Annual Conferences on Wetland Restoration and
Creation at Hillsborough Community College,
Florida (Webb 1982 through 1987, Cole 1979,1981).
Broader inventories and studies of projects in
the Southeast also generally left the goals unclear.
Wolf et al. (1986) provided the best statement of
goals in their summary of projects. Unfortunately,
tiie majority of these were either tidal wetlands or
not within the Southeast United States. The Wolfe
and Sharitz effort underscores the scarcity of well-
planned, goal-oriented freshwater marsh creation
projects within the Southeast region.
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
The majority of reports or papers describing
projects do not state goals or criteria for judging
success. Most projects are driven by permit
conditions where the success is determined by the
extent of the cover by herbaceous species and
diversity. Most endemic species are acceptable
within some arbitrary guidelines for restricting the
percent cover of certain species the regulatory
agencies consider problematic such as cattail
fTvpha spp.), willow (Salix spp.), primrose willow
(Ludwigia spp.), Brazilian pepper f Schinus
terebinthifolius). and Melaleuca (Melaleuca
quinquenervia).
Recently, however, many local, state, and
federal agencies have placed great emphasis on the
restoration of specific wetland features and
determine success or failure on the ability of the
244
-------
project developer to create a "mirror image" of the
original wetland. Undocumented accounts of
failure to meet these specific guidelines are
numerous. These failures are not unexpected, given
the impossibility of creating "mirror images", and
considering the inappropriate design criteria and
lack of monitoring often associated with projects.
The desired overall goal should be to create a
functional wetland containing the desired hydrology
and a satisfactory coverage of a community of
preferred plant species. If this goal is met, fauna!
requirements are usually attainable.
Recently some regulatory agencies such as the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
have begun to use "reference wetlands" as an
approach for determining success with a marsh
creation or restoration project. The inherent
variability of seemingly similar marshes has been
shown to be characterized by dissimilar
macrobenthic (aquatic insect) communities even
within wetlands of similar hydrophyte structure
(Erwin, unpublished data). The scientific
community generally rejects the notion that a
reference marsh concept is satisfactory. The author
believes that the concept should be used only for
evaluating the structural and functional attributes
of a particular habitat or system.
In general, the Southeast region offers
abundant plant material, adequate rainfall, and a
long growing season. This provides the developer of
a marsh creation project with the basic tools
necessary to construct a functional marsh in a
relatively short period of time (three to five growing
seasons). This is illustrated by one of the largest
and probably the best documented marsh creation
projects, the Agrico Fort Green Phosphate Mine
Reclamation Project. This project was undertaken
in 1982 and has been the subject of numerous
research articles by the author (Erwin 1983-1988,
Erwin et al. 1984, Erwin and Bartleson 1985, Erwin
and Best 1985). Simply stated, the goal was to
create a marsh, over 30 hectares in size, utilizing a
variety of construction techniques (Appendix I).
This area, along with nearby natural areas, has
been monitored closely to determine whether it is
possible to create a naturally functioning marsh
system. Sixty hectares of marsh have actually been
created with 24 hectares of marsh planted with
trees.
Currently, goal-oriented review of projects
developed as a condition to permits are
discontinued at the end of the permit life. In many
cases where monitoring is required for less than
three years, not enough data will be collected to
evaluate the success or failure of the project in
meeting the selected goals.
One goal which is significant and often
overlooked is the ability of a created system to
function on its own as part of a larger ecosystem for
many years. Our current regulatory process calls
for the protection of wetlands with little or no
ability to provide for watershed and adjacent
upland habitat integrity. The consideration of
adjacent landscapes is important and should be
included in each project. Wetland mitigation
should not be undertaken at the expense of valuable
and dwindling upland habitats which may have
high wildlife or other values but lack protection. It
is also possible to create a functioning freshwater
marsh in the short term and, through poor planning
within the upland portions of the watershed, cause
the long term demise of the created wetland.
Unfortunately, this is probably the fate of most
urban wetlands preserved or mitigated in our
present regulatory system.
In conclusion, when setting goals flexibility and
unlimited creativity should be employed. "Type for
type" habitat replacement should be considered but
will not be appropriate in cases where such
replacement is not technically possible or where
another type of wetland has greater value or more
regional significance.
In order to determine the success or failure of a
project it must be possible to determine, through
some type of accepted evaluation process, whether
the project has been able to attain certain goals.
The reasons for marsh creation project failures
include the following (which will be discussed later
in greater detail:
1. Goals were not properly identified or they are
unrealistic;
2. No practical methodology was available or
applied to determine the degree of goal
attainment;
3. Geohydrology was improper;
4. Evaluation and understanding of the wetland
area to be mitigated was inadequate;
5. Watershed evaluation was inadequate;
6. Monitoring was unsatisfactory or not enforced
by the permitting agency;
7. Project was not constructed as designed due to
contractor misunderstandings and/or lack of
supervision by a knowledgeable expert;
8. Handling of mulch or plant materials was
improper;
9. The created wetland area was not maintained
free of problematic exotics such as Melaleuca;
10. The area was not kept free of nuisance animals
such as feral hogs or from overgrazing by
cattle;
245
-------
11. An entity was not identified to be responsible
for undertaking a long term management plan
with available funding required to insure
future success;
12. A long term management plan for the
watershed in which the wetland lies was not
adopted (inappropriate future land uses
surrounding the created wetland may alter the
habitat's character completely, if not eliminate
it all together);
13. The design was not attainable with the budget
available;
14. Soil types were unsatisfactory; and
15. Water sources were unsatisfactory or
contaminated.
The project developer as well as the regulator
should: identify quantifiable, realistic goals;
maintain direct supervision through the
construction and monitoring process; utilize
flexibility in post construction modifications where
necessary; and if problems or failures result, be able
to enforce permit conditions when necessary.
DESIGN OF RESTORATION PROJECTS
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
CONSIDERATIONS
The primary premise of the regulator and
project designer should be that the wetland to be
mitigated and the wetland to be created are
integral parts of an ecosystem.
Hydrology is the single most important element
necessary for the maintenance or creation of specific
wetland systems and their functions. Hydraulic
conditions can directly modify or change chemical
and physical properties such as nutrient
availability, degree of substrate anoxia, sediment
properties, and pH. Water inputs are invariably
the dominant source of nutrients to wetlands and
water outflows often remove biotic and abiotic
material from wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink
1986). Wetland fauna and flora will almost always
respond to slight changes in hydrologic conditions
with substantial changes in species richness,
diversity, and productivity. Thus an abrupt and
usually significant change in the functional
integrity of a marsh will result from an alteration
in its hydrology. Therefore, due to the importance
of hydrology to both the mitigated and created
wetlands, the watershed and surrounding
geomorphology of the subject area must be
thoroughly evaluated.
To select appropriate goals for the marsh
creation or restoration project, a thorough analysis
of the wetland under consideration for mitigation
must first be undertaken. The initial step of this
evaluation process should be a determination of the
limits and nature of the watershed in which the
marsh is located. When looking at this "big picture"
the watershed should be evaluated at least
generally with respect to vegetation communities,
wildlife, geomorphology, surface and groundwater
conditions, water quality, and surrounding land
use. The evaluation of the surrounding land use
should not only include existing facilities such as
residential and industrial development but also
planned land use changes which can often be
estimated by identifying existing zoning within the
area. This evaluation from a watershed perspective
will also assist during the process of quantification
of the wetland's functions. For example, the subject
wetland may be one of a kind within the region or it
may be very common. The wetland may be of a
relatively pristine condition or may be found to be
impacted through past modifications or current
activities such as the discharge of polluted surface
water runoff. Any mitigation plan submitted to the
regulatory agency without benefit of some
information on the watershed and the proposed
mitigated wetland system's role is incomplete and
should be rejected.
With the evaluation of the proposed mitigated
wetland's watershed system underway, the
particular characteristics and functions of the
original marsh should then be examined. A
thorough survey of soils, hydrology, vegetation, and
wildlife is also desirable. This evaluation can be
done on either a qualitative or quantitative basis,
depending upon the specific needs. For example,
the wetland evaluation should lean strongly toward
a quantitative evaluation and an extended
consideration of the possibility of successful
mitigation in the first place (Erwin this volume) if
(1) previous watershed analysis has placed a high
value on the wetland to be mitigated because of the
relative scarcity of similar systems within the
region, (2) it is critical habitat for an endangered or
threatened wildlife species, or (3) it is a habitat
where successful creation or restoration has not
been documented. If success of other similar
projects has not yet been demonstrated, this would
be an opportunity for the agency to consider
preconstruction mitigation with a requirement that
success be attained prior to the alteration of the
wetland to be mitigated. Failure to successfully
evaluate the wetland to be mitigated and the
watershed system in which it lies will complicate
the ability of the agency to judge any future success
of the project.
246
-------
The location and configuration of the created
marsh project is extremely important because,
without an adequate water supply, the project will
fail. The values of a particular marsh system are
often dependent upon their relationship to the
adjacent landscape. For example, small isolated
marshes are extremely common throughout central
and south Florida, often occurring in densities
greater than six per square kilometer. Wildlife
such as waterfowl and wading birds may require
groups of several isolated marshes in order to meet
their needs for feeding and reproduction. The
diversity of these isolated systems with regard to
their geomorphology, hydroperiod, macrophyte and
macrofaunal communities provide long term
support to wildlife where changing conditions over
many years make some of these marshes, for one
reason or another, more suitable to certain species
than others (Milton Weller, Texas A&M University
pers. comm.). In some isolated wetland systems
(i.e., prairie potholes), groundwater recharge is
related to the edge:volume ratio of the wetland.
Therefore, the regional significance of groups of
these marshes is an important factor to be
considered.
The regional site-specific evaluations discussed
above for the wetland proposed to be mitigated and
its respective watershed should be used to screen
future possible sites for the marsh creation project.
If a five hectare marsh with a 50 hectare watershed
is to be mitigated by constructing a marsh of
similar size in the same region with a 30 hectare
watershed, there may be a problem. These types of
comparisons should be made throughout the
evaluation process for future project sites.
As mentioned earlier, another important factor
for selection of a site for a marsh creation project is
the existing and future projected land uses within
the watershed in which the wetland will be
constructed. The existing and future land uses
within the subject area should be evaluated in the
site selection process and determined to be
compatible with the goals to be attained by the
created wetland. It will also be necessary to
provide some assurances that the watershed of the
wetland to be created will remain intact, and not be
significantly altered with regard to size, flow, and
water quality characteristics by existing facilities or
the construction of new projects.
The marsh creation project should not be
located in an area where future development
pressures may call for the alteration or elimination
of the created marsh for some future land use. It
may be argued that if a marsh was created and
satisfactorily attained the goals the first time, it
could be created a second time. But this could be a
problem, particularly in high growth areas such as
south Florida where land for development is
becoming increasingly scarce. The regulatory
agency should consider protecting the marsh
creation project from future alteration by some legal
means such as a conservation easement.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROJECT PLAN
Hydrology
The project should be constructed in an area of
suitable land use with an adequate watershed to
provide the proper hydroperiod, and time and
degree of inundation required to meet the
established goals. In cases where a marsh is not
being created as a result of similar marsh
destruction, applicable data may be limited or
nonexistent. In this case, it may be necessary to
require the development of a water budget or model
to assure that the watershed is adequate to create
the proper hydroperiods and depths and degree of
inundation to attain the goals of the selected
habitat type. Hydrological modeling and water
budgeting, even with quantitative analysis, is often
inaccurate to some degree. Due to this fact and also
because it is often difficult to maintain exacting
control during construction, some flexibility should
be allowed to make adjustments such as changing
the elevation of the water control structure inlet or
outlet mechanisms. This fine tuning of the system
is often desirable and necessary in order to achieve
the preferred results. There is nothing wrong with
this practice which unfortunately is often
discouraged by regulatory agencies because they
are unable to monitor the operation of the control
structures.
We must learn to regard wetland creation as
an inexact science where flexibility is usually
required to achieve the desired goals. The applicant
is often required to submit a detailed surface water
management plan or hydrological analysis for flood
protection in an area where residential
development is proposed. In this instance, a post-
construction manipulation of a wetland which
increases the water level by as little as one foot
could require additional placement of fill in the
residential development (which can kill upland
trees) and/or the redesign of its drainage system.
In such a case, lowering the elevation of the marsh
may be more appropriate although revegetation
may be required.
Another critical aspect of the project plan is a
requirement that the marsh to be created be
maintainable as a "stand alone" system. The water
to be supplied to the created marsh should be
supplied via low energy means such as ground or
surface water or flow from an adjacent, natural, or
properly designed manmade system. In no case
should high energy "demand" systems such as
pumps be utilized as the primary source of water
for the project. These systems are expensive,
energy intensive, difficult to maintain, and difficult
to regulate.
247
-------
Contour Design
The contour of a marsh creation project should
be determined by the hydrological and watershed
analyses and the goals of the project. If the goal is
to create habitat for a specific type of wildlife such
as waterfowl, or even a particular species, special
attention must be given to the contours of the
project. Water levels should normally fluctuate
within the project, and the depths and hydroperiod
must be conducive to creating the habitat required
by the preferred species. Wading birds, dabbling
ducks, and many species offish could be attracted
within one properly designed project where a
variety of contours will create satisfactory water
levels, macrophyte communities, and bottom
conditions. Where the goal of a particular project is
creation of habitat for a specific species, the design
contours of the project become increasingly
important For instance, the endangered woodstork
(Mycticorax americana) has suffered greatly from
wetland habitat loss and alteration of hydrology of
many of its remaining wetland feeding areas. This
species depends on decreasing water levels during
the winter/spring breeding season in south and
central Florida to concentrate its food supply of
small fish and crustaceans into smaller areas where
its tactile feeding methods are successful. A
proposed freshwater marsh created to provide
woodstork habitat would then be required not only
to mimic a natural hydroperiod, but also provide
contours where wading is possible and pools of
concentrated fish and crustaceans will form during
its breeding season.
Water
The quality of the water to be discharged into
the marsh project must be compatible with the
intended use or function of the wetland. The
compatibility of the land use within the basin in
which the wetland is to be created is critical, as well
as the future land uses that can be expected to
ultimately surround the project area.
Construction Considerations
Adequate planning and design of any wetland
creation or enhancement project can easily be
defeated by problems during the construction
process. Two ways to reduce construction problems
are: (1) Educate the contractor on the design
specifications and other requirements such as
logistics. This usually can be facilitated by one or
more pre-construction meetings both in the office
and on-site, and (2) Provide adequate supervision
by a qualified expert during the critical phases of
construction, preferably the wetland scientist
originally involved in the project's design. When
the construction plans are reviewed, the agency
should require the applicant to: detail contours of
± 3cm; provide a construction schedule and phasing
plan (for large projects); and specify the degree of
supervision that will be provided by an expert in
wetland creation or reclamation (particularly on
large, more complex projects).
The timing of construction is important, but
often overlooked. In the case of a freshwater marsh
where seedbank material (suitable wetland mulch
from a donor wetland) or plantings are to be util-
ized, the completion of earth work should be
targeted for the early wet season where in situ
desiccation can be substantially reduced. The
construction of large projects greater than four
hectares in size should be coordinated to prevent
extended gaps of time between the completion of
contouring and the planting or mulching and final
reilooding. Large, exposed, unstabilized areas are
subject to erosion and the colonization of
problematic exotics such as Melaleuca or
monocultures of less desirable aggressive species
such as Tvpha.
Substrate
Substrate is usually overstated as a limiting
factor. Substrate type is not usually critical, but
can affect the hydrology because it is porous or
poorly drained. In general, marsh construction can
be completed with satisfactory results if other
critical aspects of the project plan, such as
hydrology and construction, are correctly planned.
Most seedbank, planting techniques, and plant
colonization can be successful on a variety of
substrates. However, the project designer and
reviewer should give attention to the substrate
when the wetland is being specifically created to
fulfill a particular water quality enhancement goal.
Here the nature of the substrate may have as great,
if not more important, value than vegetation in
removing and binding certain pollutants.
Revegetation
The type of revegetation needed is dependent
upon the site specific goals of each project. If the
goal is to create a marsh closely resembling, in an
overall sense, the marsh proposed for alteration,
mulching should be investigated. In this process,
the wetland which is to be destroyed or altered
would be stripped of its surficial layer of substrate
containing above ground plant parts, root
structures, and viable seed material. Depending
upon the timing of the project construction, this
mulch material would either be moved directly to
the finished contours of the creation project or
temporarily stockpiled for later use. The use of
wetland mulch in the creation of freshwater marsh
is well documented (Erwin 1983 through 1987,
Erwin and Best 1985, Erwin 1985, Dunn and Best
1983). These references should be consulted with
respect to the intricacies of using this technique.
When properly executed, the mulching technique
can yield satisfactory results. However, during the
stripping process from the donor wetland site,
materials will be thoroughly mixed, resulting in
revegetation of the project site by most if not all of
248
-------
the desired species, but with a different cover
frequency and pattern of distribution than that in
the donor site.
In some cases, mulching is not the appropriate
revegetation technique, particularly where a donor
site is unsuitable or unavailable. In addition, one of
the drawbacks to mulching is the difficulty, in some
instances, to place desired species in exact locations
or zones of the created wetland.
Planting is accepted and widely used, and a
proven alternative to mulching. The species
selected for planting depend directly upon the
created wetland's hydrology, and the intended
goals. When planting is the preferred method of
vegetating a freshwater marsh creation project, the
following points must be considered:
1. Will the species of plants in numbers required
be available when needed during construction
periods? Materials should be planted during
the wet season or plans for irrigation should be
made.
2. Can all of the materials be planted within a
reasonable time to improve chances for
survival?
3. Have the proper locations for the various
species to be planted been identified on the
project's site to insure proper hydroperiod and
degree of inundation?
4. Finally, will the process be supervised by a
knowledgeable individual responsible for
maintaining quality control during this
process?
In most cases where planting is the preferred
method for vegetating a project, it is necessary to
provide some degree of substrate stabilization to
reduce erosion. A variety of grass seed mixtures
will satisfactorily serve this purpose with reseeding
encouraged in areas as long as necessary. Animals
such as grazing cattle and feral hogs can cause
significant damage to a recently planted marsh
project. These and other nuisance animals should
be excluded from a project site as long as necessary.
In some instances, mulching or the mechanical
revegetation of a project area is not necessary and
volunteer colonization may be used. This is a
limited case, usually where a marsh is being
created adjacent to an existing marsh and the area
being created is not overly large so that the
volunteer colonization of the site by desired species
would take too long to meet the desired goals of the
project. Temporary stabilization of the substrate
may still be necessary to prevent erosion and
encourage colonization by the preferred plants.
This option of volunteer colonization of a project site
should not be considered when problematic exotics
such as Melaleuca are found within or adjacent to
the site and would be considered a threat to
colonization by the preferred marsh species. Many
natural and some created forested and nonforested
wetlands have been overrun by problematic species
such as Melaleuca and/or monocultures of cattail
where substrates were exposed for an extended
period of time prior to planting, allowing settlement
of wind dispersed seeds and subsequent
colonization.
Reintroduction
If the goals of the marsh creation project are
met, namely satisfactory site location, an adequate
hydroperiod, and a successful revegetation,
reintroduction of desired fauna should not be nec-
essary. In some cases, the stocking of fish, herps
and amphibians may be required in isolated marsh
systems where some aquatic habitat has been
constructed. In some cases where the impacted
wetland is a rare type, geographically isolated, or
harboring protected and/or uncommon species,
trapping and relocation of the organisms to the
constructed wetland site may be required.
Buffers and Protective Structures
In many instances, an upland buffer
surrounding the created wetland and/or upland
corridor connecting it to adjacent habitats including
other wetlands, is necessary to optimize wetland
values within the created wetland and adjacent
natural systems. However, creating a narrow
upland buffer around a marsh may be of limited
value in an urbanized setting where the buffer may
be subjected to human degradation. Wetlands and
uplands function as components of highly variable
ecosystems. We should recognize suitable upland
habitat as an important factor when assessing the
values and functions of both the natural wetland
and the marsh project. The consideration of
landscape ecology is second only to hydrology when
creating a freshwater marsh. Whereas hydrology is
the ultimate limiting factor on the ability to create
the wetland, it is the landscape ecology of the
system within which the project is located that will
determine the created wetland's success in
providing the desired wildlife habitat and other
functions.
When an upland buffer or upland corridor is
created, it is usually necessary to prevent
undesirable human intrusion. Fences and/or native
landscaping should be considered. In urbanized
settings where suitable upland vegetation is not
present for use as a buffer or corridor, openwater
systems such as lakes could be utilized as long as
hydroperiod and water levels are adequate to
prevent negative impacts on the marsh. In some
cases, marsh projects could be created adjacent to a
properly designed lake not only as a buffer but also
as an extremely valuable littoral zone design
feature of the lake. Manmade lakes often lack a
suitable source of carbon and shallow areas of
249
-------
emergent vegetation which are important fish and
wildlife habitat. Properly designed freshwater
marsh projects increase the value of manmade
lakes by becoming a positive design feature and
improving the habitat value and water quality. The
location of freshwater marsh projects together with
existing or proposed manmade lakes is preferable to
isolating lakes and wetlands.
Long Term Management
Long term management should be considered
when planning a project and reflected in the design
so that a low maintenance approach to
management is possible. The wetland project
should be owned by an entity which will have the
finances available to implement future
management practices such as control of exotic
plant species. It will also be necessary to protect
the project area from undesirable uses of adjacent
lands. Although not usually considered as a design
feature of a wetland creation project, the
identification of an appropriate entity responsible
for implementing long term management is very
important.
In most cases, public ownership is preferable to
private ownership since a public agency will
be more likely to maintain the project in a manner
consistent with project goals. The question of the
wetland project's future ownership should be dealt
with during the review process. In some instances,
such as large reclamation projects, private
ownership could be retained and protection afforded
through use of conservation easements and deed
restrictions. At the present time, most marsh
creation projects are without long term
management plans and contain no opportunity for
funding for future maintenance that will probably
be required.
The regulatory agency must be prepared to
provide enforcement of the management plan when
necessary. As previously discussed, too often
wetland creation projects are developed as part of a
permit and forgotten before the project is completed
since many of these marsh creation projects will
undoubtedly outlive the permits which led to their
creation. The agency should create a mechanism
requiring the proper management of the project
with regular reporting made to the permitting
agency. In most cases, the burden should be placed
upon the permittee for the cost of management,
including inspections and generation of reports or
studies. Management reports should be tied to the
identifiable goals of the project.
MONITORING
Monitoring of marsh creation or enhancement
projects should be undertaken so that, eventually, a
final determination may be rendered on the
project's success or failure in attaining desired
goals. A monitoring program should include data
requirements, evaluation criteria, and methods for
reporting with goal evaluation in mind. The key
items to be monitored are usually the site's
hydrology, flora, and fauna. Achieving satisfactory
hydrology and vegetation will usually lead to the
accomplishment of additional goals, such as wildlife
utilization. Often the marsh creation project may
have a more specific goal, such as utilization of the
site by a particular species of wildlife or
improvement of water quality. In this case, the
monitoring of the project must be more specific and
intense.
A number of agencies in addition to the
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers require monitoring as a normal
part of the permitting process. These include city
and county governments, water management
districts, and other state environmental regulatory
agencies. With the large number of permits being
issued simultaneously by regulatory agencies, there
is a need for consolidation of monitoring and
evaluation requirements. Unfortunately there is
little or no follow-up evaluation of data collected in
monitoring efforts to see if they are in fact properly
collected. Also, data collection may not be designed
to provide the requisite data for evaluation of goal
attainment. A suggested format for tracking
wetland mitigation projects is provided in Figure 1.
There is also a critical shortage of baseline data on
natural systems (reference wetlands) to provide
comparative information.
A discussion of evaluation techniques to be
incorporated in monitoring requirements is
provided in Erwin (see Volume II). A standardized
monitoring plan is suggested below. It should be
tailored to each project's goals.
1. Elevation and Contours. The contours and
elevations should be surveyed to determine
degree of compliance with the design. These
measurements can be taken qualitatively via
simple observation by experienced personnel.
However, large complex projects require
quantitative evaluation utilizing topography
provided by ground survey (spot elevations) or
aerial photography.
2. Ground and Surface Measurements. The
use of staff gauges, piezometers, and/or
constant water level recorders is often
imperative to determine whether the desired
hydrological conditions have been established
within the project. The collection of this data
250
-------
and evaluation of the vegetation will determine
whether any "fine tuning" of contours,
watershed area, or control structure elevation
(such as adding or removing a board in the
notch of a weir) is required. It is often difficult
to estimate the desired pre-construction
hydrological parameters of the project site.
Therefore, the proper collection of post-
construction hydrological data and the ability
to fine tune the project is extremely important.
Ground and surface water levels may be
required to be taken at one or more locations
upstream of the project within the subject
watershed, within the project and/or at its
discharge point. Baseline data collected in a
natural marsh of similar size and physiognomy
is most helpful where a lack of useful baseline
data exists or when attainment of a more
specific goal pertaining to a particular habitat
type or function is desired.
3. Water Quality. Water quality monitoring
requirements vary depending upon site specific
conditions, such as the existence of
contamination sources within the watershed or
where treatment of a particular pollutant is
desired within the project. Water quality data
should be used in conjunction with vegetation
and macroinvertebrate analysis. Many species
of wildlife, such as waterfowl, will utilize a
contaminated wetland site. For this reason the
collection and evaluation of water quality data
within a project is particularly important when
the project is located within a watershed
containing possible sources of contamination.
Monitoring data should be collected, at a
minimum, on a seasonal basis from wet season
to dry season. The most common deficiency in
water quality monitoring is the lack of quality
control during collection and analysis of the
samples. Measures should be implemented to
identify and control such problems.
Maintaining some degree of flexibility in
the water quality monitoring plan may be
appropriate. Often it is necessary to begin
monitoring for a wide range of parameters
where it is believed contaminants are present
and/or a lack of useful baseline data exists. As
these data are collected, regular evaluations
should be made with regard to the adequacy of
the monitoring plan. After one or two years of
monitoring, it is often appropriate to change
the parameters monitored and/or decrease the
amount of sampling because problems that
were expected failed to materialize. Concerns
regarding other parameters could become
significant and cause an intensification of the
effort. The permit conditions should always
reflect this flexibility in the proposed
monitoring plan.
4. Biological Monitoring. Dragnet sweeps are
generally the most useful qualitative method of
sampling small fish and macroinvertebrates,
particularly when baseline data is established
for similar systems. Quality control during
sample collection, evaluation, and data
analysis is extremely important. Sample
station locations and methodologies should not
vary from sampling event to sampling event.
Site conditions such as water depth,
temperature, water quality, and flood
conditions should be recorded during each
sampling event as these parameters will often
influence the macrobenthic community. With-
out this information the reviewer is forced to
use his or her imagination when evaluating the
data. Recent reports such as Erwin (1985) and
Erwin (1987) stress the importance of
collecting macrobenthic samples in each
macrophyte community present in the marsh
system to obtain a representative
characterization of the site. Similarity of
species is often low between the various
macrophyte communities. In addition, net
sweeps should be taken within each
macrophyte community for approximately 20
minutes in order to ascertain the effectiveness
of the selected quantitative methodology in
collecting the species found within the site (see
Erwin Volume II).
5. Vegetation. The degree of monitoring
required will depend on the amount of baseline
information needed for evaluation of the type of
system being created. Information regarding
species diversity, distribution, or frequency for
representative natural habitats (reference
wetlands) and the marsh creation project aid in
the determination of project success. The data
should be collected with the project goals,
criteria for success, and degree of desired
compliance in mind. In a review of wetland
evaluation techniques Erwin (see Volume II)
suggests several methods of qualitative and
quantitative data analysis which are
appropriate for monitoring reference, created,
or restored wetland sites. Some combination of
species richness, frequency, percent cover and
bare ground should be documented. Generally,
percent cover and species richness is the most
useful information for determining success.
Bare ground is often widespread and common
within freshwater marshes and will change
from season to season and year to year as will
the floristic composition or zonation of a
particular marsh. Direct comparisons are
possible from one marsh to the next, whether
natural or manmade.
However, seasonal changes are normal and
as long as the desired species are present
within acceptable ranges of coverage, the
project can usually be considered successful
with regard to the vegetation.
Since species composition and cover
251
-------
usually change dramatically from season to season,
the monitoring should take place, at a minimum,
early and late in the growing season (twice a year).
Changing climatic factors such as excessive rainfall
or droughts can alter the previously established
patterns and should not be regarded as a problem.
For example, the Agrico Swamp West project in
central Florida (Erwin 1985) yielded dramatic
changes in floristic composition during a severe
drought. However, the ability of the created marsh
to withstand the normal natural perturbations was
confirmed the following year when hydrological
climatic conditions returned to normal and the
seedbank present in the system responded
appropriately, displacing the temporary upland
invaders with the typical marsh species (Erwin
1986).
Methods such as ground and aerial
photography and mapping of sites should be used
whenever possible when more quantitative data
collection is not appropriate. Aerial photographs
with appropriate groundtruthing can determine the
existence and aerial extent of dominant species and
are easily used to determine achievement of goals
because comparisons can be made on species
present and coverage. The primary productivity of
the wetland places an upper limit on the size of
animal populations within the system. Any
reduction in the size of the plant community
generally will have adverse repercussions on
wildlife population sizes, so that plants are an
obvious major focus for study even when the animal
species are of primary concern.
WILDLIFE UTILIZATION
The most widely used and generally successful
method of evaluating wildlife utilization of a
natural or created site is observation. Observations
should be made during the correct season, time of
day, and over a satisfactory number of events by
qualified personnel. Once again, where more
specific goals have been established with regard to
a particular species, more intense monitoring may
be required which may involve quantitative surveys
of the project to determine number of nests per
hectare or breeding pairs per season, etc. Wildlife
utilization of a creation or restoration project is
almost always one of the specified or implied goals,
but actual monitoring or observation of wildlife
utilization is often lacking in the permit conditions
(where it should be required). Special consideration
should be given to endangered species, threatened
species, or wildlife species of special concern (listed
species). The natural wetland should be evaluated
with respect to: (1) utilization by listed species at
the present time, or (2) its future suitability for
utilization by these species. Factors leading to the
present or expected usage of the habitat by listed
species (such as open water areas for waterfowl)
should be thoroughly documented. In addition, the
wetland's proximity to other wetlands or certain
types of upland habitat might dictate its degree of
utilization by certain species of wildlife.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Information gaps and research needs related to
the creation and restoration of freshwater marshes
can be divided into the following categories: (1) site
selection and design; (2) project construction
techniques; (3) comparative studies of the biological
communities and processes in created and natural
systems; and (4) the role of upland/transitional
habitats.
SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN
There is a need for information related to the
suitability of wetland creation in urbanized
landscapes. The subject of landscape ecology needs
to be evaluated with regard to the impact of
surrounding land uses on natural and created
freshwater marsh systems. Given the fact that we
have lost over 116 million acres of an original
estimated total of 215 million acres of wetlands
(Tiner 1984), the feasibility and success of the
restoration of wetlands in urbanized landscapes
should be a high priority and not just considered as
mitigation. The development of cost effective
designs and construction methods is needed to
encourage more wetland restoration.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES
The cost of wetland construction is usually in
proportion to the size of the created marsh and
construction techniques. Data on the success of
mulching vs. various planting techniques is needed
along with per hectare costs for each method.
When planting is required, the most suitable
species should be identified to meet various
objectives that may be important, including but not
limited to; type of wildlife habitat, maximum rate of
cover, preferred species composition, and design
constraints such as substrate, hydroperiod, and
degree of inundation.
252
-------
COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF CREATED
AND NATURAL SYSTEMS
The author believes that the feasibility of
creating freshwater marsh habitat has been
demonstrated although refinement of techniques is
needed. Regulatory agencies and scientists still
question how these wetlands compare in structure,
function, and value to comparable natural systems
(Race and Christie 1982). The high degree of
variability among the different types of freshwater
marsh systems, both natural and created, makes
most comparisons difficult. However, comparative
studies are needed. Comparative studies should
evaluate successional changes in flora, fauna, soil,
and water chemistry over time including, but not
limited to, macrobenthic community development,
role of mycorrizae, nutrient flux and cycling, soil
formation, plant productivity, and fish and wildlife
habitat value. Also, the functional difference in
organic soil accumulation between an old natural
marsh and a recently created marsh should be
evaluated.
ROLE OF UPLAND AND TRANSITIONAL
HABITATS
The relationship of adjacent transitional and
upland habitats to the wetland system's functions
and values has been demonstrated but requires
further study. Adjacent upland habitats should be
included in the above mentioned comparative
studies. We may never fully quantify all aspects of
the wetland-upland relationship, but we need to
determine how and where the created wetland
should be located within the upland, how much (in
general) buffer is needed, and whether some upland
habitat creation or enhancement is also required to
enable a particular created wetland to function as
desired (Figure 2).
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, PR. 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. 20590. (No. FHWA-EP-82-
24).
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.
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.
Dunn, WJ. 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.
Ei-win, 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.
Mulberry, Florida.
Agrico Mining Company,
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.
May 16-17.
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., GJR. Best, W J. Dunn, and PM. Wallace. 1984.
Marsh and forested wetland reclamation of a central
Florida phosphate mine, p. 87-103. Wetlands 4:87-103.
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.
Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum. 1978. Cypress swamps for
nutrient removal and wastewater recycling, p. 181-198.
In MJ>. Wanielista and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr. (Eds.),
Advances in Water and Wastewater Treatment
253
-------
Biological Nutrient Removal. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ., Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ewel, KG. and H.T. Odum. 1979. Cypress domes: nature's
tertiary treatment filter, p. 103-114. In WJS. 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.
Fetter, Jr., C.W., WJ2. Sloey, andF.L, Spangler. 1978. Use
of a natural marsh for wastewater polishing. J. Water
Jfofluflon Control Fed. 50:290-307.
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.
Greeson, PJE., J.R. Clerk, 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.
Kadlec, RJL 1979. Wetlands for tertiary treatment, p. 490-
640. In P.E. Greeson, JJt. Clark, and JE. Clark (Eds.),
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. American Water Resources Association
TPS 79-2. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kadlec, RS. and D.L. Tilton. 1979. The use of freshwater
wetlands as a wastewater treatment alternative. CRC
Grit. Rev. Environ. Control 9d 85-212.
Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. 1989. First
Annual Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report for the
Charlotte County Correctional Institution.
Kusler JA. and P. Riexinger (Eds.). 1985. Proceedings of
the National Wetland Assessment Symposium.
Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New
York.
Larson, JJS. 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.
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.
Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York.
Van
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands
mitigation, p. 242-245. 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.
Race, M.S. and D.R. Christie. 1982. Coastal zone
development: mitigation, marsh creation, and decision
making. EnvjroniiiHrPtflLM&TinB'PmffTit ^'^ IJI^R.
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.
Richardson, C J., D.L. Tilton, JA. Kadlec, J.P.M. Chamie,
andWA. Wentz. 1978. Nutrient dynamics of northern
wetland ecosystems, p. 217-241. In RJS. Good, D J.
Whigham and R.L. Simpson, (Eds.), Freshwater
Wetlands-Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press, New York.
Sather, JJL and RJ). Smith. 1984. An Overview of Major
WetlandFunctions and Values. NWS/OBS-84/18. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Spangler, F.L., C.W. Fetter, Jr., and WE. Sloey. 1977.
Phosphorus accumulation-discharge cycles in marshes.
Water Reaour. Bull. 131191-1201.
Tilton, D.L. and RJL Kadlec. 1979. The utilization of a
freshwater wetland for nutrient removal from
secondary treated wastewater effluent. J. Environ.
Qual. 8:328-334.
Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current
Status and Recent Trends. National Wetland
Inventory, US. Fish and Wild! Serv., Washington, D.C.
Webb, Jr., FJ. (Ed). 1982. Proceedings of the 9th Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Webb, Jr., FJ. (Ed.). 1983. Proceedings of the 10th Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Webb, Jr., FJ. (Ed.). 1984. Proceedings of the llth Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Webb, Jr., F J. (Ed.). 1985. Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Webb, Jr., F J. (Ed.). 1986. Proceedings of the 13th Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Webb, Jr., F J. (Ed.). 1987. Proceedings of the 14th Annual
Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.
Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland
creation in the United States from 1970-1985: an
annotated bibliography. Wetlands 6:1-78.
254
-------
APPENDIX I: PROJECT PROFILES
PHOSPHATE MINE WETLAND RECLAMATION, AGRICO SWAMP WEST
Location:
Agrico Swamp West is located adjacent to the western
boundary of the flood plain of Payne Creek at Agrico's
Fort Green Mine in southwest Polk County, in central
Florida. The reclamation plan includes a 60.75 hectare
experimental wetland and 87.48 hectares of contiguous
uplands in the watershed (Figure 3). The reclamation site
was originally pine flatwoods and rangeland with some
mixed forest (Figure 4) before it was mined in 1978 and
1979 (Figure 5).
Goals of Project:
The goal of the Agrico Swamp West reclamation
project was to reclaim a "high quality" wetland ecosystem.
This goal required the development of a design that, based
upon ecological principles, is self maintaining and in
harmony with natural systems.
The reclamation project was designed and
constructed to create freshwater marsh, hardwood swamp,
open water, and upland habitats. The design specifically
lends itself to an intensive monitoring program for the
evaluation of the various tree planting and marsh
establishment methods, biological integrity, and the
quality and quantity of ground and surface waters within
the project. The ecosystem engineering applied to the
design of the project introduced a variety of relatively new
concepts to ecosystem reclamation and monitoring of
surface mined lands and will continue to develop data
over the next several years. This should aid in the
evaluation of these techniques and the types of
improvements required.
Construction Technique:
Due to the removal of the ore body during mining,
sufficient material did not exist in the area to achieve
design elevations. Sand tailings were therefore pumped
between the overburden spoil piles over a period of eight
months to provide the backfill material necessary to
construct the planned elevations (Figure 6). The
backfilling operation was completed in February, 1981.
Earth moving began in March, 1981 with bulldozers and
scrapers used to redistribute the sand tailings as planned.
Overburden was spread over the sand to provide a 0.3
meter thick cap. As the earth moving progressed, the
excess water displaced by the sand and overburden was
pumped into the mine's water recirculation system to
maintain satisfactory operating conditions.
The project area was contoured so that all drainage
flows from the west toward the east. The levee
constructed along the eastern boundary of the project
impounds the drainage from the 148.23 hectare watershed
to form wetlands at the design elevation. Two swale
outlets were constructed in the levee to allow the overflow
discharge of water from the wetland into the flood plain of
Payne Creek. The elevation of the wetland along the base
of the levee is +118 feet mean sea level (MSL). The
elevation rises gradually to an elevation of +121 feet MSL
along the western boundary of the wetland and less
gradually westward across the upland portion of the
project to an elevation of +134 feet MSL. A water budget
for the project was developed to evaluate the disposition of
storage, inflow, and outflow of water within the project
area during a typical year.
Ponds were constructed within the wetlands with
bottom elevations of approximately 108 feet MSL to
maintain open water areas all year round. Small, shallow
depressions were constructed randomly throughout the
fluctuating water zone to retain water and harbor fish
populations during periods of low water. Two lakes were
also constructed in the uplands which overflow via swales
eastward into the wetlands (Figure 7).
Methods:
The freshwater marsh created at Agrico Swamp West
utilized two restoration techniques, resulting in the
establishment of two initially contrasting wetland
habitats. One marsh habitat was created by using a
mulch (Figure 8) from a nearby freshwater marsh. The
mulch contained seed and root material from the native
wetlands. This procedure of mulching has now been
incorporated into a number of wetland reclamation plans
(Erwin, K.L. 1988, Brown and Odum 1985). The other
marsh habitat was created with overburden soils (Figure
9). This area was recontoured and allowed to vegetate
naturally. The overall goal of this study is to determine
the optimal method for establishing high diversity, late
successions! marsh ecosystems immediately after mining
and recontouring. The ultimate purpose is to demonstrate
the successful reclamation of a freshwater marsh.
Monitoring Vegetation:
Monitoring of the marsh is performed to characterize
the vegetation found in the two wetland areas both
immediately and for several yean after reclamation.
Percent cover values and species richness have been
monitored since the fall of 1982 (Figures 10 and 11).
The study continues to provide information regarding
the rate and direction of marsh succession under various
reclamation schemes and natural perturbations such as
droughts and winter freezes. The monitoring program is
designed to determine to what extent reclamation with or
without mulching can meet the reclamation criteria of
establishing late successional perennials as well as
controlling aggressive weedy species. Information derived
from this study has served as a useful tool for developing
marsh reclamation guidelines (Erwin 1988).
The goal of this monitoring program is to determine
to what extent reclamation with or without mulching can
meet the reclamation criteria of establishing late
successional perennials as well as controlling aggressive
weedy species. The herbaceous vegetation was monitored
using the following modified line-intercept technique.
Table 1 provides the number and percent cover of marsh
species in mulched and overburden areas. Sixty one
255
-------
PAYNE CREEK CANAL
NORTH
PAYNE CREEK
SCALEi 1' = :000'
NOVA 1
POLK COUNTY
HARDEE COUNTY
Figure 3. Agrico Swamp West Wetland Reclamation Project.
256
-------
-*
» v : uSS&ik
* -s. >• .^SSl.
^8
Figure 4. Agrico Swamp West area prior to surface mining.
257
-------
Figure 5. Two views of the Agrico Swamp West project area after surface mining (1980).
258
-------
Figure 6. Backfilling mine cuts during reclamation (1981).
Figure 7, Aerial photo of Agrico Swamp West following reclamation in 1984.
259
-------
Figure 8. Freshly spread wetland mulch in Agrico Swamp West (1982).
Figure 9. Agrico Swamp West wetland area not inoculated with wetland mulch (1982).
260
-------
MONITORING
DflTE
FflLL 82
SPRING 83
SUMMER 83
FflLL 83
SPRING 84
SUMMER 84
FRLL 84
SUMMER 85
SPRING 86
SUMMER 86
FRLL 86
SUMMER 87
0
I I
OVER
BURDEN
MULCH
50
100
150
200
250
PERCENT COVER
Figure 10. Percent cover of vegetation in mulched and overburden areas of Agrico Swamp west from Pall 1982 through summer 1987.
-------
MONITORING
ERIE
FRLL 82
GPRING S3
SUMMER 83
FflLL 83
SPRING 84
SUMMER 84
FRLL 84
SUMMER 85
SPRING 86
SUMMER 86
FRLL 86
SUMMER 87
0
j I
OVER
BURDEN
MULCH
10
20
30
40
50
NUMBER OF SPECIES
Figure 11. Species richness of vegetation in mulched and overburden areas of Agrico Swamp west from Fall 1982 through Summer 1987.
-------
Table 1. Number and percent cover of marsh species in mulched (M) and overburden (O.B.) areas in Agrico
Swamp West. Percent cover in this table does not take into consideration the area of non-covered
ground (see text for discussion).
Fall 1982
Spring 1983
Summer 1983
Fall 1983
Spring 1984
Fall 1984
Summer 1985
Spring 1986
Summer 1986
Fall 1986
Summer 1987
M
37
36
34
34
39
38
41
38
42
44
54
#OF
SPECIES
03.
16
14
24
30
26
28
26
28
34
29
40
PERCENT
COVER
M
91
84
105
84
72
73
80
118
107
110
190
O.B.
33
72
83
110
75
61
68
130
136
149
213
263
-------
species were encountered within the project during 1987
(Figures 12 and 13). Species richness in the mulched and
overburden areas during the summer of 1987 was 54 and
40, respectively. The most distinctive difference in plant
distribution between overburden and mulched areas is
shown by Pontederia cordata (30% mare dominant in
mulched), Wolffiella gladiata (24% more dominant in
mulched), Sagittaria lancifolia (18% more dominant in
mulched), and TVpha Jnrningeniria (17% more dominant in
overburden). The project has developed a seed bank of its
own including those areas that did not receive the
mulched treatment. It appears that mulching is valuable
in establishing a rapid cover of preferred species.
Similar studies of natural marsh areas undertaken hi
1988 and 1989 will allow for a short term comparison of
species richness and cover values between natural marsh
sites and a relatively stable reclaimed marsh.
Macrobenthic Monitoring:
The biological monitoring program is designed to
complement the forest and marsh community reclamation
and water quality monitoring of the project. The objective
is to develop a model of the long term trends in biological
community development in a reclaimed wetland
ecosystem.
Macroinvertebrate composition and abundance are
recorded from the substrata and macrophytes (leaves and
stems) of both natural and created wetlands to determine
the influence of macrophytes and water quality on the
benthic community. Many of the species found on the
macrophytes were also found in the substrata, but the
compartmentalization of species between various
macrophyte types was considerable. All four sample
seasons (November, February, May, and August) show a
considerable variability between macrophyte types and
locations. In 1987, a total of 46 taxa were collected in core
samples from natural marshes, and the number present in
individual samples ranged from 7 to 22 (mean 11.5).
Densities ranged from 926 to 7,501/m2 (mean 3,925), and
Shannon-Weaver diversity ranged from 1.72 to 2.95 (mean
2.39). Sixty-seven taxa were recorded from the created
wetland, samples ranged from 4 to 33 (mean 16.4).
Densities and diversity ranged from 926 to 18,196/m2
(mean 5,736) and 0.98 to 4.20 (mean 2.69), respectively.
In general, aquatic macrophyte habitats harbored a more
species rich assemblage than did the openwater substrata,
but densities in the open water zone fell within the range
of densities recorded for the various macrophytes.
Based on the sampling methods utilized in this study,
it is apparent that even though marshes, both natural and
created, may share various species to a lesser or greater
degree, and be similar in densities and diversity, each is
unique with regard to the structure of its
macroinvertebrate community.
The thud year of biological monitoring (1987) of the
six-year-old created marsh shows a well developed
macroinvertebrate utilization of the wetland's substrata
and macrophytic components. The collection of large
numbers of organisms and taxa demonstrates that a rich,
diverse benthic community has developed within the site.
Water Quality Monitoring:
The water quality monitoring of Agrico Swamp West
is designed to assess the surface and groundwater quality
on-site as well as in the receiving waters of Payne Creek.
Surface water and groundwater within the marsh are
of good quality and the area has apparently stabilized
from the effects of previous mining and reclamation.
Surface waters in the wetland meet the ultimate test by
supporting large and diverse populations of
macroinveitebrates, fish, and wildlife. The only water
quality test parameter generally nonconforming to state
water quality standards continues to be pH. The high pH
values obtained in openwater samples do not appear to be
causing any adverse effects and in fact may be responsible
for the binding of phosphorus, and perhaps fluoride and
other elements thereby enhancing water quality. The
high pH of the openwater areas is not affecting the
groundwater or Payne Creek.
Fish and Wildlife Monitoring:
Agrico Swamp West has developed into exceptional
fish and wildlife habitat. Eighty-three species of birds
have been observed within the wetland during normal
sampling activities. The site is dominated by waterfowl in
the winter and wading birds during the spring. Ten
species of fish were collected by electric shocking in the
spring of 1986. Many large-mouth bass were too large to
be sufficiently stunned for capture. All fish collected were
identified and measured.
Judgement of Success:
The data collected during the last four years within
and adjacent to Agrico Swamp West confirms the project's
apparent success. It is evident that the marsh and
macroinvertebrate community is well developed and
positively reacting to natural environmental stresses. In
addition, the project's water quality is excellent and
represents no problem to the receiving waters of Payne
Creek or the area's groundwater supplies. The
documentation of the fish and wildlife utilization of Agrico
Swamp within the last two years confirms the project's
value as a wetland wildlife resource. Comparative studies
in 1988 and 1989 of Agrico Swamp West and selected
natural wetlands will enable some comparisons to be
made on the richness, abundance, and diversity of these
systems.
Contact: Kevin L. Erwin
Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
2077 Bayside Parkway
Fort Myers, FL 33901
(813) 337-1505
AGRICO 8.4 ACRE WETLAND
Location:
The 8.4 acre (3.402 hectare) wetland is located at
Agrico's Fort Green Mine in the vicinity of Agrico Swamp
West. The site was mined in late 1983. Reclamation
efforts began within 90 days of mining by pumping
tailings into the area in January 1984. The tailings were
graded and capped with overburden to complete
264
-------
Figure 12. Marsh vegetation within a mulched section of Agrico Swamp West (1984).
Figure 13. Close up of marsh vegetation within a mulched section of Agrico Swamp West (1984).
265
-------
recontouring within one year of the date of ore extraction.
Construction Technique:
Revegetation was initiated by spreading mulch from
donor wetlands onto the recontoured surface of the permit
area. As with Agrico Swamp West, trees were planted in
certain areas. This facet of the project will not be reported
here (see Erwin 1987). Revegetation activities were
completed in March 1986.
Goals of Project:
The goal of this project is the successful reclamation
of a palustrine ecosystem after mining activity as
determined by meeting the following specific conditions:
1. Mulching has resulted in a multi-specific
herbaceous assemblage with a similarity to
undisturbed areas.
2. Transplanted and seeded hardwood species are
viable, surviving and have attained the
abundance and species content of at least 400
trees per acre. Cover measurement shall be
restricted to those trees exceeding the
herbaceous stratum in height and those
indigenous species that contribute to the
overstory of the mature riverine forest of Payne
Creek
3. Vegetation is naturally reproducing (tree species
excluded).
4. Floral diversity and similarity indices are
comparable to those of similar undisturbed off-
site communities.
Monitoring Vegetation:
Monitoring of the 8.4 acre marsh community was
initiated in May 1986. Three established transects
(Figure 14) were monitored during June (spring), August
(summer), and December (fall) 1987. The rationale for
this sampling strategy was to develop seasonal baseline
data corresponding: (1) to the early growing season tri-
period; (2) to develop a maximum biomass data base for
the summer wet season, and (3) to establish a record of all
seasonal species and normal decline of cover/biomasses
associated with late fall dormancy. The herbaceous
vegetation is monitored using the modified line-intercept
technique. Occurrence of non-vegetated areas (Bare
ground) throughout the transects has been given the same
consideration as vegetative cover. Coverages based totally
upon species occurrences (which often total much greater
than 100%) may no longer be an acceptable method for
determining reclamation success. Results indicate that of
the ten most frequent (Table 2) species, two are typically
considered to be upland/transitional species, while the
remaining eight occur in transitional to inundated areas.
Groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia) and broomsedge
(Andropoeon glomeratus) are the dominant
upland/transitional species in the area. Duckweed
(LemTia valdiviana) is generally restricted to
continuously inundated areas while Polvgonum
hvdropiperoides is typically common within transitional
wetland areas. Three of the dominant top ten species,
maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). pickerel weed
(Pontedaria cordata) and cattail (Tvpha domingensis). are
considered to be tolerant of relatively deep water
situations, however, these species (especially maidencane)
can tolerate a wide variety of saturated or inundated
conditions. The most dominant species on the site is
bogrush (Juncus effuaus) which is generally associated
with areas which range from transitional zones of
fluctuation to areas of continual shallow inundation.
The present array of dominant species and the zones
of inundation noted during sampling indicate that the
wetland is being managed as a shallow, inundated
freshwater marsh with a minimal zone of fluctuation and
extended hydroperiod. Macrobenthic invertebrate and
water quality monitoring commenced in 1988. This data
is currently being evaluated.
Judgement of Success:
Current trends indicate the wetland is achieving the
completion of successful restoration goals. Continued
monitoring will insure the stated specific conditions for
the creation of the 8.4 acre wetland are met. The data
collected to date indicates that the goal of establishing a
well developed, diverse, and reproducing marsh at this
site has probably been attained.
Contact: Kevin L. Erwin
Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
2077 Bayside Parkway
Fort Myers, FL 33901
(813) 337-1605
CHARLOTTE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECT
Location:
The Charlotte County Correctional Facility is
located in south central Charlotte County approximately
13 kilometers north of Fort Myers, Florida. The facility
was developed on a 112 hectare parcel containing pasture,
pine flatwoods and isolated freshwater marshes that had
been impacted by Interstate 75 construction, drainage,
and agricultural use. The development of the State prison
impacted 19.6 hectares of isolated freshwater marsh and
wet prairie habitats.
Construction Technique:
Prior to development a baseline evaluation of
topography, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, and
macroinvertebrates was conducted within the wetland
areas to be impacted. Wetland substrates (mulch) were
evaluated and the depth at which viable seeds, roots, and
tubers were found was recorded for all areas. This layer of
mulch was then stripped and stockpiled in October, 1987.
In early 1988 a 19.6 hectare area (Figure 15) of improved
pasture was excavated to the design elevations and
contours. The stockpiled wetland mulch was spread and
the created marsh area was allowed to fill with water.
The created marsh is a part of the facility's surface water
management system. Some permanently inundated
"pond" areas and uplands were incorporated into the
marsh design to create greater habitat diversity. All wet-
land reclamation activities were completed in June, 1988.
266
-------
131
Transect
Transect 1
131'
Transect 3
N
SCALE. 1' - 200'
Figure 14. Location of three vegetation monitoring transects at the Agrico 8.4 Acre Wetland Reclamation
Project
267
-------
Table 2. Mean frequency of the ten most frequently occurring species at the Agrico 8.4 acre wetland for the
1987 growing season.
TAXON
Juncus effusus
Panicum hemitomon
Lemna valdiviana
BaccharishalJTTiifQlia
Pontederia cordate
Polygonum hvdropiperoides
Andropogon glomeratus
Cvperus haspan
Paspalum notatum
Typha domingensis
* MEAN FREQUENCY - SIM
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OP FREQUENCY FOR
ANNUAL
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
823
766
424
379
296
284
210
164
141
139
EACH PLOT FOR
1987
MEAN
FREQUENCY*
61%
57%
31%
28%
22%
21%
16%
12%
10%
10%
EACH SEASON
450 FREQUENCY PLOTS X 3 SEASONS
268
-------
to
8
ten
III Itrtovto
-------
Goals of Project:
The goal of this project is the successful reclamation
of an isolated marsh system as mitigation for permitted
development of marsh and wet prairie habitats. Post-
development wetland monitoring commencing in
November, 1988 includes:
1. Wetland Floristic Characterization-Multiple
quadrats will be evaluated twice annually (dry/wet
season) in the wetland conservation (preserve) and
mitigation (creation) areas. Permanent quadrats
located in the areas of proposed impact (baseline), the
preservation and mitigation areas will characterize
each wetland macrophyte community by species
cover classification. Vegetation monitoring will be
conducted semi-annually for a minimum of three
complete growing seasons.
2. Biological Integrity- Qualitative evaluation of the
wetland macroinvertebrates will be made in
conjunction with the vegetation monitoring within
each wetland macrophyte community. Sampling will
be conducted semi-annually, for a minimum of three
complete growing seasons. For each qualitative
sample, all species will be identified and relative
abundance computed. An annual report on
monitoring will be submitted to the State of Florida
Division of Corrections, the South Florida Water
Management District, the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Charlotte County following the end of
each annual growing season to fulfill reporting
requirements.
3. Hydrological Data-Baseline hydrological data will
be collected in wetlands where impacts are to be
made and preserved wetlands by the establishment
of staff gauges. Regular monitoring of staff gauges
will be conducted post-development in the preserved
and created wetland areas.
In addition to the vegetation and macroinvertebrate
monitoring, fixed point panoramic photographs will be
taken at regular intervals and weekly water level
readings provided. Observed wildlife utilization in all of
the wetlands will be recorded and reported.
Judgement of Succ
The monitoring data collected in the created marsh
in November 1988 is contained within the First annual
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Charlotte
County Correctional Institution (KLECE 1989). The
created marsh has developed an extensive cover of
macrophytes from the wetland mulch (Figure 16). Water
levels have been acceptable. Wildlife utilization has been
high particularly by waterfowl and wading birds including
Florida sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis pratensis) and
large numnbers of woodstorks (Mvcteria americana).
Contact: Kevin L. Erwin
Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.
2077 Bayside Parkway
Fort Myers, FL 33901
(813) 337-1505
270
-------
Figure 16. Photographs from the same photo location station showing development of vegetation cover from
mulched areas of the Charlotte County Correctional Facility wetland mitigation project (A:
6/16/88, B: 7/5/88, C: 11/11/88).
271
-------
RESTORATION AND CREATION OF PALUSTRINE
WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH RIVERINE SYSTEMS OF THE
GLACIATED NORTHEAST
Dennis J. Lowry
1EP, Inc.
ABSTRACT. Published information on freshwater wetland creation in the glaciated
northeastern United States is largely limited to five sources: 1) the results of a workshop held
at the University of Massachusetts in 1986 assessing the science base for mitigating
freshwater wetland alterations (Larson and Neill 1987); 2) reports on wetland creation efforts
associated with a highway project in New York (Pierce 1983, Pierce and Amerson 1982); 3) a
report to the Environmental Protection Agency Region I in 1986 examining three mitigation
sites (Reimold and Cobler 1986); 4) several earlier papers examining man-made wildlife
marshes in New York (Benson and Foley 1956, Cook and Powers 1958, and Lathwell et al.
1969); and 5) a number of scattered papers primarily from symposium proceedings (Butts 1988,
Golet 1986, Lowry et al. 1988, and Peters 1988). There is more experience in constructing
wetlands than this literature base would indicate, however most of the creation projects have
not been documented in published form or in readily available reports. There has been no
compilation of the experience obtained from most of the wetland creation projects in the region
and there appears to be a general lack of detailed monitoring which would provide data
necessary for assessment of results. Most projects seemed to have occurred in New York,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut, with relatively few in the other northeastern states.
Long-term, comprehensive studies evaluating the functions of created freshwater wetlands
in the region are not presently being conducted. There is, therefore, a need to document the
ability of such areas to provide a range of ecological and hydrological functions, rather than
just serving as sites where wetland plants grow and that waterfowl visit.
In evaluating future projects involving wetland creation as mitigation for wetland loss in
the region, the following critical points should be emphasized:
1. The project proposal should provide an assessment of the wetland functions which may be
destroyed, the reliability with which they may be replaced, and the risks if they cannot be
adequately replaced.
2. Goals should be developed based upon the most significant functions. Relatively simple,
tangible goals (e.g., % plant cover) may be appropriate in permits, but the goals need to be
the result of a thought process focused on replacing wetland functions.
3. Proper consideration of hydrology is the most critical factor affecting the success of
projects. It is necessary to understand the hydrogeologic setting and water budget of the
created area, to have contractors accurately carry out the plans, and to have the means to
adjust for errors in design (e.g., water level control measures).
4. The majority of projects to date have attempted to create marsh/open water habitats, for
reasons explained in the text. Therefore our present capability to create other wetland
types, particularly swamps, fens, and bogs, is more in question.
5. Every attempt should be made to replace lost wetland in the same hydrogeologic unit and
reach of the riverine system associated with the original wetland. The level of detail
required in data collection and assessment should increase when this cannot be achieved.
6. An understanding of the area where the wetland is proposed to be created is also needed,
both to know what is being lost as well as its capability to provide intended functions.
7. Detailed consideration of a number of logistical constraints is always necessary. These
may include: hydrologic controls, machinery needs, availability of plant stock and soils,
sediment and erosion control, wildlife predation, and barriers to human intrusion.
273
-------
8. Monitoring requirements should depend upon the functions determined to be of most
significance at the assessment stage, the extent or proportion of the existing wetland which
will be lost, and whether the proposed restoration or creation will be "on-site" with
vegetation and soils similar to the existing wetland, or "off-site" under different
conditions.
INTRODUCTION - REGIONAL OVERVIEW
The glaciated northeast, for the purpose of
this chapter, refers to the portion of the United
States east of Ohio which was subjected to the
Wisconsin glaciation. This includes New
England, most of New York, northeastern
Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey. Due to
similarities in hydrogeologic settings and
ecological communities, much of the chapter may
also be applicable to those portions of the
north-central states covered by the Wisconsin
glaciation. This is largely due to the
overwhelming influence which the last
glaciation, and the resulting surficial geologic
conditions, had on wetland occurrence, form and
function (Motts and O'Brien 1981; Novitzki 1981).
The types of wetland covered by this chapter
are principally palustrine forested, scrub-shrub,
and emergent wetlands which are hydrologically
(i.e., by surface water) connected to riverine (and
possibly lacustrine) systems (Cowardin et al.
1979). Portions of the chapter may also be
applicable to emergent wetlands of riverine and
lacustrine systems, as well as aquatic beds of
these three freshwater systems. The critical
distinguishing features of these wetlands are:
(1) they are dominated by vascular hydrophytes,
and, (2) they are not hydrologically isolated from
watercourses. They typically have both inflowing
and outflowing surface water. The extent of such
wetlands in the region has not been specifically
documented, however estimates range between
five and 25% of the total land and water area
(Tiner 1984).
Geologic and hydrogeologic settings of the
region are varied. This is due largely to the
pre-glacial bedrock-controlled topography and
subsequent range of depositional environments
and resulting surficial deposits. Since the
hydrogeologic setting of a wetland in association
with its physiographic and topographic location,
largely determines wetland hydrology,
knowledge of wetland geology is essential to
understanding wetland functions and attempting
to mitigate for loss of those functions (O'Brien
1987, Hollands et al. 1987, Peters 1988).
Wetland hydrogeologic classification
systems specific to the glaciated northeast have
been developed by Motts and O'Brien (1981) and
Hollands (1987). The categories developed by
Novitzki for Wisconsin wetlands are also
applicable to this region. Golet and Larson (1974)
partly incorporate this into their classification of
freshwater wetlands of the area with a "site type"
rating.
The majority of the palustrine wetland
considered in this chapter is probably an
expression of the high water table in stratified
sands and gravels. However, wetlands perched
on dense glacial till are more abundant than
regional inventories typically indicate: in
Massachusetts, 48% and 32% of the wetland area
is underlain by stratified drift and till,
respectively (Heeley 1973). Lake-bottom deposits
and alluvium also frequently support palustrine
wetlands associated with watercourses.
Wetland soil types also vary, ranging from
poorly drained mineral soils to organic soils
(histosols and histic epipedons) of varying
thicknesses and degrees of decomposition.
Although no comprehensive inventory of the
relative extent of the various soil types exists,
most surface horizons are probably sapric
organics or high organic content silt loams
(mucky silts). Soil types and properties reflect
the hydrologic and biological environment
present during their development. Soil types and
properties, in turn, influence those components
in many ways (e.g., regulating the rate of
ground and surface water movement,
influencing water chemistry, etc.). The soil
component, therefore, requires consideration in
mitigation efforts (Maltby 1987, Veneman 1987)
because it affects wetland functions.
At present, forested wetland is the most
abundant vegetative type among the palustrine
wetlands of the northeast (Tiner, U.S. Fish &
Wildl. Serv., pers. comm. 1988, Golet and
Parkhurst 1981), perhaps comprising as much as
60% of the palustrine wetland area. Forested
wetlands are most often dominated by deciduous
trees, with red maple (Acer rubrum) the most
widespread and abundant species. A
comprehensive review of these wetlands is
provided by Lezberg (in prep.). The scrub-shrub
class is typically dominated by broad-leaved
deciduous species, while the emergent wetlands
are frequently dominated by robust persistent
herbaceous hydrophytes. Types of scrub-shrub
274
-------
wetlands are distinguished locally as sapling or
shrub swamps, shrub fen or carr, or shrub bog;
emergent wetlands may be distinguished as
shallow or deep marsh, wet meadow, fen, or bog.
The climate of the northeast favors wetland
development. High annual precipitation is
distributed evenly throughout the year. Mean
annual precipitation typically exceeds 40 inches
(101 cm) and each month has an average
rainfall of 3-4 inches; extended droughts are
uncommon. In contrast, evapotranspiration is
in the r ange of 20-26 inches per year. This
provides abundant water for runoff and/or
ground water recharge (Motts and O'Brien 1981;
NOAA 1979). This relationship does not hold true
for the north-central states where annual
precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration by a
smaller magnitude (Novitzki 1981; NOAA 1979).
The palustrine wetlands bordering riverine
systems provide numerous functions depending
upon the setting and other characteristics
(Larson 1976, Larson and Neill 1987). Key
functions are flood storage, water quality
maintenance, ground water protection, fish and
wildlife habitat, primary productivity,
recreation, and aesthetics.
Since there are few published documents
which describe wetland creation/restoration
efforts in the region, much of the following
summary is based upon the personal experience
of the author.
Palustrine wetlands associated with
watercourses have been created by man in the
glaciated northeast principally by three main
activities: 1) creation of wildlife habitat by
federal or state fish and wildlife agencies or
private groups such as Ducks Unlimited (many
of these are enhancement projects of pre-existing
wetlands); 2) inadvertent creation by
construction projects such as highways; and 3)
intentional creation to mitigate for the loss of
wetlands caused by development, most often
commercial development or highway
construction. A number of stormwater detention
facilities have also inadvertently developed
wetland plant communities.
Wetlands created by the third process are
probably much less common than those created
by the first two, yet they are the primary subject
of this chapter. The degree to which information
or success rates can be transferred from the first
two to the third is debatable, since the goals,
settings, and resources vary considerably. Golet
(1986) raises a clear distinction between
wetlands created and managed on public lands
by public agencies for specific purposes versus "a
myriad of unrelated mitigation projects scattered
across the landscape". Nevertheless, wetlands
created at such sites as the Great Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge in Concord,
Massachusetts, or enhanced such as the Great
Swamp impoundment in South Kingstown, Rhode
Island, are evidence that some projects at some
sites can create or enhance wetlands (at least for
some values). It is important to note, however,
that the setting of such sites can be carefully
chosen, and not restricted to the proximity of an
associated development.
Projects of the third type are rapidly
expanding in number. Well over 200
small-scale (<2 acres, most <0.5 acre) wetlands
have been created in Massachusetts since 1983
(Nickerson, Tufts Univ., pers. comm. 1988).
Most of these are probably connected in some
manner to riverine systems because of the
regulatory requirements for replacing
"bordering vegetated wetlands" in that state (310
CMR 10.00). Lowry et al. (1988) provide two case
studies of such projects. Tufts University is
presently reviewing the status of such
replacement wetlands in Massachusetts.
A number of wetland replacement projects
have also been carried out in Connecticut, with
the most notable associated with the Central
Connecticut Expressway. An early review of that
site by Reimold and Cobler (1986) rated the
mitigation as "ineffective"; however more recent
assessments are more favorable (Lefor, Univ. of
Connecticut, pers. comm. 1988). Butts (1988) also
provides a review of this project as well as
several other wetland replacement efforts
associated with highway construction in
Connecticut.
A number of projects have been constructed
in New York state as well, although no
compilation is available (Reixinger, N.Y. Dept.
of Env. Cons., pers. comm. 1987). The largest
wetland mitigation effort in the northeast
appears to be that associated with the Southern
Tier Expressway in the Allegheny River Valley
where 78 acres are being created. Some of the
early work for this project is reported by Pierce
and Amerson (1982) and Pierce (1983). Prior to
final design and construction of the wetlands, a
two-year demonstration project was conducted to
examine the potential success of several
environmental (water depth, soil type) and
275
-------
vegetation planting treatments. A comprehensive
description of this work is beyond the scope of
this chapter, however, one is provided by
Southern Tier Consulting (1987).
Only a few projects appear to have occurred
in the glaciated portion of New Jersey to date,
with the Hackensack Meadowlands the notable
exception. The New Jersey Department of
Transportation is in the planning stages of
several large replacement wetlands and have a
pilot project underway to explore design options.
At least a few inland wetland creation
projects have been constructed in New
Hampshire. Two of them were reviewed in one
of the few published reports evaluating the
success of wetland mitigation projects in the
region (Reimold and Cobler 1986). What appears
to be the first inland wetland creation effort in
Rhode Island is presently (1988) under
construction in the northern part of the State
where roughly 7 acres is being established to
mitigate for wetland filled by the Woonsocket
Industrial Highway (Ellis, Rhode Island
Dept. of Env. Manage., pers. comm. 1988). No
citations for freshwater wetland creation projects
in Vermont or Maine were encountered.
GOALS
As the result of regulatory review, the
primary goal of most projects is to provide a
wetland with an area approximately equal to the
wetland which will be lost. Beyond this, the
goals (if stated) are usually directed at creation
of habitat through the establishment of certain
vegetative types. Creation of marsh/open water
habitat, possibly with some interspersed shrub
growth, is most common. Such habitat is popular
for several reasons: 1) projects are usually
proposed in areas where forested wetlands are
more abundant, thus wildlife benefits are cited or
claimed by diversifying habitat conditions, 2)
construction logistics are less complex and less
expensive, 3) the availability of commercial
plant stock is greatest for marsh emergents, and
4) there is little experience in attempting to
establish forested, bog, or fen wetlands.
A large percentage of the small projects in
Massachusetts amount to adjusting the
configuration of the wetland, essentially filling
in one location and excavating out a similar size
area in an upland adjacent to the same wetland.
Thus, many engineering firms have developed
"typical wetland replacement area details", such
as that shown in Figure 1.
Actual planting of wetland vegetation
apparently has been infrequent, and appears to be
decreasing. Instead, most projects now rely on
natural colonization or growth of existing
propagules in soils dredged from the area to be
altered and transported to the new area. An
attempt is made to establish the proper water
regime in order to set the stage for such
colonization. Often the only planting is the
sowing of an erosion-control seed mixture.
Planting of nursery stock of tubers of emergents
or small shrubs is infrequent. When it does
occur, nursery stock of emergent species is
usually obtained from sources in either the
north-central states or from the mid-Atlantic
region since local sources are scarce. In the
New York studies, control plots which were not
planted established similar vegetative cover to
planted plots, although dispersal of propagules
from planted plots was possible. The researchers
concluded that, "Although wetland vegetation
may become more abundant in a shorter time if
plantings are made, the additional cost must be
weighed against the fact that wetland vegetation
will become established naturally provided a
proper environment is available" (Southern Tier
Consulting 1987). These studies also found that
an effective planting technique was to plant cores
of wetland soil from nearby wetlands.
Next to the goal of establishing vegetative
cover, probably the most frequent goal is that of
providing compensatory flood storage. This may
involve straight-forward cut-and-fill procedures
within specific elevation intervals, or may
require more complex flood routing calculations
with hydraulic controls.
Occasionally, the goal of improving water
quality maintenance functions is expressed.
This may be accomplished by dispersing surface
water flow through a non-channelized emergent
wetland or by extending surface water detention
time within the wetland. The habitat function is,
however, most often the focus; goals of
maintaining or improving other functions,
particularly those related to ground water, are
infrequently addressed.
Restoration, as literally defined, has been
rare. At best, this has involved removing fill
placed illegally in wetlands. Several
larger-scale restoration projects are underway or
proposed, but the proposed characteristics for the
restored wetland are considerably different than
pre-existing conditions, at least those
encountered within recent times.
"Enhancement" designs have been more
common, but as noted by Golet (1986), they
frequently involve creating marsh and open
276
-------
EXISTING
WETLANDS
STAKED HAYBALE SEDIMENT BARRIER
PLACED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
PLACED AFTER FINISH GRADING
WETLAND REPLACEMENT
FINISHED
GRADE
•ORGANIC WETLAND
SOIL
PROPOSED SLOPE
TO WETLAND
REPLACEMENT
AREA(SEE PLAN)
LOAM AND SEED
APPLICABLE
METHCCKSEE NOTES)
ORGANIC WETLAND SOIL RETAINED
FROM WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
(SEE NOTE FOR APPROPRIATE DEPTH)
WETLAND REPLACEMENT
DETAIL
Figure 1. An example of a typical wetland replacement area detail used by engineering firms.
277
-------
water habitat out of forested wetlands, often
citing wildlife benefits due to the diversification
of habitat. Actual replacement, creation, or
restoration of forested wetland has rarely been
attempted, nor has it been attempted for fens or
bogs. Experience, and probably our present
capability, is restricted to establishing
marsh/open water, wet meadow, and some shrub
wetland plant communities.
SUCCESS
As noted by Larson (1987), "the main
criterion of wetland replication success today
appears to be growth of wetland plants on
man-made sites. But with respect to artificially
creating detritus and grazing food chains to
replicate the full suite of food chain, wildlife and
fisheries habitat functions of natural wetlands,
science cannot offer guidelines with low risk
and high certainty". Without specific guidelines
on what constitutes success, any assessment of
success is subjective. Regulatory agencies often
have the ability to define success relative to the
public perception of benefit (Sheehan 1987),
thereby allowing specific components to be
measured. For the purpose of this review, it is
possible only to examine success in terms of the
ability to execute specific tasks in a creation
project.
Man's ability and success at physically
creating a basin or depression in the glaciated
landscape which will have a wetland water
regime (permanently flooded to intermittently
flooded or artificially flooded; Cowardin et al.
1979), and a surface water connection to a
riverine system, is probably quite good given
some understanding of the hydrogeologic setting,
local water table, and/or the surface watershed of
the basin. The success at creating the specific
water regime needed to support a certain wetland
plant community is obviously less, and typically
requires the provision for artificial water level
control measures (e.g., V-notched weir with
flashboard control).
The success rate of establishing a
predominance of wetland vegetation within a
basin appears to vary considerably from site to
site. Given the development of a wetland water
regime, it seems intuitive that with time, some
wetland vegetation will colonize a site. But,
establishing the desired plant community
depends primarily on creating the proper
hydrology, and examples of failures by this
criteria exist. Examples of failures of
commercially available root stock of emergents
and shrubs also exist.
Permanence of the plant community has not
been measured in many situations for more than
a few years. Work on artificial marshes in New
York noted a decline in wetland vegetation over
several years, attributed in part to chemical
changes in flooded soils (Benson and Foley 1956,
Cook and Powers 1958, Lathwell et al. 1969).
Quantitative plant data on a replaced wetland in
Massachusetts during the first two growing
seasons following construction show increasing
diversity and structure of the plant community
(Lowry et al. 1988). However, success at
establishing the full structure and function of
wetland plant communities has not been
documented and long-term comprehensive
studies are not being conducted. This is
particularly true for the soil, ground water, and
water quality functions. Since these are
infrequently incorporated into objectives, they
are usually not judged in the assessment of
success. This does not imply that all projects are
failures by these criteria, but simply that they are
not being measured. The success at creating
compensatory flood storage functions is probably
good if the system is properly designed and
constructed, since this is more of an engineering
feat than an ecological process (Daylor 1987).
An individual assessment of success may
vary depending upon the time of year or the
length of time elapsed since the project was
constructed. Projects may be judged too soon after
construction or not evaluated for a sufficient
time period to determine results. Plant
communities typically require several growing
seasons to be sufficiently established to judge
their eventual status. The only published
assessment of wetland creation effectiveness in
the northeast examined three sites from 2-24
months after construction, and rated two sites
"ineffective" and one "marginally successful"
(Reimold and Cobler 1986); the latter site was
examined after two years, the other two within
one year of construction, indicating a
relationship between success rating and time
elapsed since construction.
It is generally agreed that the hydrologic
component is the most important in creating
wetland. In the glaciated northeast, success or
failure at creating suitable hydrology depends on
the ability to understand the hydrogeologic
conditions and to model and control the water
budget of the wetland. Secondly, it depends on
the ability of site contractors to understand and
carry out the intended plans. And thirdly, it
depends upon whether means were incorporated
into the plan to allow for modifications in the
278
-------
inflow-outflow conditions to adjust for errors in
the design. Reasons for success or failure at
growing wetland vegetation appear to be
unknown. Studies measuring the range of
parameters which may influence vegetative
growth in this region are not being conducted.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
PRECONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A fundamental component of any project
proposing to replace or restore a wetland is a
demonstration that the area proposed to be lost or
restored has been closely examined and
assessed. A detailed inventory of the existing
wetland's hydrogeologic, hydrologic, soil, and
biological characteristics, aimed at assessing the
wetland's functions, is necessary. It is necessary
to know what will be lost before deciding the
potential for (and means to) replace or mitigate
for the loss. Functions and values of the existing
wetland which are indicated to be most important
to the watershed, region, or public perception
often become those which the replacement design
is most strongly directed at replacing. The level
of detail in the inventory should be site-specific,
possibly starting with a published assessment
methodology which requires basic data gathering
(e.g., Adamus 1983) and then proceeding to
detailed site data as deemed appropriate (e.g.,
Larson and Neill 1987). These "preconstruction"
considerations are really project review
considerations. They address the wetland
functions which will be destroyed by a proposed
activity, the reliability with which they can be
replaced, and the risks (public detriments) if
they cannot be adequately replaced.
For example, the significance of wetland
hydrogeologic setting should be considered. For
a wetland (or portion of one) proposed to be filled,
a knowledge of the setting should be
demonstrated, geared toward understanding the
ground and surface water interactions
(recharge-discharge relationships) on a seasonal
basis. Further, the significance of those
functions to the associated watershed and ground
water system (e.g., downstream water supply)
should be evaluated. Preliminary data collection
and analysis should indicate whether more
detailed data is required (Hollands et al. 1987).
In most cases, the level of detail required in the
data gathering and assessment should probably
be related to the extent or proportion of existing
wetland proposed to be lost, and whether it will be
replaced in the same hydrogeologic setting and
reach of the associated waterway with similar
vegetation and soils.
Similarly, soil profiles of the existing
wetland are needed with an assessment because
they influence ground and surface water
interactions, water quality maintenance, flood
storage and shoreline erosion functions (Maltby
1987). Again, additional data should be required
as appropriate, such as that in Table 1 from
Veneman (1987). As stated by Maltby (1987),
"more than any other part of a wetland system,
the organic horizon component must be the most
difficult to re-create, and for practical purposes
this may have to be regarded as impossible".
Therefore, the significance of altered
stratigraphy of deep organics, where present,
needs to be considered.
Biological characteristics need to be
inventoried to assess habitat and water quality
functions, and to identify the presence of species
of concern or floristic assemblages unique to the
area or region. Finally, all this information
needs to be integrated to develop some
understanding of the interactions between the
hydrogeologic, hydrologic, edaphic, chemical,
and biologic components. Even with these data,
however, there is an even more difficult task of
relating the significance of specific functions
within the context of the wetland's watershed or
on a more regional scale.
A similar understanding of the
characteristics of the area where wetland
creation is proposed is necessary, both to
understand what is being lost or altered in that
area as well as the capability of the area to give
rise to the intended conditions. Test borings
should be conducted to understand subsurface
stratigraphy as it relates to hydrogeologic
properties and to gather water table information.
An estimated water budget under proposed
conditions should be considered to aid in
determining final water regimes.
The feasibility of constructing the project in
the desired location should be considered from a
logistical viewpoint as well. Hydrologic controls
(e.g., diversions, temporary drawdowns)
necessary to facilitate construction, machinery
necessary to accomplish the work, source and
suitability of vegetation, and soils to be used as
substrate all need to be evaluated.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROJECT PLAN
Project plans should be reviewed with the
objective of determining the probability of
replacing the functions and values of the
279
-------
Table 1: Data on soils required for evaluation of the mitigation of specific wetland functions as defined by Adamus and Stockwell (1983) (from
Veneman 1987). (x)» parameter is required to assess specific wetland function.
I mpor tance
Level
I . Mini mum Data
Requi red
II. Detailed Data
Required
III. Highly
Detai led
Data
Requi red
Wetland Funct i ons :
S o i Is
Parameter Organic Mine
General description
Soil profile
Soil survey
i nf or ma t i on
Physical parameters
Chemical parameters
Fiber content
P- relent i on
Pore water analysis
Alkalinity exch.
acidity
Seedbank capacity
Soil organisms
Clay Character-
ization
M i crobes :
Decompos i t i on
Identification
Heavy met a I s
Pesticides
Gas analysis
Peat features
Temperature regime
I = Ground water recha
II - flood storage and
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland Functions
ral 1 I I I I I IV V VI VI I VI I I IX X
X XXXXXXX X XX
X XXXXXXX X XX
X XXXXXXX X XX
X XXXXX
X XX
X X X X X
X XXX
X XX
X XXX
X XXXXX XXX
X XX
XX X
X XXX
X XX
X XX
X XX
X XXXXX
X
X X
Moni tor ing
Requi red
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rge and discharge.
desynch roni
III = Shoreline anchoring and dissi
IV = Sediment trapping,
V = Nutrient retention
VI = Food chain support
VII = Habitat for fisher
V1I1 - Habitat for wfldll
and remova
§
i es ,
f e .
za t i on ,
pation of erosive forces,
I.
-------
wetland, not just the probability of growing
wetland vegetation. While it may be appropriate
to establish relatively simple goals (e.g.,
establishing 75% vegetative cover within two
growing seasons, etc.), an understanding of the
existing wetland and its functions, and the need
to recreate that wetland in a similar setting in
an attempt to replace those functions, should not
be abandoned. If this is done, more tangible
goals for establishing wetland hydrology, soils,
and vegetation may be sufficient for project
design.
As noted, probably the most critical aspect of
any wetland creation or restoration plan is that
of hydrology. It should be well documented that
the proposed hydrologic regime can be
established. Initially, this requires demon-
strating that the hydrogeologic setting is
conducive to the proper ground water regime, or
that the surface watershed will be sufficient to
drive the system. In situations where the
creation is an extension of an existing wetland
and proposed conditions are similar to those in
the existing wetland, establishing similar
grades on suitable soils should be sufficient to
create proper hydrology. This is probably an
optimum situation, since there will be an
unrestricted hydraulic connection to an existing
wetland. Every attempt should be made to
replace the wetland within the same
hydrogeologic unit and reach of the riverine
system associated with the original area.
In situations where more restricted
hydraulic connections are proposed, modeling of
the water budget and provision for surface water
level controls to correct for inaccurate
predictions are possible requirements. V-notched
weir outlets having the capability to insert
flashboards to adjust water levels within
intervals of several inches are often advisable,
although eventually a more permanent invert
may be desired.
At a basic level, the suitability of the soils or
substrate to provide a proper growing medium for
the proposed vegetation under the intended water
regimes should be examined. This should
include nutritional status and other chemical
parameters under the potential redox states
likely to develop. The thickness of the soils to be
deposited should be specified. Soils should be
sufficient to support the intended vegetation or
provide other functions such as ground water
discharge control or pollution attenuation. The
significance of the changes in soil stratigraphy
as they influence ground and surface water
interactions should be examined. Excavations
should proceed to subgrades based upon a
knowledge of how thick wetland soils will be
when they are deposited. Additional issues
requiring attention include: 1) the ability to
physically handle and grade the soils to the
elevations called for (e.g., is there a need for low
ground-pressure machinery?), 2) the need for
water level control during deposition of the soils,
3) water quality concerns during drawdown and
movement of organic or fine-grained mineral
sediments, and 4) sedimentation and erosion
control measures needed pending establishment
of vegetative cover. In general, proposed
contouring should reflect the most gentle slopes
possible; ideally they should be less than 3% and
rarely exceed 8%.
Revegetation proposals should be limited to
the use of species indigenous to the region which
are compatible with the planned hydrologic and
soil conditions. Particular chemistry
requirements of proposed species should be
considered (e.g., pH requirements or
limitations). Commercial stock should,
preferentially, be from northeastern nurseries
since the success of many species appears to
decline with shipping. Transplanting from
nearby wetlands is advisable if the source is
sufficient to allow the needed quantities by
transplanting from random, dispersed locations
within the wetlands. This option has the
advantage of including the entire biological
system associated with the root systems.
Wherever feasible, an attempt should be
made to either transplant as much vegetation
from the original wetland as possible
(particularly shrubs) or to transport the upper 6-12
inches of soil from this area (separately from the
remaining soil profile) and re-deposit it as the
surface horizon for the created wetland. This
will enable the existing propagules to regenerate
quickly. Even if this is not feasible, the planting
of tubers for emergents is often questionable.
Given the proper soils and hydrology, such
species should colonize the area within two to
three growing seasons. However, if more rapid
revegetation is desired, planting tubers is
appropriate, typically at spacings of 18-36 inches.
If rapid establishment of temporary cover is
needed, a fast-growing annual grass (e.g.,
millet) or a perennial grass which is acceptable
to include in the plant community can be
planted. Because of the length of time shrubs
require to colonize a site, planting them is
worthwhile. The planting of large saplings of
wetland tree species may also be desirable, to
encourage development of shrub and forested
plant communities. However, it is probably
impractical to attempt establishing mature trees.'
If ground cover is not established by the end of
the first growing season, exposed soil surfaces
should be straw-mulched or comparably covered
(netted if inundated and potentially subject to
flowing water) to minimize erosion during the
non-growing season.
Wildlife predation, particularly by Canada
geese and muskrat, has proven to be a major
281
-------
concern at some sites during the revegetation
process (pers. exp.). -The probability of these
species impairing the success of the developing
wetland community should be a legitimate
concern in permitting processes. Proposals
should address control strategies for such
predation in certain high-risk locations.
Provision should be included in permits for
replanting in the event of predation, poor initial
growth, or growth for only a few years.
Generally, replanting measures should be
limited to major failures (>30%?) of planted
stock to avoid disturbing the surviving
population. Similarly, to avoid disturbance of the
developing vegetation, physical barriers to
human intrusion, such as snow-fencing, may be
warranted in high-use areas. Providing a
vegetated buffer (e.g., shrub thickets) between the
replacement area and surrounding developed
land is often needed in the long run, and should
be considered as part of the mitigation plan.
The preferred time of year for construction is
site-specific depending on hydrologic factors,
breeding of fish and wildlife, logistical
constraints (e.g., working in frozen organic
soils), optimum times for planting, downstream
concerns, etc. Sites subject to major flood events
should obviously be left alone during times of
high flood potential. Construction should be
timed to minimize impacts to breeding activities
of sensitive fish and wildlife species. The
optimum time for planting most of the emergent
species appears to be early spring; shrubs and
saplings are best planted in either spring or fall,
but summer plantings may occur if sufficient
watering can be provided.
Active reintroduction of fauna for most
projects is probably not necessary, as natural
colonization will usually occur as (if) conditions
become suitable, however, this should be
documented by monitoring. There may be
specific situations where particular species,
perhaps of a concerned status, should be
reintroduced.
Ideally, wetland creation/restoration projects
will not be dependent upon long-term, continued
management; it may be unrealistic to believe
that many private projects will implement such
plans effectively. The optimum plan sets the
conditions (hydrology, soils, elevations) for
wetland development, perhaps with some initial
adjustments of water regime via outlet control
modifications. To the extent possible, control of
"undesirable" exotics (Lythrumsalicariaf
Phrapmites australis) is an appropriate goal.
Maintenance of a "successional sere" (or
particular plant community) by, for example,
continual cropping of naturally colonizing
wetland tree species, is probably not appropriate;
projects which infer an enhancement of wetland
functions by replacing forested conditions with
emergent habitat requiring such management
are of questionable value.
MONITORING
Monitoring of the replacement/restoration
wetland should be a requirement of every project.
What to monitor and the level of detail are,
again, site-specific. They depend largely on the
functions determined to be most significant at
the assessment stage. The sliding-scale approach
presented in Larson and Neill (1987) seems
appropriate: three levels of data requirements
are proposed for each of the hydrology, soils and
vegetation components, ranging from minimum
to highly detailed data (see Table 1 for soils
example). The objective of the monitoring should
be to develop an understanding of the functions
being provided over time by the replacement area
in comparison to those which were provided by
the lost area.
At a minimum, plant species composition,
density and cover data should be obtained yearly
for an extended period, perhaps for a five-year
period following construction. Caution should be
taken, however, not to relate vegetative growth
success to success at replacing wetland functions
(Larson 1987). Data on water regimes, water
chemistry, soil conditions, ground and surface
water interactions (e.g., nested peizometers), and
wildlife use should be considered. Monitoring
requirements should be greater in situations
where there is little prior experience to draw
upon, such as in creating/restoring forested
wetlands. The duration of such monitoring also
needs to be extended.
Deficiencies in the created or restored
wetland indicated by the monitoring may
require implementation of corrective measures.
These again are site-specific; however, flexibility
should be built into any permit to enable such
measures.
282
-------
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH:
Long-term research needs to be conducted on
virtually every aspect of wetland
creation/restoration to begin to answer the many
gaps in our present knowledge, primarily
concerning the significance of existing wetland
functions and our ability to create those functions
at different locations. From the
hydrogeologic/hydrologic perspective, further
research is needed to examine the role of
wetlands in ground and surface water
interactions in different hydrogeologic settings
of the glaciated northeast, and then to determine
when this role becomes critical to watershed
functions and whether it can be replaced by
moving the wetland in the landscape. Studies
such as those conducted by O'Brien (1987) on two
wetlands in eastern Massachusetts need to be
repeated on other sites. Because of the
uniqueness of each wetland setting in the
glaciated landscape, however, the transferability
of data from one site to another is always in
question. As summarized by O'Brien (1987),
"the difficult task of ground water investigation
is to define the role of the wetland in the larger
ground water regime, to show how alteration will
affect that ground water regime, and to predict
the effect of the mitigation on the ground water".
On a more applied level, information is
needed concerning the success rate of creating
wetlands in different hydrogeologic settings. Is
the potential for success greater in stratified
sand and gravel through excavation into the
saturated zone and creation of a water-table
wetland, or by creating perched conditions on
low-permeability tills and relying on surface
water inputs to drive the system?
In terms of soils, we need to know in what
situations it is critical to use true organics to
maintain recharge-discharge relationships and
water quality functions. The significance of
disturbed organic soil profiles in relation to these
processes is another question. Further, we need
to know more about the chemical changes and
resulting water quality concerns and/or
impediments to plant growth which occur when
wetland soils are dewatered, physically
disturbed, and subjected to possibly different
water regimes and therefore different redox
patterns.
Much research is needed on why planting
measures are successful on one site and fail on
another. In what situations is fertilization or
liming necessary? Horticultural expertise is
needed in propagation and planting of wetland
species to improve the success rate of this most
basic of goals. Questions also remain
concerning when natural colonization of
vegetation is preferable to planting of
commercial stock or transplanting from nearby
wetlands. Finally, to what extent should success
of the created/restored wetland be assessed by the
success of the vegetative component: is there a
direct correlation between vegetative composition
and structure and the presence or degree of other
wetland functions?
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, P. 1983. A Method For Wetland Functional
Assessment. USDOT FHWA Report No.
FHWA-IP-82-24.
Butts, M.P. 1988. Status of wetland creation/mitigation
projects on state highway projects in Connecticut, p.
13-18. In M.W. Lefor and W.C. Kennard (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Fourth Connecticut Institute of
Water Resources Wetlands Conference, "Wetlands
Creation and Restoration", November 15,1986, Univ.
of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Benson, D. and D. Foley. 1956. Waterfowl use of
small, man-made wildlife marshes in New York
State. N.Y. Fish and Game Journal 3(2):218-224.
Cook, A.H. and CJ1. Powers. 1958. Early biochemical
changes in the soils and waters of artificially
created marshes in New York. N.Y. Fish and Game
Journal 5(l):9-65.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Daylor, F.F. 1987. Engineering considerations in
wetlands mitigation, p. 101-114. In J.S. Larson and
C. Neill (Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater Wetland
Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United
States: An Assessment of the Science Base.
Proceedings of a workshop at the Univ. of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Sept. 29-30, 1986. Univ. of
Massachusetts Environmental Institute Publ. No.
87-1.
Golet, F.C. 1986. Critical issues in wetland mitigation:
a scientific perspective. National Wetlands
Newsletter 8(5):3-6.
Golet, F.C. and J.S. Larson. 1974. Classification of
Freshwater Wetlands in the Glaciated Northeast.
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resource Publ. 116.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Washington, D.C.
Golet, F.C. and J.A. Parkhurst. 1981. Freshwater
wetland dynamics in South Kingston, Rhode Island.
283
-------
Environ, Mftflflg6- 5:245-261.
Heeley, R.W. 1973. Hydrogeology of wetlands in
Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis, Univ.of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Hollands, G. 1987. Hydrogeologic classification of
wetlands in glaciated regions. National Wetlanda
Newsletter 9(2):6-9.
Hollands, G., G.E. Hollis, and J.S Larson. 1987.
Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in
the glaciated northeastern United States: hydrology,
p. 131-143. In J.S. Larson and C. Neill (Eds.),
Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the
Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
Assessment of the Science Base. Proceedings of a
workshop at the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Sept. 29-30, 1986. Univ. of Massachusetts
Environmental Institute Publ. No. 87-1.
Larson, J.S. 1976. Models for Assessment of
Freshwater Wetlands. Water Resources Research
Ctr., Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst. PubL No. 32.
Larson, JJS. 1987. Wetland mitigation in the glaciated
northeast: risks and uncertainties, p. 4-16. In J.S.
Larson and C.S. Neill (Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater
Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern
United States: An Assessment of the Science Base.
Proceedings of a workshop at the Univ. of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Sept. 29-30, 1986. Univ. of
Massachusetts Environmental Institute Publ. No.
87-1.
Larson, J.S. and C. Neill (Eds.). 1987. Mitigating
Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated
Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the
Science Base. Proceedings of a workshop held at
Univ. of Mass., Amherst. September 29-30,1986. The
Environmental Institute Publ. No. 87-1.
Lathwell, DJ., HJ. Mulligan, and DM. Boudin. 1969.
Chemical properties, physical properties and plant
growth in twenty artificial marshes. N.Y. Fish and
Game Journal 16(2):158-183.
Lezberg, A. (in prep.). The Ecology and Conservation
of Northeastern Deciduous Forested Wetlands.
Massachusetts Audubon Society Environmental
Science Dept.
Lowry, D.J., EH. Sorenson, and DM. 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, "Wetlands Creation and Restoration",
November 15,1986, Stem, Connecticut.
Maltby, E. 1987. Soils science base for freshwater
wetland mitigation in the northeastern United States,
p. 17-52. In J.S. Larson and C. Neill (Eds.),
Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the
Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
Assessment of the Science Base. Proceedings of a
workshop at the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Sept. 29-30, 1986. Univ. of Massachusetts
Environmental Institute Publ. No. 87-1.
Motts, W.S. and A.L. O'Brien. 1981. Geology and
Hydrology of Wetlands in Massachusetts. Pub. No.
123. Water Resources Research Center, Univ. of
Mass., Amherst.
NOAA. 1979. Climatic Atlas of the United States.
Washington, D.C.
Novitzki, R.P. 1981. Hydrology of Wisconsin
Wetlands. U.S. Geol. Surv. and Univ.
Wisconsin-Extension Geol. and Natural Hist. Surv.
Info. Circ. 40.
O'Brien, A.L. 1977. Hydrology of two small wetland
basins in eastern Massachusetts. Water Resources
Bulletin 13(2):325-340.
O'Brien, A.L. 1987. Hydrology and the construction of
mitigating wetland, p. 82-100. In J.S. Larson and C.S.
Neill (Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater Wetland in the
Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
Assessment of the Science Base. Proceedings of a
workshop at the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Sept. 29-30, 1986. The Environmental Institute Publ.
No. 87-1.
Peters, C.R. 1988. The significance of hydrogeology to
the mitigation of functions in freshwater wetlands of
the glaciated northeast. 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.
Pierce, G.J. 1983. New York State Department of
Transportation Wetland Construction. National
Wetlanda Newsletter 5(6): 12-13.
Pierce, GJ. and AJJ. Amerson. 1982. A pilot project for
wetlands construction on the floodplain of the
Allegheny River in Cattaraugus County, New York,
p. 140-153. In R.H. Stoval (ed.), Proceedings of the
Eighth Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration
and Creation. Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida.
Reimold, R.J. and S.A. Cobler. 1986. .Wetlands
Mitigation Effectiveness. A Report to the EPA Region
I, Contract No. 6844-0015.
Sheehan, MJ. 1987. Regulating Success. New England
Division, Army Corps of Engineers. Unpubl. draft
manuscript.
Southern Tier Consulting. 1987. Wetland
Demonstration Project, Allegheny River Floodplain.
State of New York Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration contract #D250336-CPIN
511941.321.
Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory
Project, Washington, D.C.
Veneman, P.L.M. 1987. Science base for freshwater
wetland mitigation in the northeastern United
States: soils, p. 115-121. In J.S. Larson and C. Neill
(Eds.), Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations
in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
Assessment of the Science Base. Proceedings of a
workshop at the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Sept. 29-30, 1986. Univ. of Massachusetts
Environmental Institute Publ. No. 87-1.
284
-------
APPENDIX I: PROJECT PROFILES
The following brief project profiles are representative
of wetland creation projects in the northeast. They are
obviously not intended to be a comprehensive listing,
nor was any attempt made to critically review the
status/success of the sites.
ANDOVER BUSINESS PARE, ANDOVER,
MASSACHUSETTS
Project Purpose: Construction of office park; wetland
fill-in occurred for access road, additional wetland
alteration occurred for flood-storage compensation.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: 1.5 acres palustrine scrub-
shrub & palustrine emergent marsh with channelized
stream.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 1.5 acres palustrine
emergent marsh with non-channelized surface flow.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: Approximately 8-10 acres of
palustrine forested on relatively deep (up to 30 feet)
peat
Wetland Type/Area Created: Restoration plan proposes
to establish 3 acres of palustrine emergent marsh, 2
acres of palustrine scrub-shrub, and 1 acre palustrine
aquatic bed around 3 acres palustrine open water.
Procedure: Re-grading with drag-line equipment.
Planting of over 30,000 tubers of emergents and 1000
shrubs.
Statute Restoration completed during summer of 1988.
Monitoring of plant and wildlife communities
required by 404 permit.
SYFELD SITE, KEENE, NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Excavation, re-grading of original soils, Project Purpose: Construction of shopping center.
no plantings, water level control via culverts.
Status Completed spring of 1984. Monitoring of plant
species composition and cover for 3 years. See Lowry et
al. (1988).
COULTER DRIVE ACCESS ROAD,
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
Wetland Type/Area Lost: Estimated to be 10-13 acres of
palustrine forested and palustrine open water.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 5 acres of palustrine
open water.
Procedure; Excavation.
Statute Unknown.
Project Purpose: Construction of access road.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: 6000 square feet palustrine
scrub-shrub, 9000 square feet palustrine emergent
marsh, 6000 square feet palustrine open water.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 12000 square feet
palustrine scrub-shrub, 14000 square feet palustrine
emergent marsh, 3000 square feet palustrine open
water.
Procedure: Excavation, re-grading of original soils
for emergent and shrub portions (no soils placed in
open water area), planting of shrubs but not emergenta.
Completed spring of 1984; plant species
composition data obtained for 3 years. See Lowry et al.
(1988).
SKY MEADOW, DUNSTABLE,
MASSACHUSETTS & NASHUA, NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Project Purpose: Construction of golf course and
condominiums. Wetland filling/excavation occurred
for golf course.
DIGITAL EQUD7MENT CORPORATION,
LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS
Project Purpose: Office park construction; wetland
created out of construction-phase sedimentation pond to
accept and treat treated sewage effluent and parking
lot runoff.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: None.
Wetland Type/Area Created: Approximately 1 acre
palustrine emergent marsh.
Procedure: Placement of progressively finer mineral
substrate (rock to gravel to sand) in deep pond, covered
with geotextile fabric and then organic soils; planted
with emergents.
Status Project completed circa 1985. Monitoring
unknown, although wetland appears healthy.
FAFARD COMPANIES, MILFORD,
MASSACHUSETTS
Project Purpose: Office park construction; wetland
285
-------
filling for access road.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: Acre pahistrine forested.
Wetland Type/Area Created: Pahistrine open water
and palustrine emergent marsh, approximately 1 acre.
Pr
Excavation followed by replacement of
original wetland soil.
Status: Project partially completed in 1985, additional
wetland area under construction in 1987 and 1988.
TAMPOSI AND NASH, NASHUA, NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Project Purpose: Construction of industrial park.
Wetland Type/Area Loot: 1.9 acres palustrine
emergent marsh.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 1.7 acres palustrine
emergent marsh.
Pr
Unknown.
Status Constructed fall of 1984; present condition
unknown.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 22 acres palustrine open
water/palustrine emergent marsh.
Pr
Excavations.
Status Constructed in summer of 1985; see Butts (1988).
PORTSMOUTH HOSPITAL,
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Project Purpose: Construction of new hospital.
Wetland type/Area Lost: 4 acres palustrine emergent
marsh.
Wetland Type/Area Created: Palustrine emergent
marsh/palustrine open water.
Procedures Excavation followed by re-grading of soils
from original wetland.
Statue Constructed in 1986. Plant species composition
data being obtained.
SOUTHERN HER
EXPRESSWAY/ALLEGHENY RIVER
VALLEY, NEW YORK
NEW LONDON AND NEWINGTON,
CONNECTICUT, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANPORTATION
Project Purpose: Construction of highway.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: 20 acres palustrine
forested/palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent
marsh.
Project Purpose: Highway construction.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: 43 acres.
Wetland Type/Area Created: Palustrine emergent
marsh/palustrine open water 78 acres.
PIT
m See Pierce 1983.
Status See Southern Tier Consulting 1987.
286
-------
REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CREATION AND
RESTORATION OF KETTLE AND POTHOLE WETLANDS
Garret* G. Hollands
IEP,lnc.
ABSTRACT. Kettles are topographic basins created by a variety of glacial processes and occur
randomly throughout glaciated regions. They are associated with both permeable and
impermeable deposits. Kettle wetlands can have complex hydrology but are divided into two
general hydrologic types: those having no inlet or outlet streams, and those associated with
surface water streams. Kettle ground water hydrology is generally described as that
associated with permeable deposits where ground water is an important part of their water
balance, and that associated with low permeability deposits where ground water is not the
dominant element of their water balance. Complex relationships of surface water, ground
water, water chemistry and other hydrologic elements combine to create water balances. This
has been documented in the Prairie Potholes region where site specific hydrologic research has
been conducted. Specialized soils and vegetation occur in kettles with unique hydrology.
Kettle wetlands have wetland functions similar to other freshwater wetland types.
Kettle-like wetlands have been created by man for a variety of purposes. Creation of
kettles for mitigation has occurred at only a few locations. Renovation of Prairie Potholes has
occurred with success.
Creating kettle wetlands is similar to other types of freshwater wetland creation, except
where unique vegetation and hydrology are involved and replication may be a complex,
technical effort. Identification of limiting factors is critical to wetland creation. Typical
factors important to kettle wetlands are: surface water hydrology, ground water hydrology,
stratigraphy, soils, and water chemistry. Depending upon the goals of the project, other
limiting factors may include: nuisance animals, long term maintenance/monitoring, lack
of funds, and disposals of excavated soil.
The primary concern in creating kettle wetlands is the establishment of the proper
hydrology. This normally requires mid-course corrections in design during construction to
establish proper post-construction hydrology.
Critical research needs include studies on microstratigraphy, geochemical processes, the
properties of organic soil, and the details of hydrology.
INTRODUCTION
There is little literature available these wetlands. The portions of this chapter
concerning the subject of wetland creation and which discuss wetland creation and restoration
restoration. Literature available specific to kettle are based upon interviews with those people who
and pothole wetland restoration and creation is have had actual experience, primarily in
even more scarce. This chapter defines what restoration, and my own experience in creating
kettles and pothole wetlands are and cites the kettle and through-flowing wetlands in
small amount of literature available to describe Massachusetts.
DEFINITION OF WETLAND TYPES
The word "kettle" is a glacial geologic term buried glacier ice in glacial drift (Flint 1971,
which applies to basins created by ablation of American Geological Institute 1972). The term
287
-------
"kettlehole" is an improper term. The term
"pothole" is synonymous, with the term "kettle"
and is generally used in the prairie states. Other
terms such as "ice-block cast" (Kaye 1960) and
"circular disintegration ridge" (Clayton 1967)
are also used throughout the geologic literature to
further subdivide and classify kettles. It is
sufficient to say that there are a large number of
types of kettles which were formed in highly
variable sedimentary environments associated
with wasting glaciers. Kettles are a subtype
ice-disintegration feature (Flint 1971) and are
specifically related to buried ice.
Three basic types of kettles (Flint 1971)
occur: (1) those associated with coarse-grained
stratified drift; (2) those associated with glacial
till; and (3) those associated with a combination
of till and stratified drift, both fine and course
grained. Kettles occur less commonly in till
than in stratified drift. Kettles in stratified drift
tend to have regular shapes, whereas kettles in
till are generally irregular.
Flint (1971) recognized three sources of kettle
origin: (1) buried ice projecting through stratified
drift; (2) buried ice below and covered with
stratified drift, and (3) ice buried within or on top
of stratified drift. Each type creates a different
depth of depression from deepest to shallowest,
respectively. The first may have till exposed in
the bottom whereas the bottoms of the latter two
generally contain stratified drift.
Flint (1971) also stated that....
"Kettles are peculiar to the terminal zone
of a glacier where thinning is actively
in progress. Many occur at the proximal
bases of end moraines where thin
glacier termini stagnated and became
detached and covered with till, possibly
by overriding ice from upstream. In
some areas a peripheral belt of glacier
ice many kilometers in width becomes
stagnant and separates into isolated
masses chiefly through meltwater
ablation. Stratified drift deposited upon
and between such masses creates
extensive complexes of kettles."
Flint (1971) chose to differentiate depressions
in which till predominates from those
predominated by stratified drift. He subdivided
depressions where till predominates into two
broad classes: hummocky ablation drift and
disintegration ridges. The term "ground
moraine" has been used by some geologists to
map areas where these features are common.
Hummocky ablation drift is a random
assemblage of hummocks, ridges, basins, and
small plateaus, without pronounced parallelism
and without significant form or orientation
(Flint 1971). Two processes of creation of
hummocky ablation drift were described.
Ablation drift may form on top of wasting
glacier ice and be slowly dropped onto the land
surface as the ice melts. The second way occurs
as the glacier melts upwards from its base. A
combination of the two processes was probably
common. Many prairie potholes occur in this
type of terrain.
Disintegration ridges are orderly rather
than chaotic features, generally long, straight, or
curved ridges of till or stratified drift and in
some cases associated with valleys. Some are
circular or ring shaped (Clayton 1967). They are
the result of the filling of crevices and other
openings in disintegrating ice, by both down-
wasting and upward-wasting processes.
More complex kettles occur such as
ice-walled lakes (Clayton and Cherry 1967).
They were formed when lakes occurred on top of
wasting glacier ice. Subsequent melting of the
ice created depressions rimmed with gravel and
underlain by fine-grained lacustrine sediments.
They are common features of central North
America.
The American Geological Institute (1972)
defines kettles in the following manner:
"kettle [glac geol]: A steep-sided, usually
basin or bowl-shaped hole or depression
without surface drainage in glacial-drift
deposits (esp. outwash and kame), often
containing a lake or swamp, and
believed to have formed by the melting of
a large, detached block of stagnant ice
(left behind by a retreating glacier) that
had been wholly or partly buried in the
glacial drift. A kettle is usually 10-15 m
deep, and 30-150 m in diameter. Cf:
pothole [glac geol.] Syn: kettle hole;
kettle basin."
Whereas most kettles are associated with
continental glaciation, kettles are also
associated with end moraines and outwash of
mountain glaciation. Some kettle-like features
are associated with rock glaciers and other
periglacial features, while others have been
created by eolian processes (deflation basins) or
animal activities (buffalo wallows). Many
kettles have been created by glacial activities but
modified by the eolian activities of deflation and
deposition, and animal activities including those
of man.
In summary, ice disintegration features, of
which kettles are the topographically negative or
depression feature, result from the separation
and disintegration of a marginal belt of ice.
This condition occurs where and when the ice is
thin and stagnant or very slowly flowing. In the
288
-------
northern Great Plains, till is the dominant
material of kettles. In areas of more regional
relief, such as the New England, Mid Atlantic
and Mid West states, stratified drift pre-
dominates.
For the purposes of this chapter the terms
"kettle" and "pothole" are synonymous. They
refer to any depression which was formed by
glacial, periglacial, or eolian processes, and
occur on glacial deposits of the Pleistocene Epoch.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Kettle wetlands occur only in those portions
of the United States which were glaciated during
the Pleistocene Epoch (2 million to 10,000 year
B.P.). This area includes all or portions of
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass-
achusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado, Utah,
Oregon, and California. Alaska is not included
in this discussion but contains numerous kettles
of glacial and periglacial origin.
HYDROLOGY
Hydrology is believed to be the most
dominant limiting factor controlling the
occurrence of a wetland (Hollands, Hollis, and
Larson 1987); therefore emphasis on hydrology is
given in this chapter. Classification of kettle
hydrology has been most specific in the prairie
pothole region of the northern Great Plains
(Meyborm 1966, Sloan 1970, Steward and Kantrud
1971, Eisenlohr et al. 1972, Malo 1975, Millar
1976, Winter and Carr 1980, Winter 1983).
Kettles have been included in other hydrologic
and vegetative classifications of wetlands (Shaw
and Predine 1956, Heely 1973, Golet and Larson
1973, Hollands and Mulica 1978, Cowardin et al.
1979, Novitzki 1982, Hollands 1987).
A number of attempts have been made to
simplify the hydrogeologic classification of
wetlands, but they also point out the complexity of
wetland hydrology. Kettle wetlands are included
in some hydrogeologic wetland classifications,
although none are specific to kettles. (Steward
and Kantrud 1971, Heeley 1973, Hollands and
Mulica 1978, Motts and O'Brien 1981, Winter
1981, Novitzki 1982, Hollands 1987).
All of the nontidal water regime modifiers of
the National Wetland Classification (Cowardin
et al. 1979) apply to kettles. Both saline and
mixosaline water chemistry modifiers also
apply. The modifiers for pH (acid,
circumneutral, and alkaline) may apply to
appropriate kettles.
Two general types of kettle hydrology occur;
those associated with surface streams, and those
which are hydrologically isolated kettles.
KETTLES WITH NO INFLOWING OR
OUTFLOWING SURFACE WATER
STREAMS
Kettles with no inflowing or outflowing
surface water are not through-flowing systems.
They generally have small water budgets not
dominated by flowing surface water. They can
be divided into three subtypes, as described below.
/
Water-Table Kettles
Water-table kettles are commonly associated
with stratified drift but also occur in till. Their
depressions penetrate into the water-table and
ground water dominates their water budget.
Depending upon their water-table level
fluctuations and surrounding elevation of the
ground water-table, they can fluctuate from
recharge to discharge conditions. Their cover
type varies from clear open water to densely
wooded swamps, including all the possible
vegetation types in between.
"Low Permeability Deosits
These kettles commonly are associated with
till but also occur on stratified drift where
micro-stratigraphic layers serve as a "perching"
or low-permeability layer. The term "perched1'
is a controversial term to ground water
geologists. Truly perched conditions seldom
occur, wherein unsaturated sediments are below
the saturated base of the wetland. Low
permeability deposits below the wetland cause
slow downward water movement, so that flooding
or saturated soils persist in the wetland long
289
-------
enough to give rise to a community of
hydrophytes. The water budget of these kettles is
dominated by direct precipitation, interflow, and
surface water runoff.
Kettles Fluctuating Between Water-Table
and
Water Balances
Some kettles seasonally fluctuate from a
water-table dominated water balance to one
dominated by precipitation. These occur both in
till and stratified drift, and respond to the
relative elevation of the water-table to the bottom
of the kettle and the yearly range of water-table
fluctuations.
KETTLES ASSOCIATED WITH SURFACE
WATER STREAMS
Kettles With Both an Tnlet and tm Outlet
These kettles are connected to the water-table
and perennial or ephemeral inlet and outlet
streams. Surface water or ground water may be
the dominant water budget element. Multiple
inlets and, less commonly, multiple outlets may
occur. These are generally complex hydrologic
systems where a variety of combinations of water
budget components is possible. Some of these
systems are identical to riverine wetlands and
others (ones with ephemeral inlets and outlets)
are more similar to "perched" kettles with no
inlets or outlets.
Kettles With Only an Outlet
These kettles generally occur in
coarse-grained stratified drift as water-table
discharge wetlands. Their outlet may be
perennial or ephemeral. They occur less
commonly in till where the outlet stream is
generally ephemeral.
Kettle With Only an Inlet
These kettles are predominantly water-table
recharge features which occur in coarse-grained
stratified drift. The inlet stream generally is
ephemeral but in rare cases the inlet stream is
perennial.
THE WATER BUDGET
A wide variety of water budgets may occur
for each of the six general kettle-hydrologic
categories described above. A water budget is
defined as:
Input = Output
PPt + SWi + GWi + IF + RO + Et = SWo + GWo + S
where:
PPt = Precipitation as rainfall or snowfall
directly on the wetland surface
SWi = Streamflow in
SWo = Streamflow out
GWi = Ground water discharge into wetland
GWo = Ground water recharge out of wetland
IF = Interflow or horizontal shallow ground
water flowabove the water-table
RO = Surface water runoff
Et = Evapotranspiration
S = Water storage within wetland as
surface water or soil water.
Hydrologic situations vary with only slight
modifications of one or more of the elements of
the water budget. In addition, as vegetation and
organic soils develop in the wetland, the water
budget will be modified (Gosselink and Turner
1978).
The hydrology of individual prairie potholes
is variable (Steward and Kantrud 1971).
However the typical pothole has cyclic hydrology
similar to that of kettle wetlands on till found in
New England. Many such kettles have a yearly
cycle fluctuating from a surface water pond in
the spring, dry land in the summer and fall, and
returning to a pond in the following late winter
and spring (Malo 1975). A pond located on dense
deposits such as till may result in a ground
water mound which recharges the water-table
(Winter 1983).
In summary, the hydrology of a kettle
wetland is complex and site specific. A large
number of combinations of water budget
components may exist. No simple, all-
encompassing statements can be made. To
determine or predict the water budget of either a
naturally-occurring kettle or man-made
depression requires detailed site specific data
collection and surface water and ground water
modeling. The Hydrology Panel of the National
Wetlands Values Assessment Workshop (U.S.
Pish and Wildlife Service 1983) made the
following statement:
290
-------
"It is the opinion of the Hydrology Panel
that water is the primary and critical
driving force underlying the creation
and maintenance of wetlands and that a
knowledge of wetland hydrology is basic
to an understanding of all wetland
functions. There has been little sub-
stantive work done on the hydrology of
wetlands, and we lack the knowledge
needed to evaluate hydrologic processes
in wetlands without careful measure-
ments. Continuing research has resulted
in a questioning of many of the basic
assumptions previously held by
hydrologists, especially in the areas of
ground water, generation of runoff, and
storm peaks. Therefore, an evaluation
based on an examination of recent
literature may be misleading. Further-
more, hydrology, unlike some functions
of wetlands, cannot be directly observed
or easily sampled. Hydrologic processes
must be carefully measured for a long
enough period to ensure that the
measurements are meaningful and that
uncertainty or error limits can be
included. Water budgets are very
important, but underlying assumptions
and inherent errors must be identified.
The state-of-the-art in wetland hydrology
is not such that we can make definitive
statements about recharge, discharge, or
evapotranspiration from maps or site
visits. We cannot extrapolate from the
results of a few comprehensive wetland
hydrology studies to all wetlands
because of the complexity and variety of
the hydrologic systems involved. More
research to provide an improved
capability to quantify and describe basic
processes, such as evapotranspiration,
recharge, and discharge, would improve
our capability to measure and assess
wetland functions."
SOILS
Many types of wetland (hydric) soils can be
found in kettles, ranging from sapric, fibric,
and hemic organic soils to hydric mineral soils.
Thick organic soils are generally associated
with water-table wetlands, while hydric mineral
soils are predominantly associated with
ephemeral kettles. The type of soil is determined
by the kettle's hydrology, vegetation, and the
import and export (retention) of organic matter.
Hydric soils of the glaciated Northeast have been
described by Tiner and Veneman (1987).
VEGETATION
Any type of wetland vegetation adaptable to
the climatic region where the kettle is located
may occur. As with other wetlands, the vegetation
is primarily determined by hydrology
(hydroperiod and chemistry). Kettles in the
Northeast are predominantly red maple wooded
swamps or bogs. In the Midwest they contain
mostly shrub/scrub, bog, or coniferous forest
communities. In the northern Great Plains states
they contain a variety of marsh communities
and unique vegetation such as "willow rings".
Kettle wetlands include riverine, lacustrine,
and palustrine types as characterized by the Nat-
ional Wetland Classification System (Cowardin
et al. 1979) although palustrine wetlands
predominate. Most of the various subsystems and
classes may occur. Along the New England
coastline (Long Island to New York) estuarine
kettles also occur, but this chapter does not
discuss these.
The more specialized plant communities
found in prairie potholes are best described in
Steward and Kantrud (1972). In some cases, such
as the raised bogs in Washington County,
Maine, kettles may have served as the "seeds"
within which bogs originated and paludification
occurred to the point where the bogs grew well
beyond the original kettle basins.
291
-------
KEY FUNCTIONS
Kettle wetlands, because of their variability,
have the potential to perform all of the ten
functions described by Adamus (1983). On the
other hand, the many kettles which are isolated
surface water systems (not riverine) have less
value for those functions dependent upon a
through-flowing surface water system such as
"flood storage" and "food chain support". These
isolated wetlands also do not have the potential
for additive value (i.e., contributing to the greater
value of downstream ecosystems), but they may
be site specifically important (Davis et al. 1981).
Isolated kettles may retain all the water that
enters them, whereas water in riverine systems
drains back to the river. In some regions these
isolated wetlands have considerable additive
value as part of a ground water
recharge/discharge regional aquifer system
(Winter and Carr 1980, Winter 1983) or their
special interspersion may be valuable to wildlife
(Brown and Dinsmore 1986). Site specific
investigations should be made to determine what
functions a specific kettle wetland may perform.
EXTENT TO WHICH CREATION/RESTORATION HAS OCCURRED
Creation of kettle-like wetlands has taken
place for reasons other than compensating for
wetlands which have been filled. Many
kettle-like wetlands have been created by
accident. The following discussion illustrates the
kinds of kettle-like wetlands which have been
created.
IRRIGATION PONDS
Ponds dug into the water-table to provide
water for irrigation purposes are widespread in
agricultural areas. Vegetative communities have
colonized both active and abandoned irrigation
ponds.
FARM PONDS
Numerous farm ponds have been and
continue to be created. Some are quite old, but
most have been constructed since the 1950's when
government sponsored programs began to aid
farmers in creating ponds for cattle and other
purposes. They have evolved into various
vegetation types (Dane 1959). Extensive literature
is available from the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) on creating multipurpose farm ponds.
The literature describes how to locate and
construct a pond so that it has a viable water
balance. Many of these ponds have very
low-water budgets and are hydrologically
isolated. Many have developed extensive wetland
vegetation communities. USFWS has investiga-
ted the wetlands which have been developing in
some of these farm ponds (Tiner pers. comm.
1987).
GRADING ACTIVITIES
Land grading associated with urban
development and agriculture is used primarily to
remove areas where ponded water occurs. In
some cases the land grading fails and actually
creates ponded water, which, in turn, becomes a
vegetated wetland.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Highway, driveway, and railroad
construction in some places have inadvertently
trapped water behind embankments. In some
locations the necessary culverts were not
installed, or were incorrectly installed,
undersized, or have become plugged. The
resulting ponded water has allowed vegetated
wetlands to become established in previously
upland areas.
GRAVEL PIT AND QUARRY PONDS
In many places gravel and rock excavations
have created ponds in both low permeability and
water-table hydrogeologic situations. Vegetative
communities of a wide variety of types have
developed within these ponds following
abandonment.
EXCAVATION BY USE OF EXPLOSIVES
Military bombing and artillery ranges occur
within the United States, where craters are
blasted into the earth during training exercises.
Many of these craters intersect the water-table.
Some have created depressions in which the
bottoms are compacted by the force of the blast.
292
-------
Both "perched" and water-table wetland
vegetative communities have formed in these
craters. Elsewhere, for example in Vietnam,
hundreds of thousands of such "pothole"
wetlands have been created by bombing. Many
are used today for agricultural purposes, others
contain wetlands used by fish and wildlife.
Explosives have also been employed to create
pothole wetlands for wildlife habitat creation and
management (Mathiak 1965, Strohmeger and
Frederickson 1967).
CRANBERRY BOGS
Prior to the early 1970's, most cranberry bogs
were created by converting a natural wetland
into a managed cranberry bog. Investigations
conducted by the USPWS (Tiner pers. comm.
1988) show that since 1977 approximately 60% of
new cranberry bogs have been created from
upland areas. Complex dike and water-control
structures and activities are associated with
commercially-operated bogs. Many created bogs
have been abandoned and have become shrub or
wooded swamps. Numerous examples of these
occur in southeastern Massachusetts.
WETLANDS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO
KETTLE WETLANDS CREATED FOR
WETLAND MITIGATION PURPOSES
Wetlands have also been created to compensate
for permitted wetland losses. Examples include:
Route 25.
The construction of Route 25 in 1986 and 1987
in Bourne, Massachusetts, by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works, filled approx-
imately nine acres of viable cranberry bog. After
an extensive adjudicatory hearing, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering issued a Final Order of
Conditions under the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (MGL Chapter 131, Section 40)
which required the creation of nine acres of
replacement wetlands. This new wetland
contains no inlet or outlet and is a water-table
wetland. While it was intended only to create a
shallow marsh, the resulting wetland should be
similar to wetlands found in kettles in the
surrounding outwash plain.
was created by excavation into the water-table. It
was designed to contain vegetation communities
of shrub swamp and shallow marsh as well as
open water. The wetland has survived three
growing seasons and the vegetation communities
have been successfully established with the
exception of the shrub swamp, which was killed
by unusually high water during the summer of
1987. This illustrates the difficulty in controlling
or predicting water levels in wetlands having no
outlet control, and the sensitivity of woody plants
to water levels.
Prairie Potholes in North Dakota. South
- and
A roadway constructed by the Town of
Concord filled one half acre of wetland
consisting of mostly shrub swamp and a small
irrigation pond. As required by the
Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act (MGL
Chapter 131, Section 40), a replacement wetland
Approximately 200 acres of prairie pothole
wetland have been created by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation at the Indian Hill Tract in North
Dakota. The project was an area of drained
potholes where the hydrology of the wetlands was
restored. Revegetation has successfully been
completed. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. has been
restoring prairie potholes in numerous locations
in the Dakotas, and has successfully created new
wetlands from upland in the National Grassland
of South Dakota and Montana. The Northern
Prairie Research Station, Jamestown, North
Dakota has restored prairie potholes for the last
ten years in the pothole region of the northern
Great Plains. Many types of potholes have been
restored to accomplish a number of goals. Other
organizations which have attempted to create or
restore prairie potholes have been state highway
departments, the Federal Highway Admin-
istration, and state fish and game departments.
TYPICAL GOALS FOR PROJECT
AND "SUCCESS"
Project goals should be as simple and as
specific as possible, with clearly stated criteria to
measure success. For example, a goal could be
no more than to create ten acres of shallow
marsh. Although, the goal is, perhaps, overly
simplistic, success would, in this case, be judged
by measuring the mitigation area to determine if
ten acres of wetland was created and
determining if that wetland was a shallow
marsh. Conversely, multiple goals requiring
complex monitoring and analysis of data may
result in an inability to determine success.
If the goal is to recreate a wetland at a
different location, then it is necessary to assess
in detail the wetland which will be lost because a
comparative analysis of the new versus old
wetland will be required. A detailed inventory
of all elements of the existing wetland should be
undertaken. These data should be used to assess
the functions of the wetland (Larson 1987).
Current wetland assessment methods (i.e.,
Adamus 1983, Hollands and Magee 1986) are not
293
-------
capable of detailed assessment of the function of
individual wetlands, but are useful for regional
wetland assessments. Larson (1987) states. . .
"the role of wetlands in flood-water
detention can be estimated and replicated
with reasonable certainty and
sufficiently low risk so as to provide
useful guidance for replicating this
function when wetland losses-are truly
unavoidable. But the science base of
knowledge is too incomplete to support
assertions that artificial wetlands will
provide the other functions of natural
wetlands, especially those associated with
water supply, water quality and nutrient
transformations."
In any case, the function or value of the
wetland planned for destruction should be
quantified. For example, if 900,000 acre-feet of
natural valley wetland flood storage is to be
taken by filling and the goal is to recreate the
same amount of natural valley flood storage in
the mitigation wetland, then the creation of
900,000 acre-feet of new flood storage at an equal
elevation to the original wetland is measurable
and evidence of success. It is not necessary to
monitor the next 100-year flood to see if the
flood-storage mitigation actually maintained
flood-stage elevations. Such a measurement not
only would be very difficult to perform and
analyze, but could require decades before the data
were collected!
Many of the functions which the literature
ascribes to wetlands are poorly defined, and may
be extremely difficult to quantify or qualify by
expensive and detailed field examinations.
Predicting that a new wetland will function
similar to a naturally occurring wetland is very
difficult and determining the success of a
replacement wetland even more difficult (Larson
and Neill 1987). Each step introduces new
problems, infuses new assumptions, and
increases the probability of error. Another
method is to duplicate, as closely as possible, the
water surface elevations, soils types, and
inundation frequencies without planting of
vegetation. If this is successfully done then an
assumption can be made that the area will
become a wetland and it will recreate the lost
wetland.
In-kind replication is not possible for all
elements of a natural wetland. In its fullest
sense, in-kind replication implies that the
replacement wetland will be identical to the
original wetland. This is impossible (Golet 1986).
One can not recreate identically a complex
wetland that is the product of glacial geologic
processes, and 14,000 years of plant, soil, and
hydrologic evolution. The only in-kind
replication possible must have a very simple
definition, such as creating the same type of
dominant vegetation class (i.e., Red Maple
Wooded Swamp = Red Maple Wooded Swamp).
To carry the term in-kind further than such
broad and simple criteria is impossible.
It is important to recognize that a clearly
defined goal is a very important part of the
regulatory process. Failure to achieve a goal
could be the basis for court action, and defense of
the goal criteria/definition is a critical court
issue. Failure to pick realistic goals which could
be defensible in court may result in enforcement
failure.
A key goal in any replication/restoration
project should be to create a site hydrology which
will persist in perpetuity with little or no
maintenance, and which will support the desired
vegetation community.
REASONS FOR FAILURE/SUCCESS
Determining that a project is a failure or
success requires well defined and measurable
goals. Without them, measuring success or
failure is an arbitrary and personal judgment.
In the world of high-cost land development and
courtroom proceedings, goals must be specific,
quantifiable, and reproducible to be legally
defensible.
The following is a partial list of reasons for
project failure; project success results from
proper attention to each:
1. Goals not properly identified,
2. Lack of information on the lost wetland,
3. Geohydrology not correctly created (e.g., no
low permeability layer created or one which
leaks, or a water-table which is not
understood properly and is too deep or too
shallow),
4. Water budget not understood (e.g., too little
or too much water),
5. Improper soils,
6. Improper water chemistry (e.g., saline),
7. Improper planting (e.g., wrong plant species
or density),
8. Improper maintenance,
9. Nuisance animals (e.g., geese),
10. Not constructed as designed—lack of
inspection,
294
-------
11. No effective monitoring,
12. No enforcement by government agencies,
13. Lack of funds-economics,
14 No method to evaluate degree to which goals
have been achieved,
15. No long-term management plan and funds to
maintain the system once success has been
achieved (e.g., no unconditional guarantee),
and
16. Failure to identify and address "limiting
factors."
Success is greatly increased for restoration
projects where the wetland basin and soil
remain, but where the hydrology was altered and
can be restored. For example, with a drained
prairie pothole, simply removing drainage
devices, (e.g., ditches) and restoring the "plug"
results in re-establishment of the wetland's
hydrology (Meeks pers. comm. 1987).
Revegetation may occur naturally or limited
planting may be required, especially if a certain
plant community is desired.
REASONS FOR
RESTORATION/REPLICATION
Most restoration of kettle wetlands has
occurred in North and South Dakota and has
been performed by Ducks Unlimited, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, and the USFWS. These
projects have been primarily for restoration of
waterfowl habitat, in particular, brood and
nesting habitat for ducks. While other functions
have also been desired, waterfowl habitat is
dominant (Meeks pers. comm. 1987). Another
value resulting from the pothole restoration is
creation of habitat for other upland and wetland
dependent game and non-game species.
Opportunities for recreational activities such as
hunting, trapping, fishing, and bird watching
are values which have also been enhanced
(McCabe, pers. comm. 1987).
In Massachusetts the goals for kettle-type
wetland replication have not been wildlife-
oriented, as wildlife habitat only became a state
protectable wetland function on November 1,
1987. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
does not require in-kind replication but only the
replacement of wetland function in a "similar
manner" (Dept. Env. Qual. Eng. 1983). Kettle-
type wetlands have been created to provide for the
functions of public and private water supply (fire
ponds and farm ponds), flood control
(natural-valley flood storage), prevention of
pollution (water quality improvement), and
fisheries (fish ponds).
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
PRE-CONSTRUCTEON
CONSIDERATIONS
It is very important at the pre-construction
stage to determine the natural resource elements
of the original wetland, and of the wetland to be
restored or renovated (Larson 1987). This
determination should include a detailed
inventory of geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation
and wildlife. Following this inventory, the
functions of the wetland should be determined
quantitatively or qualitatively, as appropriate.
Failure to do so will prevent or, at a minimum,
greatly hinder design and later judgment of
success.
This basic inventory will establish criteria to
use in screening possible sites for replication. It
is also useful in determining limiting factors
(Meeks pers. comm. 1987). A limiting factor is
an element of the site's natural resource
elements that influences success. Limiting
factors may vary regionally, e.g., the
availability of water in the National Grasslands
where precipitation averages 12 inches per year.
Therefore, obtaining a site where the proper
water budget is available (large enough
watershed) is critical. Water may not be the
limiting factor in southeastern Massachusetts
where abundant rainfall (42 inches per year)
and shallow ground water are available. In
Massachusetts, the cost of land, averaging
$80-100,000 per buildable acre, is in many cases
the limiting factor.
Limiting factors may also be goal-related. If
the goal is to create wetlands to increase nesting
habitat and brood rearing areas (e.g., Ducks
Unlimited projects in the northern Great Plains),
then the limiting factor to success may be
designing sites so that predators such as fox,
raccoon, skunk, and coyote can be prevented
from destroying nests and broods. Restored
potholes for duck production without predator
control results in failures to meet the goal of
increased ducks (Meeks pers. comm. 1987).
One of the major, often overlooked,
295
-------
preconstruction considerations is the cost of
construction, monitoring, and maintenance over
a long period of time. A recent project in North
Attleborough, Massachusetts cost approximately
$1.6 million in construction cost alone for
approximately two acres of new wetland. This
does not include the cost of the land and
consultant fees. The site was particularly
expensive because of the need to blast bedrock.
Land ownership may also change and the new
owner may not be aware of his responsibility for
monitoring and maintenance, or the cost of these
activities.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The new wetland site must have enough
general elements to offer a high probability of
creating the hydrogeology desired. Hydrology is,
in general, the most common limiting factor.
Emphasis in the site selection process should be
given to hydrologic considerations.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
PLAN
Surficial geology/gtrgtigraphv
Surficial geology must be determined
because it is the basis for any hydrogeologic
analysis (O'Brien 1987). For example, it is
important to determine whether the site is
predominantly till or stratified drift. In many
cases, surficial geologic maps prepared by the
U.S. Geological Survey or state geological
surveys exist. For any replication site, test
borings or pits must be dug to determine site
stratigraphy. Both vertical and horizontal
stratigraphic variations in glacial deposits are
the norm. Permeability changes can be critical
to wetland hydrology. Many wetlands contain
micro-stratigraphy consisting of thin-low
permeability units which retard vertical water
movement. Failure to identify these units can
lead to complete failure to achieve the desired
wetland hydrology.
Hydrology
As previously noted, hydrology is the most
common limiting factor. For the purpose of this
chapter, a detailed discussion of hydrologic
elements is not possible. A number of site
specific hydrologic elements exist for wetlands
or potential wetland sites. Site-specific
water-budget analysis is strongly suggested.
Quantitative analyses are preferred, but
occasionally qualitative estimates of water
budget components may be sufficient.
Wetland Basin Design
The shape of a proposed or restored wetland
should be based upon hydrogeologic and
water-budget analysis, site characteristics, and
the intended goals. For a water-table dominated
wetland, the wetland basin must be excavated
into the water-table deep enough to attain the
desired hydroperiod for the intended vegetation
community. If the primary goal is to provide
fish habitat, the water depth needed for the target
species and their required life cycles must be
achieved. In some locations sufficient water
depth below thick winter ice is required to allow
over-wintering survival. The size and depth of
the wetland basin, in many cases, must be
related to the size of the contributing watershed to
insure a sufficient water budget.
Creation of wetlands by excavation into the
water-table commonly requires dewatering or
control of ground water inflow during
construction. This is especially true for wetlands
with no outlet. Restoration of such wetlands may
require outlet control structures such as dikes,
dams, and weirs. Management of excess water
in the intended wetland area and in any
excavations for outlet-control structures may
require dewatering. Dewatering methods include
the use of ditches, surface water pumps, and
drawdown wells. However, disposal of the
removed water may create downstream impacts
on water quantity, chemistry, and
sedimentation. Erosion control is also an
integral part of dewatering.
Watering
For many situations, especially for low
permeability wetlands, it is necessary to provide
additional water to create the required degree of
saturation to insure plant-growth success.
Commonly, construction occurs during the dry
months of July through November. Wetland
vegetation may be planted during these dry
months when sufficient natural water is
unavailable, but this is not advisable. A source
of artificial water such as trucked-in water, the
use of hydrants, piping, or installation of wells
may be needed, and this is usually very
expensive.
Timing ftf Construction
Timing of construction activities should
reflect intended wetland goals. Limiting factors
should be identified and considered in the project
schedule. The construction of the replicate
wetland should usually occur during the time
296
-------
when likelihood of success is optimal, not when
construction schedules are best served. However,
cost related to timing variations should be
examined. Construction during different periods
of the year may require different construction
methods, some of which could cause possible
wetland failure. Normally projects are timed for
construction during the dry season when earth
moving is the least problematic and excess water
and erosion control is minimal. Otherwise,
special and expensive equipment will be
necessary to work in wet conditions (e.g., barges,
draglines, all-terrain excavators).
fimigfraction Considerations
Cutting, Stumping and Grubbing—
Cutting, stumping and grubbing are the first
steps in many land excavation processes,
especially when upland is to be converted to
wetland. They may also be necessary in some
restoration projects where wooded swamps are to
be restored as open water or shallow marsh.
Disposal of trees, stumps, and boulders can be
difficult, particularly in cases where removal
from the site is required. On-site stump dumps
may be required and may need to be properly
located and designed. In some cases, such as
open water wetlands where warm water fish
habitat is desired, stumps may be left as hiding
places for fish or for topographic variations. In
some cases, stumps can be used in the wetland
design to create nesting islands.
Erosion and Sediment Control-
An erosion and sediment control plan should
be prepared and implemented during
construction, and as long thereafter as
necessary. All project phases typically require
erosion and sediment control. In some rare cases
the process must be continued for the life of the
project. Sediment damage to downstream areas
can be considerable and could severely impact
downstream ecosystems.
Excavation-
Excavations to create a kettle wetland can be
wide and deep, removing large quantities of
material. Disposal of this excess material may
be a problem. The excavated material should
become part of the cut and fill budget for the total
project. Commonly the earth removed for the
kettle basin is suitable as construction fill
elsewhere on site, or can be sold to offset costs of
the replication. In some cases, bedrock may be
encountered and ripping or blasting may be
required. Disposal of excess rock presents
additional problems. Cost of rock excavation is
much higher than unconsolidated material
excavation. The importance of depth to bedrock
data, obtained by borings, test pits, or seismic
profiling is critical and commonly a limiting
factor. Excess rock in some projects can be
designed into the wetland, used as shoreline
protection, islands for wildlife nesting, reefs for
fish habitat, or to create microtopography within
the wetland.
Side Slope Stabilization—
Excavation side slopes may fail and slump
if the stability of earth slope is not determined.
Excavation into the water-table, followed by
dewatering, commonly results in slumping.
Slopes where water levels fluctuate up and down
seasonally or during maintenance are prone to
slumping and should be designed to withstand
the fluctuations.
All of the above discussion applies to wetland
restoration projects, particularly to the
construction of outlet controls, dams, and dikes.
Restoration projects predominantly require much
less construction activity than do replication
projects. Restoration generally consists of
"plugging the drain" and allowing water to
raise to previous levels. More detailed design
specifications are obtainable in various civil
engineering sources.
Soils
The need for placing wetland-organic soils
in the bottom of the replication wetland is
debatable, depending upon the goals desired.
Obtaining organic soils is not always possible or
can be very expensive. Reuse of organic soils
from the lost wetland area is preferred, but also
presents problems of excavation, stockpiling, soil
chemistry changes, organic matter decomposi-
tion, sediment control, and water quality
protection. Placing saturated organic soils into a
new wetland area is extremely difficult,
commonly requiring low load-bearing tracked
equipment, which is not always obtainable.
Stabilization of these soils is also a problem.
The advantages of reusing wetland soils
include the fact that organic soils generally
maintain saturated conditions which helps
wetland plants survive droughts. They also
contain indigenous seed banks and root stock
which insures rapid revegetation with
appropriate plants. However, undesirable plants
(such as purple loosestrife) may also be
contained in the soils, creating management
problems which may become limiting factors in
achieving goals.
Revegetation
Vegetation is site-specific. If the goal is to
replicate the lost wetland in-kind it may be
impossible to achieve or it may take a number of
297
-------
years. An eastern red maple wooded swamp, for
example, cannot be said to have achieved in-kind
status until the trees have obtained an age equal
to those lost and all other characteristics of the
swamp are similar (Golet 1986). Some types of
vegetation such as floating bog communities
may be impossible or very difficult to create.
The hydroperiod of the desired vegetation
community must first be established before any
hope of creating the desired community is
achieved. If the proper hydrology and chemistry
is created then the desired vegetative community
should respond. Commonly, revegetation occurs
very rapidly following the creation of wetland
hydrology on fresh water sites, even with no
planting or seeding. In isolated kettles without
inflowing surface water, natural revegetation
may not occur due to lack of an inflowing seed
source. In these situations, seeding and planting
is necessary.
In most cases, use of a temporary
erosion-controlling grass seed mixture is desired
to stabilize the organic or hydric-mineral soils.
Control of nuisance animals and insects may be
required and, in some cases, may be a limiting
factor requiring considerable thought and
expense.
Water Chemistry
Some kettles such as saline potholes and acid
bogs have very unique water chemistries
(Steward and Kantrud 1971) which are the result
of age and complex histories. Reproducing these
chemistries will be extremely difficult, if not
impossible. Projects with goals to replicate
wetlands with unique water chemistries should
be reviewed carefully.
It should be much easier to achieve unique
water chemistry through renovation projects,
especially those where the original wetland
basin, soils, and hydrology are largely intact.
Simple replacement of the plug and passage of
time should give rise to a unique water
chemistry similar to the original wetland.
Reintrodiiction nf'Raima
The key to fauna! reintroduction is creation
of similar habitat. Actual transportation of fauna
to the new wetland is normally not necessary. If
creation of a fishery is a goal, stocking may be
needed, especially for game fish.
buffers such as woods, fences, hedges, and/or
open water may be necessary to prevent predation
or human intrusion during and after
construction. Buffers may also be important if
aesthetic goals are to be achieved. Buffers may
also be desirable to protect the wetland from
erosion or chemical wash-off from adjacent
uplands.
Long-term
Lack of a correct buffer from conflicting
land uses can be a limiting factor preventing
achievement of a particular goal. Buffers are
most important to wildlife, especially for species
dependent upon surrounding upland for much of
their life cycle (i.e., salamanders). Physical
Long-term management is an important
element in achieving many wetland goals.
Since wetlands are dynamic landscape
elements, changes within them are expected but
may be contrary to desired goals. If the goal is to
create a wet meadow within a low permeability
kettle in Massachusetts, that plant community
must be managed as a wet meadow, for it will
rapidly change to a shrub swamp or wood swamp
if woody vegetation is not controlled.
Management is also important since the best
plans and construction may not meet the site
limitations. Changes in hydrology may occur,
and soil may settle and consolidate when
saturated. The project should be designed as
"maintenance free" as possible. A project
heavily dependent upon significant long-term
maintenance activities should be thoroughly
reviewed before a permit is issued.
A number of problems occur with wetland
management. The first is land ownership. The
wetland replication/restoration site must be
dedicated legally as wetland forever. Restric-
tions or easements must be placed and recorded
upon the site's deed so that subsequent land
owners are aware of their responsibilities and
limitations. Private ownership of replicated
wetland is less likely to maintain wetland goals
than public ownership (Golet 1986). When
possible, wetland replication/restoration projects
should be deeded or leased to a government
agency, especially to one with the interest and
funding to maintain the wetland.
Funds must be available for long-term
maintenance of wetlands. Without the proper
funds, maintenance cannot occur. Maintenance
must be an integral part of a monitoring
program in order to assure success.
Enforcement is a very important part of a
mitigation program. Too often the replication/
restoration project is approved as mitigation in a
permit application. Upon issuance of the permit,
the project is forgotten by the regulatory agency
and no inspection is conducted to insure even the
most simple compliance with the replication
plan. This is primarily because of the lack of
agency funds and manpower. Enforcement can
be facilitated by requiring submission of
as-built-plans to the regulatory agency, by
requiring monitoring with periodic reports, and
298
-------
by requiring that funding be made available to
an independent source to conduct inspections
for the regulatory agency. The burden of cost of
inspection should be placed on the permittee, not
the agency. Enforcement must be tied into
definable goals established in the permit.
MONITORING
Two factors must be monitored: (1) the
success in achieving desired goals, and (2) the
limiting factors that impact the site. Monitoring
plans should be designed to collect the specific
data needed to measure success.
The key items to be monitored are, at a
minimum, hydrology and revegetation. Other
items which may be monitored are physical,
chemical, and biological changes. Generally, if
success is achieved for these factors, other values
such as wildlife habitat, water-quality
improvement, and flood control functions will
also be achieved. If the wetland project has been
designed for very specific goals, such as an
increase in nesting pairs of ducks or a decrease
in heavy metals from urban runoff, then very
specific, detailed monitoring may be required.
If the wetland is a result of a permit process,
the monitoring plan should be developed and, in
some cases, implemented prior to issuance of the
permit. A method to provide adequate funding
for the life of the monitoring plan is also needed.
Provision should also be made for possible
changes in the plan to respond to alterations to
the wetland needed to achieve success. This
burden should be borne by the permit applicant.
It is suggested that monitoring of vegetation
be intensively conducted for the first two growing
seasons, and corrective modifications made as
necessary. Monitoring of vegetation should then
occur at 3 to 5 year intervals. For some types of
goals, such as water-quality maintenance,
monitoring for the life of the project may be
needed. Wetlands such as prairie potholes, may
require monitoring through not only a typical
water year but also during a 10-year hydrologic
cycle, as these wetlands are the product of
droughts and floods as well as average
conditions.
The results from a monitoring program
should be analyzed to determine success by both
the permittee and the regulatory agency. The raw
data plus data analysis should be provided. In
some cases duplicate samples (i.e., for water
quality) may be desirable so that the agency can
provide its own analysis. Monitoring has a very
important role in enforcement, in so much that
monitoring data may be key to determining
"success" or "failure" in litigation. Without
monitoring, enforcement may be impossible in
many situations.
MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS
Commonly during the construction or
monitoring phases, it is discovered that the
project as designed will not accomplish specific
goals. This is often because of site-specific
surficial geology or hydrology conditions and
inadequate pre-project data collection. For
example, the post-excavation elevation of the
ground water-table is very difficult to predict.
Actual water-table elevations are commonly not
determined until excavation is completed. The
science of hydrogeology is not precise enough to
predict water levels to less than one foot, and in
most cases less than two feet. Small changes in
water depth in kettles can create too dry or too wet
conditions for the desired vegetation. Too often,
this lack of understanding is attributed to a
drought, flood, or unusually high water-tables
and the failure to observe long-term cyclic water
data for the site. The "rare event" is very
commonly used as an excuse to explain our
failure to understand and predict hydrology.
In new wetlands ground water wells,
properly screened, are probably necessary and
must be installed and monitored during
construction to establish final excavation grades.
Surface water level gauge readings and
stream-flow measurements must be obtained to
define water budget components. Controlled
outlets with the ability to raise and lower water
levels may be critical in either a new or restored
wetland. This may be necessary not only to
achieve short-term goals, but to maintain desired
goals over a long period where management of
water levels may be needed.
Mid-course changes may create limiting
factors which make achieving desired goals
impossible. The old goals may have to be
modified or abandoned and new goals
established.
299
-------
CONCLUSION
INFORMATION GAPS AND
The lack of information on wetland science
and general research needs are described by
Larson and Neill (1987). The following are data
specific to kettle wetlands.
MICROSTRATIGRAPHY AND HISTORY
OF WETLAND DEVELOPMENT
Little has been done to examine why
wetlands have developed in various kettles.
Some kettles contain wetlands and others do not,
a situation which occurs side by side in many
locations. Kettle wetlands are the result of
10,000-14,000 years of evolution during a variety
of climates, vegetation communities, and
geologic processes. They are not simply the
product of one event in time. To replicate or
restore them to "original" conditions requires an
understanding of this history.
Commonly, the limiting factor which allows
a wetland to form in one kettle and not in
another when the dominant geologic deposit is
permeable stratified drift is the presence of small
impermeable stratigraphic units which retard
downward movement of water out of the kettle.
Unpublished research conducted by the author in
Iceland indicates eolian-fine sand and silt
deposition in kettles in highly permeable
outwash acts as a retarding layer. Eolian
activity during deglaciation and periglacial
periods were important events in New England
and the northern Great Plains, which greatly
impacted the permeability of the upper-most
geologic deposits of the kettles. This eolian layer
normally of less significance in kettles
is
formed in low permeability glacial till.
GEOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Geochemical processes, particularly the
accumulation of iron and manganese cement
within units underlying organic soils, decrease
permeabilities and increase detention of water in
wetlands. More research is needed in this area.
ORGANIC SOIL
The water storage and drainage through
organic soils, and the geochemical and
biological activities within those soils are poorly
understood. Organic soils are believed to be an
integral part of many of the functions of kettle
wetlands and are in need of much research.
HYDROLOGY
One of the most poorly understood aspects of
wetlands is their hydrology (Novitzki 1987). For
kettle wetlands there is a specific need to
understand their relationship to regional ground
water systems including recharge and
discharge.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamns, PJL 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment, Volumes I and IL Offices of Research,
Development and Technology, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C. 20590, FHWA-IP-82-24.
American Geological Institute. 1972. Glossary of Geology.
Washington, D.C.
Brown, M. and J.D. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of
marsh size and isolation for marsh management.
Jour, of Wfld. Manay. 50:392-397.
Clayton, L. 1967. Stagnant-glacier features of the
Missouri Coteau in North Dakota, p. 26-46. In L.
Clayton and TJ. Freen (Eds.), Glacial Geology of
the Missouri Coteau and Adjacent Areas. North
Dakota Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Series 30,
18th Annual Midwest Friends of the Pleistocene
Guidebook.
Clayton, L. and J.A. Cherry. 1967. Pleistocene
superglacial and ice-walled lakes of west-central
North America. In L. Clayton and T.F. Freen
(Eds.), Glacial Geology of the Missouri Coteau and
Adjacent Areas. North Dakota Geological Survey,
Miscellaneous Series 30, 18th Annual Midwest
Friends of the Pleistocene Guidebook.
Cowardin, LJtl., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaEoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States: Office of Biological
Services, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Dane, C.W. 1959. Succession of aquatic plants in small
artificial marshes in New York state: N.Y. Fish
and Game Jonr. 6:57-76.
Davis, C.B., J.L. Baker, A.G. Van der Valk, and C.E.
Beer. 1981. Prairie pothole marshes as traps for
nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural runoff, p.
153-164. In F.B. Richardson (Ed.), Selected
Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland
300
-------
Values and Management's Minnesota Water
Planning Board, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
1983. Regulations of the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (MGL 131040). 310 CMR 10.00 of the
Massachusetts Environmental Codes.
Eisenlohr, W.S., Jr. and others. 1972. Hydrologic
Investigations of Prairie Potholes in North Dakota,
1959-68. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional paper
585-A.
Flint, RJF. 1971. Glacial and Quaternary Geology. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Golet, F.C. 1986. Critical issues in wetland mitigation--a
scientific perspective. National Wetlands
Newsletter 8(5):3-6.
Golet, F.C. and J.S. Larson. 1973. Classification of
Freshwater Wetlands in the Glaciated Northeast.
Resource Publication 16, U.S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
Gosselink, J.G. and RJ3. Turner. 1978. The role of
hydrology in freshwater ecosystems, p. 66-79. In
R.E. Good, D.F. Wiigham, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.),
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and
Management Potentials. Academic Press, New
York.
Heeley, R.W. 1973. Hydrogeology of wetlands in
Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hollands, G.G. 1987. Hydrogeologic classification of
wetlands in glaciated regions. National Wetlands
Newsletter 9(2)«-9.
Hollands, G.G., G.E. Hollis, and J.S. Larson. 1987.
Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in
the glaciated northeastern United States: Hydrology,
p. 131-143. 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 87-1.
Hollands, G.G. and W.S. Mulica. 1978. Application of
morphological sequence mapping of surficial
geological deposits to water resource and wetland
investigations in eastern Massachusetts. Geological
Society of America, Abstracts with Program,
Northeastern Section, 10(23):470.
Hollands, G.G. and D.W. Magee. 1986. A method for
assessing the functions of wetlands, p. 108-118. In
J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (Eds.), Proceedings of
the National Wetland Assessment Symposium,
Association of State Wetlands Managers, Chester,
Vermont.
Kaye, C.A. 1960. Surficial geology of the Kingston
quadrangle, Rhode Island. U.S. Geological Survey
Bull. 10:71-L
Larson, J.S. 1987. Wetland mitigation in the glaciated
northeast: risks and uncertainties, p. 4-16. 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 87-1.
Larson, J.S. and C. Neill (Eds.). 1987. 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
87-1.
Malo, D.D. 1975. Geomorphic, Pedologic, and Hydrologic
Interactions in a Closed Drainage System. Ph.D.
Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota.
Mathiak, H. 1965. Pothole Blasting for Wildlife:
Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison,
Wisconsin, Publication 352.
Meyborm, P. 1966. Unsteady ground water flow near a
willow ring in hummocky moraine. Journal of
Hydrology 438^2.
Millar, J.B. 1976. Wetland Classification in Western
Canada: A Guide to Marshes and Shallow Open
Water Wetlands in the Grasslands and Parklands
of the Prairie Provinces. Canadian Wildlife Service
Report, Ser. 37.
Motts, W.S. and A.L. O'Brien. 1981. Geology and
Hydrology of Wetlands in Massachusetts. Water
Resources Research Center, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, Publication 123.
Novitzki, R.P. 1987. Some observations on our
understanding of hydrologic function. National
Wetlands Newsletter 9(2):3-6.
Novitzki, R.P. 1982. Hydrology of Wisconsin's
Wetlands. U.S. Geological Survey, Information
Circular 40.
O'Brien, A.L. 1987. Hydrology and the construction of a
mitigating wetland, p. 82-100. 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 87-1.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Circular
39.
Sloan, C.E. 1970. Prairie Potholes and the Watertable.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-B.
Steward, R.E. and HA. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of
Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie
Region. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Resource
Publication 92.
Steward, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1972. Vegetation of
Prairie Potholes, North Dakota, in Relation to
Quality of Water and Other Environmental Factors.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 585-D.
Strohmeyer, D.S. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1967. An
evaluation of dynamited potholes in northwest Iowa.
Journal of Wildlife Management.
301
-------
Tiner, R.W. and P.L. Veneman. 1987. Hydric Soils of Winter, T.C. 1983. The interaction of lakes with
New England. Coop. Extension Bulletin C-183, variably saturated porous media. Water Resources
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Research 19(51:1203-1218.
Massachusetts.
Winter, T.C. and MJR. Carr. 1980. Hydrologic Setting of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Proceedings of the Wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake Area, Stutsman
National Wetlands Values Assessment Workshop. County, North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Water-Resources Investigations 80-99 H.
Winter, T.C. 1981. Uncertainties in estimating the water
balance of lakes. American Water Resources
Bulletin 17(1^2-115.
302
-------
APPENDIX t PROJECT PROFILES
I-495/ROUTE 25, BOURNE, MASSACHUSETTS
Project Purpose:
The construction of Route 26 in Bourne resulted in
the taking of nine acres of active cranberry bog. The
Massachusetts Department of Public Works did not
propose to replicate the lost wetlands. The
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering issued a Superseding Order of Conditions
allowing the taking without mitigation, but this was
appealed. Following a lengthy and detailed
adjudicatory hearing, a Final Order of Conditions was
issued finding that the cranberry bogs were significant
for prevention of pollution and flood control.
Mitigation was required, in part, the replication of
nine acres of shallow marsh in an existing upland
area. The primary goal of the replication was to create
wetlands capable of renovating highway runoff. This
is an example of a large excavation to produce a
kettle-like water-table wetland, but not as a
replacement for a lost kettle.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: Nine acres of highly
productive cranberry bog, part of a riverine system.
Wetland Type/Area Created: Nine phis acres of cattail
dominated shallow marsh in a kettle-like depression
with no outlet.
Numerous test borings and pits were dug to
determine site surficial geology and ground water
level. Observation wells were installed and monitored.
These data were placed into a complex ground water
computer model and ground water flow directions,
rates, and levels were predicted. Correlation with U.S.
Geological Survey observation wells were made to
calibrate the model. Excavation of permeable sand
and gravel was conducted using standard earth
moving equipment in 1987. Final grades were created
and ground water flooded the bottom of the depression.
Ground water elevations higher than predicted were
encountered and attributed to "unusual conditions".
Mid-course actions were needed to modify water levels.
No outlet for the depression was designed, so no
artificial water level manipulations were possible.
The area was planted with marsh and wet meadow
vegetation in the summer of 1987 and has completed
one growing season. However, significant problems
were encountered with establishment of the desired
vegetation.
COULTER DRIVE, CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
eject!
An access road to an industrial park was proposed
to solve traffic safety problems. This would result in
the loss of shrub swamp, shallow marsh, open water,
and a small irrigation pond dug into the water-table.
All of the area was within the upper portions of the
100-year floodplain of the Assabet River. The Town of
Concord Conservation Commission, under the
Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, found the
wetland to be significant for flood control, storm
damage prevention, public and private water supply,
ground water supply, and prevention of pollution.
In-kind replication defined as equal area of wetland
type was required. The goal was to create a wetland
which functioned in "a similar manner" to the one
lost. Maintenance of natural-valley Hood storage was a
primary goal. Under the Concord Wetland
Conservancy District local bylaw, wildlife habitat was
also an interest and a goal.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: 6000+ square feet of shrub
swamp (mostly buckthorn-dominated); 9000+ square
feet of shallow marsh; 5000 square feet of open water;
and an abandoned irrigation pond for past
agricultural activities. The pond was dug into the
water-table. The vegetated wetlands were associated
with spring high-water tables and surface water
flooding.
Wetland Type/Area Created: 12,000 square feet of
shrub swamp consisting of a variety of domesticated
nursery shrubs, specifically highbush blueberry and
pepperbush; 14,000+ square feet of shallow marsh,
mostly cattail; and 3000+ square feet of open water.
Water-table elevations were determined with test
pits. An excavation to include compensatory flood
storage was designed into the excavation. Original
soils were stockpiled and used in final grading of all
areas but the open water. Shrubs were planted above the
average high-water level, but no emergent marsh
species were planted. All bare-soil areas were
hydroseeded with a standard erosion control seed
mixture.
Status:
The area was completed in the spring of 1984.
Excellent growth occurred in the first growing season.
Wetland plants colonized the shallow marsh areas and
deep marsh plants colonized a portion of the open
water. After four growing seasons all wetland areas,
except open water, are densely vegetated. In the
growing season of 1987 unusually high water levels
resulted in flooding of the shrub swamp portion of the
wetland. This killed approximately 80% of the planted
shrubs. If the wetland had a controlled outlet and water
level monitoring had occurred, the water level could
have been dropped to prevent the damage to the shrubs.
This points out the sensitivity of woody plants to
flooding. Projects where woody wetland plants are
303
-------
critical to success require detailed hydrologic analysis
and the ability to prevent extended flooding. Mallard
ducks have used the area for brood rearing.
INDIAN HILLS, NORTH DAKOTA
Project Purpose:
The area consisted of approximately 200 acres of
drained prairie potholes on a slope of approximately
200 feet in relief. Type 1, 3 and 4 (Shaw and Fredine
1956) potholes occurred on the site. The upper potholes
drained into the mid-slope potholes which, in turn,
drained into the lower most and the largest -pothole
which had no outlet. The purpose was to create pothole
wildlife habitat in a multipurpose recreational area
where hunting of both upland and wetland game
species was to occur. This area was formerly known
as the Fahl-Wackerly Tract and was drained for
agricultural purposes. Both shallow (less than a foot)
and deep (approximately 20 feet) drainage ditches had
been used to drain the natural potholes. The potholes
had been plowed and used for agricultural purposes.
Wetland Type/Area Altered: Approximately 200 acres
of Type 1, 3 and 4 prairie potholes.
Wetland Type/Area Restored: Approximately 200
acres of Type 1, 3 and 4 prairie potholes.
A variety of dikes with controlled outlets were
used to "plug" the drainage ditches. This work was
conducted and designed by the Bureau of Reclamation,
Bismarck, North Dakota.
The work has been completed and pothole
hydrology recreated. The potholes have become
revegetated naturally, and appear to be viable pothole
wetlands.
DUCKS UNLIMITED PROJECTS IN NORTH DAKOTA,
SOUTH DAKOTA AND MONTANA
Project Purpose:
Ducks Unlimited has been restoring and, to a
much lesser degree, creating prairie pothole wetlands
to increase duck production through the creation of
nesting and brood rearing habitat. Some sites occur
where potholes have all but been destroyed, such as in
"black desert" areas, where only their basin
topography exists.
Wetland Type/Area Lost: All types of potholes have
been lost.
Wetland Type/Area Restored: All types of potholes
have been restored.
Procedure:
All types of restoration procedures have been used,
ranging from simple plugging of small ditches to
extensive and large dikes, dams, and outlet structures.
The methods used were site specific and determined by
the limiting factor of the site, usually water
availability. The cheapest method was normally used.
Water-level management has been used to control
nuisance vegetation and increase duck productivity. In
the National Grasslands, wetlands have been created
where none existed by the damming of shallow swales.
In this area, where precipitation averages 1.2 inches per
year, water budget and topography are limiting factors.
All designs for duck production required attention to be
given to predator control, which can be a limiting
factor. Identification of predator type and methods to
keep predators from the nesting areas was a key to
success. Various predator controls such as islands,
peninsular cut-offs, and electric fencing have been
successfully used. A high degree of success (i.e., two
broods per wetland acre) have been measured by
various investigators using a variety of techniques.
304
-------
REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF FRINGE WETLANDS IN THE
MIDWEST: CREATION AND RESTORATION
Daniel A. Levine and Daniel E. Willard
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
ABSTRACT. "Fringe" wetlands (as we define the term for the purposes of this chapter) are
those found along lakes and reservoirs. They are scattered along the shorelines of the Great
Lakes and the Tennessee Valley Authority reservoir system, and abundant along numerous
small lakes and reservoirs in the Midwest. Their prevalence here suggests that Midwestern
administrators of the regulatory program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be
confronted with permits which impact fringe wetlands.
Fringe wetlands affect water quality through their influence on nutrient cycling,
sedimentation, and heavy metal movement. They also stabilize shorelines by minimizing the
erosive forces of waves and seiches. These wetlands provide important habitat for fish and
wildlife. All of these functions are influenced by the water level fluctuations characteristic of
fringe wetlands.
We found very few documented cases of fringe wetland mitigation under Section 404.
Section 404 projects rarely stated specific goals, other than to create a wetland to mitigate for the
loss of an existing one. We recommend that project goals be clearly stated in the permit and be
specific enough to provide a set of criteria with which to evaluate success. Specific goals also
dictate the project's design considerations. We recommend that these considerations also be
clearly outlined in the permit and include the following:
o A justification for the site location;
o A description of the site characteristics prior to mitigation, including substrate, elevations
(1 ft. intervals), and water levels and fluctuations;
o Construction plans detailing how the site will be modified to suit project goals; for example,
diking to control water levels suitable for the target species;
o A list of target species (scientific and common names) consistent with project goals, a
revegetation plan outlining the type and source of propagules used, the planting methods,
densities, and timing;
o A long-term management plan which covers water level control (if applicable), nuisance
species control, a financial plan, and identification of the responsible party(s); and
o A complete monitoring plan, including what will be measured, when and how often it will
be measured, how the measurements will be taken, and how monitoring results will be
interpreted.
A clear statement of project goals and design considerations will allow the 404
administrator to critically evaluate the permit and the project's likelihood of successful
mitigation.
To further ensure the success of mitigation, we recommend the following. First, the
establishment of a fringe wetland should not be attempted where the fetch is greater than 13 km
unless a dike is constructed to reduce wave action. Second, revegetation should utilize a
combination of both natural (i.e., seed bank) and artificial (i.e., transplants) methods. This
could provide both immediate cover and a backup source of propagules. These propagules could
ensure some type of vegetative cover if the transplants die as a result of changing
environmental conditions. We also recommend that the transplants come from stock
ecotypically-adapted to site conditions.
305
-------
Further research is needed 1) to determine how fringe wetland plant species and plant
communities as a whole influence water quality, 2) to determine how water level fluctuations
affect species composition and nutrient cycling in these wetlands, 3) to quantify shoreline
stabilization needs and functions, and 4) to develop ecotypically-adapted planting stocks.
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 50% of the wetlands in the
Midwest have been drained over the past 100
years, primarily for agricultural development
(liner 1984). A significant proportion of the
remaining 50% are "fringe" wetlands. A fringe
wetland (as we use the term) is a wetland found
along the edge of a lake or reservoir. The purpose
of this chapter is to help Section 404
administrators review permits for activities
which will impact fringe wetlands.
To provide background, we first describe the
physiographic and climatic characteristics of the
Midwest region. We then define fringe wetlands
and discuss the functions of these wetlands,
including water quality, shorelines, and fish
and wildlife habitat. We feel that understanding
these functions and how they are affected by
water level fluctuations is imperative for sound
permit decisions. In the next section of this
chapter, we discuss creation and restoration
projects for fringe wetlands in the Midwest.
This discussion addresses project goals (or the
lack thereof), success in achieving these goals,
and the reasons for project successes or failures.
After this, we list critical elements of the
permits, and discuss these elements including
preconstruction considerations, critical aspects of
the creation plan, and monitoring programs.
Finally, we conclude with an evaluation of
information gaps and research needs for fringe
wetlands in this region.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDWEST
The Midwest region, for the purposes of this
chapter, includes the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Fenneman (1970)
described this region as the Central Lowland. It
is bordered on the east by the Appalachian
Plateau, on the south by the Interior Highlands
(Ozark Plateau), and on the west by the Great
Plains. We will consider the United States-
Canadian border across the Great Lakes as the
northern edge of this region.
Topographically, the Midwest region slopes
down from the east at 1000 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) to 500 feet above MSL at the
Mississippi River and also down from the west at
2000 feet above MSL to the Mississippi River.
Much of the region's terrain was created by
glacial processes. Each of the recent glacial
advancements pushed far southward into the
Midwest. However, the southern half of
Missouri, the southern tip of Indiana, southeast
Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee were not
glaciated. The major hydrologic features of the
Midwest include the Great Lakes (excluding
Lake Ontario) and the Mississippi, Ohio, and
Missouri Rivers. Much of the region is dotted
with natural lakes in the glaciated areas and
man-made reservoirs of various sizes in the
unglaciated south.
Annual rainfall for this region ranges from
20-30 inches in the north to 50-60 inches in the
south. Most of the region receives around 40
inches of rain annually. Freeze free days range
from 90 days in northern Michigan to 180-210
days in Kentucky and Tennessee. The central
states average 150 freeze free days annually.
The soils of the Midwest region are
predominantly in the order Alfisol (Brady, 1984).
However, other soil orders are also represented.
Spodosols cover the northern portions of both
Wisconsin and Michigan. Moltisols cover most
of Iowa, the northern part of Illinois, the
northwest corner of Missouri, and parts of
central Kentucky. Inceptisols are found in the
unglaciated regions of Ohio, Kentucky, and
Tennessee.
Eastern deciduous forest is the predominant
type of natural vegetation in the Midwest (Braun,
1950). The northern part of the region is
characterized by northern hardwoods, dominated
by hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and white pine
(Pinus strobus). The southern unglaciated
portion is dominated by mixed mesophytic
forests, characterized by sugar maple (Acer
saccharum). beech (Fagus grandifolia). tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). and white and
northern red oak (Quercus alba and Q. borealis").
Beech and sugar maple dominate the central
part. The western part is dominated by oak-
hickory forest, characterized by several species
306
-------
of Quercus and Carva. The prairie grass big
bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is also prevalent
there.
Since the Midwest region is a mosaic of
lakes, reservoirs, and rivers, all wetland types
are found here except estuarine and marine.
However, this chapter will discuss fringe
wetlands only. See Willard et al. (this
publication) for a description of riparian
wetlands in the Midwest.
FRINGE WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS
For the purposes of this chapter, however, we
define fringe wetlands as all those found along
the edge of lakes and reservoirs. According to
Brinson (M. Brinson, 1988, East Carolina State
University, pers. comm.), a fringe wetland is a
wetland in which water flow is perpendicular to
the zonation of vegetation. However, as we use
the term, fringe includes wetlands on lakes and
reservoirs where water flow may not be
perpendicular to the zonation pattern of the
vegetation. We also consider wetlands along
lake and reservoir margins which have been
diked as fringe wetlands. Applying the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Wetland Classification
scheme (Cowardin et al. 1979), fringe wetlands
are generally Lacustrine-Littoral (L2) wetlands
and those Palustrine (P) wetlands that adhere to
the definition given above.
Fringe wetlands are widely distributed
throughout the Midwest. For example, 42,840
hectares of coastal wetlands were identified
along Michigan's Great Lakes shoreline alone
in 1975 (Jaworski and Raphael 1978). Further-
more, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
reservoir system has 71,227 hectares of shoreline
which could support fringe wetlands (Fowler and
Maddox 1974). These figures are a small
percentage of the total fringe wetland acreage in
the Midwest, since inland lakes and reservoirs
outside the TVA system have not been quantified.
The hydrology of fringe wetlands is
dominated by fluctuating water levels. The
magnitude of the natural fluctuation depends
upon the size of the lake or reservoir, whether the
lake has a natural outlet or outflow, if
groundwater or evaporation are controlled, the
fetch, and climatic cycles. Water levels are also
influenced by water level management devices
such as dikes and dams.
Vegetation types within a fringe wetland
range from emergent to submerged. Emergent
plants include cattail (Tvpha). common reed
(Phragmites). bulrushes (Scirpus). sedges
(C_aiŁi), bur-reed (Sparganium )r wild rice
(Zizania aquatica). and pickerel weed
(Pontederia cor data). Floating leaf plants
include American lotus (Nelumbo lutea\ water
lilies (Nuphar and Nymphaea), and floating
pondweed (Potamogeton natans). Submerged
plants include waterweed (Elodea canadensis^
water-milfoil (Mvriophyllum). wild celery
(Vallisneria americana). and pondweed
( Potamogeton}.
Wetland plants continually respond to water
level fluctuations. Accordingly, delineating
fringe wetlands is difficult, a boundary drawn
one year may not be accurate the following year.
Furthermore, fringe wetlands often gradate at
the landward extension into another type of
wetland (e.g., a wet meadow). We recommend
delineating an area in which a fringe wetland
may occur given known water level fluctuations.
This delineation can be drawn at the mean or
historic high water mark and the lakeward edge
of the littoral zone.
FRINGE WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Fringe wetlands provide many important
functions. They improve water quality by acting
as sinks for nutrients, by filtering suspended
solids, and by absorbing heavy metals. They
stabilize shorelines, minimizing the erosive
forces of waves, seiches, and boat wakes. They
provide important food sources, nesting sites,
nurseries, and refuges for fish and wildlife.
These functions highlight the ecological,
recreational, and economic value of fringe
wetlands.
WATER QUALITY
Fringe wetlands influence the water quality
of lakes and reservoirs by affecting nutrient
cycling, sedimentation, and heavy metal
movement. Their influence is unquantified, but
may be substantial. For example, a map of Great
Lakes water quality indicates that areas of
extensive fringe wetland loss correlate spatially
with regions of high littoral eutrophication
(Jaworski and Raphael 1979). This may be more
307
-------
than a coincidence since wetlands have been
effective at improving water quality where they
have been used for wastewater treatment
(Spangler et al. 1976, Nichols 1983, Willenbring
1985).
Eutrophication is primarily caused by
Phosphorus (P) and Nitrogen (N) loading.
Fringe wetlands can act as both P or N sinks
(Toth 1972, Nute 1977, van der Valk et al. 1979,
Kelley 1985) and sources (Bender and Correll
1974, Lee et al. 1975). Uptake and release rates
and their timing depend upon sediment
characteristics, water chemistry, and the species
composition of the wetland.
Sediments, particularly inorganic
sediments, play significant roles in the ability of
wetlands to retain P (King 1985). Edzwald (1977)
noted that the amount of P adsorbed was
dependent upon both clay type (illite,
montmorillonite, and kaolinite) and pH. He
hypothesized that the type and amount of clay in
sediment would determine P adsorption
potential. The adsorption potential is also a
function of the water nutrient concentration and
the redox potential at the sediment-water
interface (King 1985).
The uptake and release of P and N vary
seasonally (Kelley et al. 1985). For example,
emergent and submerged plants are P sinks
during the growing season (Schults and Maleug
1971, Klopatek 1975, Klopatek 1978). During this
time, they pump P from the sediments and the
water. Klopatek (1975) found a P uptake rate of
5.3 g P/m2/year for river bulrush (SflTpJlfi
fluviatillis). Phosphorus uptake rates for broad-
leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) can range from
0.019 g/m2/year (Boyd 1970a) to 3.5 g/m2/year
(Prentki et al. 1978). In contrast to these species,
Elodea canadensis recycles nutrients
continually and can contribute up to 50% of the
internal P load of a lake (Moore et al. 1984).
As plants senesce, P is released from their
decomposing tissues, and they become P sources
to the water. A substantial percentage of the
tissue P is released quickly. For example, Boyd
(1970a) found a 50% loss of P in dead broad-
leaved cattail tissue in 20 days.
With time and increased accumulation,
however, this decomposing tissue can become a P
sink. This phenomenon occurs where
decomposition is slow (Davis and van der Valk
1978) and where the water P concentration is
high (Davis and Harris 1978). Davis and van
der Valk (1978) found that one-year old fallen
and standing litter from river bulrush and
narrow-leaved cattail (Typha auguatifolia)
accumulated 192 and 230 percent, respectively, of
the total P of fresh standing litter.
Submerged and emergent plants can also act
as a N sink during the growing season.
Klopatek (1978) reported a N uptake rate of 20.8 g
N/m2/year for river bulrush. For this species,
the N uptake rate is greater than the P uptake
rate. Nitrogen release from dead plant litter
appears to be much slower than for P, taking
months (Boyd 1970b) or years (Chamie 1976).
Nutrient cycling in fringe wetlands is also
affected by water level fluctuations (Klopatek
1978, Kelley et al. 1985). Water levels affect the
plant species composition of wetlands which, as
indicated above, influences nutrient cycling.
Kelley et al. (1985) found that more N and P were
released into the water during high water
periods. During this period, the vegetation was
dominated by emergent macrophytes. These
included bur-reed (Sparganium eurvcarpum).
giant or soft-stemmed bulrush (Scirpus validus).
and broad-leaved cattail. During low water
periods, vegetation reverted to a wet meadow
dominated by bluejoint (Calamagrostis
canadenaia)r tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and
Carex aquatilis. During this period, N and P
were released via decomposition but were stored
in the soil. Hence, these nutrients were not
released into the water, but they remained in the
wetland system.
The mere presence or absence of water will
also affect nutrient cycling (Bentley 1969,
Amundson 1970, Lee et al. 1975, Klopatek 1978).
For example, Klopatek (1978) reported that
drainage of unvegetated marsh soils resulted in
a release of large quantities of organic-N and
NO3. He attributed this release to an increased
decomposition rate in the exposed substrate.
Reflooding this wetland resulted in a net input of
N into the marsh, with soil N increasing
significantly within 1 year.
The release of nutrients from vegetation into
a lake can control plankton community
composition and the timing of planktonic
production (Landers and Lottes 1983, Moore et al.
1984). For example, Landers and Lottes (1983)
observed that eurasian water-milfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) went through several
die-off periods during the growing season. Each
die-off sequence resulted in a large release of P.
This, in turn, resulted in an increase in
phytoplankton production and a change in
species composition from green to bluegreen
algae.
Regulators must understand the ecological
implications of the nutrient uptake and release
processes of fringe wetlands. Loucks (1981) and
Weiler et al. (1979) described a model (WINGRA
III) which simulates wetland/lake nutrient
interactions. The model simulates the response
of several trophic levels to changes in wetland
308
-------
nutrient cycling processes as affected by
macrophyte management alternatives. This
model is useful in identifying important
relationships within a complex aquatic
ecosystem as well as providing a tool with which
to compare the outcomes of various management
alternatives.
In addition to their nutrient cycling
functions, fringe wetlands also filter suspended
solids from the water column. A wetland
receives particulate matter via runoff from
surrounding uplands, litterfall from vegetation,
and transport from channels, tides, and wave
action (Kadlec and Kadlec 1978). For instance, a
Great Lake fringe wetland may contain
significant quantities of detritus, clay particles,
and sands which were all deposited by wave
action. Fringe wetlands may also serve as a
source of suspended solids (Semkin et al. 1976).
Whether a wetland is a source or sink for
suspended solids depends upon the density of the
vegetation, the type of suspended solids,
hydrology, and morphology of the wetland. Dean
(1978) described how these processes interact.
This will be discussed further under "Shoreline
Stabilization".
Fringe wetlands also play a role in the
processing of heavy metals and organic
contaminants. Wetland plants absorb and soils
adsorb heavy metals (Banus et al. 1975, Seidel
1976, Wolverton et al. 1976). Seidel (1976)
determined the uptake rates for 15 metals by ten
different wetland species, including tussock
sedge, narrow-leaved cattail, and common reed
(Phraermites australis). Kadlec and Kadlec
(1978) suggested that heavy metals may be cycled
into the wetland system and subsequently
contaminate higher trophic levels. Lunz et al.
(1978), however, found that Cadmium (Cd),
Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), and Zinc (Zn) present
in the sediment of a manmade marsh were not
absorbed by barnyard grass or Japanese millet
fEchinochloa crusgralli). narrow-leaved cattail,
or arrow arum (Peltandra virginica). They
noted that soil conditions typical of marshes,
such as moisture saturation, high organic matter
content, near neutral pH, and low oxygen
concentration, cause metals to be present in
insoluble forms. This restricts the transfer of
these metals into plant tissue. Understanding
how these parameters affect metal mobility is
essential and should be a priority research goal
in the future.
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND
STABILIZATION
Another function of fringe wetlands is to
protect and stabilize shorelines (Garbisch 1977,
Allen 1978, Dean 1978). Dean (1978) described
how wetland vegetation provides such protection
and stabilization. For example, the sediment-root
matrix increased the durability of the shoreline.
Furthermore, emergent and submergent plants
dampened both wave action and the frictional
forces of longshore currents, thereby reducing the
energy hitting the shore. Finally, the vegetation
caused sand and other material to be stored in
nearshore dunes. Through this mechanism, they
reduced the loss of these materials to wind
erosion.
Extreme water level fluctuations severely
hamper the ability of a fringe wetland to stabilize
shorelines primarily by making it difficult for
vegetation to become established and maintain
itself. However, some species succeed
temporarily under these conditions. Hoffman
(1977) described how introduced reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Garrison
creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus )T
common reed, giant bulrush, and broad-leaved
cattail became established and survived for 1-3
years in two reservoirs whose water level
fluctuations averaged 3.5 m over a 6-year period.
Furthermore, high water periods may also create
new shorelines above a zone of existing
protective vegetation.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
Fringe wetlands are an important habitat for
fish and wildlife throughout the Midwest. Over
three million migratory waterfowl which travel
through the Great Lakes area each year depend
oh suitable wetland habitat (Great Lakes Basin
Commission 1975a). Many waterfowl species use
these fringe wetlands for nesting (Table 1),
resting, and feeding (Jaworski et al. 1980).
Furthermore, fish depend on these wetland
ecosystems for spawning, feeding, and shelter
(Tilton and Schwegler 1978, Jaworski et al. 1980,
Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). A partial list of
Midwestern fish species and their use of
wetlands is provided in Table 2. Fringe wetlands
also provide important habitat to furbearers such
as muskrat (Ondatra zibethica). racoon ( Procvon
Ictflt), and beaver (Castor canadenais) (Tilton
and Schwegler 1978).
Water level fluctuations greatly influence
the ability of a fringe wetland to provide fish and
wildlife habitat (Liston and Chubb 1985,
McNicholl 1985, and Prince 1985). The presence,
absence, and depth of water can determine if and
where particular species will feed and nest
(McNicholl 1985).
Water level fluctuations have both positive
and negative effects on fish habitat. Keith (1975)
outlined several positive effects of high water
levels:
o Shoreline terrestrial vegetation is flooded,
309
-------
Table 1. Bird species that nest in fringe wetlands. Based on Prince (1985).
Common Names Scientific Names
Least Bittern Ixobrvchua exilia
Pied-billed Grebe Podilvmbus podiceps
Canada Goose Branta canadenaia
Mallard Anflg platyrhynchos
Black Duck Anas ribripes
Green-winged Teal Anas creeca
Redhead Aythva americana
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola
Sora Porzana Carolina
Common Moorhen or Gallinule Gallinual chloropua
American Coot Fulica americana
Wilson's phalarope Phalaropua tricolor
Black Tern ChlidftniflB niger
Marsh Wren CSstothorus sp.
Common Yellowthroat Geothlvpis trichas
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaiua phoeniceua
Yellow-headed Thnthff^phalus
Blackbird TtflnthfKTphfllUfl
Common Crackle Quiscalus quiscula
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georyiana
310
-------
Table 2. Midwestern fish species which use fringe wetlands. Based on Barnes (1980).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetlands Used for Commercial
Habitat Reproduction Value
spotted gar
longnose gar
bowfin
gizzard shad
grass pickerel
northern pike
muskellunge
central mudminnow
golfish
carp
brassy minnow
golden shiner
pugnose shiner
pugnose minnow
blackfin shiner
blacknose shiner
fathead minnow
white sucker
lake chubsucker
black bullhead
yellow bullhead
brown bullhead
tadpole madtom
pirate perch
banded killifiah
starhead topminnow
brook stickleback
brook silverside
rock bass
green sunfish
pumpkinaeed
bluegill
smallmouth bass
largemouth bass
black crappie
white crappie
Iowa darter
yellow perch
Lepisosteus oculutus
Lepiaoateua osseua
Amia calva
Dorosoma cepedianum
Esox americanua
Esox lucius
Esox masQuinongv
Umbra limi
Carassius auratus
Cvprinus carpio
Hybognathus hankinaoni
Notemigonus crvaoleucas
Notropis anogenua
Notropis emiliae
Notropis heterodon
Notropis heterolepis
Pimephales promelas
Catostomus commersoni
Erimvzon sucetta
Ictalunis melas
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalunis nebulosus
Noturua gyrinus
Aphredoderus savanus
Fundulua diaph,anua
Fundulua notti
Culea inconstans
Lflk1d.€9th?8 sicculus
Atnbloplitca rupeatris
Lepomis cvanellus
Lepomis gibboaus
LepoTnia macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
PomoKJs nigomaculatus
Pomoxis annularis
Etheoatoma exile
n
n
n
f
n
s
8
f
n
8
f
f
? n
? f
? f
f
* f
f
* f
* s
* 8
* 8
* f
f
* n
? f
* n
* f
s
* s
* s
s
8
S
s
8
f
Perca flavescens s
* = species is often found in or requires aquatic vegetation for
reproduction
? = relationship unknown
= species is rarely found in or does not require aquatic
vegetation for reproduction.
n = species has no commercial value.
f = species may be an important forage fish.
s = species is an important sport fish.
311
-------
which initiates the vegetation's death,
decomposition, and subsequent release of
nutrients. This increases the overall
productivity of the system;
o Fish food organisms (e.g., worms and
terrestrial insects) are quickly added to the
water,
o New cover and habitat for shoreline species
are created; and
o An area of water is created that is sparsely
populated with fish, which could stimulate
reproduction and growth as fish attempt to
fill this "void".
Higher water levels did, in fact, increase
populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus
aalmoides) (Keith 1975, Miranda et al. 1984) and
white crappie f Pomoxis annularis) (Beam 1983).
The timing of water level fluctuations is
important. Beam (1983) emphasized that if water
levels fluctuated during the spawning season,
young-of-year white crappie numbers were
reduced. Carbine (1943) and Hassler (1970)
found similar results for northern pike (Ł302
lucius). Water level fluctuations during
spawning periods could also affect the
reproductive success of the other species which
depend on aquatic vegetation for spawning
(Table 2).
Water level fluctuations can also impact
waterfowl. For example, birds species which nest
on dry ground or floating leaves are highly
susceptible to rising water levels (McNicholl
1979, Weller 1981, McNicholl 1985). Furthermore,
wetland inundation can make some food sources
unavailable to ducks and geese. Water level
fluctuations are sometimes necessary, however,
for the habitat to function effectively. Without
periodic flooding, marshes can become choked
with vegetation (Weller 1981). Waterfowl
generally prefer a mixture of open water and
emergent vegetation. Weller (1981) found that
the highest number of waterfowl are found in a
habitat that has between 50-75% open water and 25-
50% scattered patches of emergent vegetation.
Periodic flooding of wetlands prevents vegetation
from becoming overgrown.
The economic value of the functions
described above can be substantial. Jaworski et
al. (1980) estimated that Michigan's coastal
wetlands were worth $1210/hectare/year for
fishing, hunting, trapping, and recreation. This
converts to almost $52 million annually (1977
dollars) for the 42,83d hectares of coastal
wetlands in Michigan. Sullivan (1976) estimated
that wetlands could provide about $8650/ha/year
of water quality treatment in the form of P
removal as well as secondary and tertiary
treatment. In addition, the Great Lakes Basin
Commission (1975b) predicted that in the year
2000 there would be almost $22 million worth of
wave damage along the 2,807 kilometers of U.S.
shorelines of the Great Lakes with recreational,
agricultural, and undeveloped land uses. This
suggests a fringe wetland is worth over
$7,500/km in shoreline protection, assuming
complete protection. This value increases to
approximately $40,000/km for the protection of
shorelines with commercial, industrial, and
residential land uses. We don't suggest that
wetland creation for shoreline protection is
feasible for the entire shoreline of the Great
Lakes, but it should be considered for some
circumstances.
EXTENT OF CREATION AND RESTORATION
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) has been interpreted to require mitigation
for wetlands lost due to filling. Filling typically
occurs during road, housing, marina, and resort
construction or during dredge spoil disposal.
Mitigation projects permitted to date has ranged
from reducing the acreage destroyed to complete
creation of a new wetland with an area ratio of
ten acres of created wetland for every one that
was lost.
We found very few documented cases where
fringe wetlands were created for mitigation
under Section 404. Where they were created, the
goal of the projects was generally stated as the
creation of a wetland to mitigate for the loss of
an existing one. More specific goals were rarely
provided, although fish and wildlife habitat was
often an implicit goal. For example, the Harbour
Project on Sandusky Bay, Ohio, created over 30
hectares of fish and wildlife habitat.
Since specific goals were rarely provided for
mitigation projects, evaluating their success is
difficult. Without goals, it is uncertain how to
choose a set of criteria with which to evaluate
success. We discuss the importance of goals
further in the "Design Consideration" section
below.
Mitigation under Section 404 has not been the
only reason for creating or restoring fringe
wetlands. They have been created by state
Departments of Natural Resources or
Conservation to improve fish and wildlife
habitat. Wildlife habitat improvement projects
312
-------
have been undertaken for at least 50 years, given
the strong incentive from the commercial and
recreational interest in fishing, hunting,
trapping, and bird watching throughout the
Midwest.
Projects such as these have apparently been
"successful", as measured by an increased
density of commercial or game fish, fish size,
the number of breeding pairs of waterfowl, or the
total hunting hours provided by an area. Water
level control capability is perhaps the most
important factor contributing to the success of
fish or waterfowl habitat improvement projects.
Without water level control, a project may fail to
establish or maintain desired vegetation,
adequate water quality, desired shoreline
lengths, or optimum open water/vegetation ratio.
Shoreline stabilization has also been a goal
of fringe wetland creation or restoration.
Although shoreline stabilization projects are well
documented for marine fringe wetlands, there is
little information concerning freshwater fringe
wetlands, particularly in the Midwest. Wave
energy and water levels determine the success of
these projects. Garbisch (1977) discourages
planting along a shoreline that is exposed to
more than a 13 km fetch in marine systems and
recommends this as a "rule of thumb" for
freshwater systems. Above this value, the wave
energy becomes too great. A project on two South
Dakota reservoirs displayed the temporary
nature of success on reservoirs with large water
level fluctuations (Hoffman 1977). Vegetation
established to protect the shorelines was destroyed
during an extended high water period. This
project indicated that maintaining long-term
shoreline stabilization may require periodic
revegetation and the use of species adapted to
water level fluctuations.
Slurry pond reclamation has also become a
goal of fringe wetland creation and restoration
projects in the Midwest. This is due mainly to the
recent reclamation laws. Coal mining practices
have generally been considered environ-
mentally adverse. KHmstra and Nawrot (1985),
however, claimed that mining activities have
added to the total wetland area in Illinois and the
Midwest in general. Since the 1800's, more than
5,666 hectares of wetlands have resulted directly
from coal mining. These wetlands have become
established through natural colonization.
Because of this, mining companies are now
reclaiming their slurry ponds by creating
wetlands. The primary cause of failure to
artificially revegetating these ponds is the use of
commercial stocks which are not ecotypically
adapted to the harsh environment of slurry
ponds. The Cooperative Wildlife Research
Laboratory in Carbondale, Illinois, has
developed a nursery for wetland plants adapted to
slurry pond environments. This has greatly
increased the success of these projects.
For complete description of each project, see
Appendix II.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Wetland creation and restoration projects
initiated as mitigation for wetland losses should
incorporate a number of design considerations
into the actual permit. These can be categorized
as: 1) pre-construction considerations; 2) critical
aspects of the plan itself; and 3) monitoring of the
project. The actual specifics will depend on the
project goals. Hence, the project goals must be
clearly stated in the permit and specific enough
to provide a set of criteria with which to evaluate
success. Specific goals will determine wetland
configuration, how and what vegetation to plant,
timing of construction, and ultimately every
phase of a project. For example, a project with a
goal of creating five one hectare plots of food
habitat for canvasback ducks will dictate the use
of different plants and planting times and
different morphometric requirements than a
project whose goal is to create a fringe wetland to
protect one kilometer of shoreline. Precisely
stated goals also help to define a monitoring
plan. If the lake or reservoir has a lake
association, the association should be consulted
when the permittee is identifying goals of the
project.
Having stated the goals of a project, the
permit should include the following:
o A delineation of the location of the
mitigation site;
o A description of the characteristics of the site
before and after mitigation including:
substrate, elevations (1 ft. intervals), water
levels, and range of water level fluctuations;
o Schedule of excavation work;
o A description of the vegetation plans
including species (scientific and common
names), propagules used, source of
propagules, planting densities, time of
planting, water depth of planting, and type of
substrate planted. A map of the plant zones
should also be included;
313
-------
o Type, rate, and timing of fertilizer
application;
o Description of protective structures,
including water level control structures, how
and when they are installed, and if or when
they are removed;
o If applicable, a long-term management plan,
including a water level management plan,
how it will be financed, and who will be the
responsible party;
o A complete monitoring plan, including what
will be measured, when and how often it
will be measured, how the measurements
will be taken, and how monitoring results
will be interpreted; and
o A list of criteria with which to judge success,
including at least the % of successful plant
establishments.
The permit for the Harbour Project on
Sandusky Bay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) Permit No. 82-475-3 revision A, 1982,
Buffalo District) is a good example of what a
permit should include. Design characteristics of
the dike and wetland were complete, timing of
each phase of the development was outlined, and
monitoring aimed at determining the fish
habitat value of the created wetland was
required. The permit did lack a clear statement
of the goals, however. Therefore, a monitoring
program had no specific criteria with which to
gauge success.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
CONSIDERATIONS
Wetland creation projects can be located on-
or off-site. With an off-site approach, the first
step in the location process is to identify all
available sites on the reservoir or lakeshore
which are of sufficient size to meet project goals.
With an on-site approach, the focus is upon the
site itself. In selecting the actual site, the first
choice should be an area which historically
supported a wetland but was filled or lost due to
water quality degradation. Removing the fill
from an old wetland or improving water quality
to restore suitable water conditions can
sometimes make wetland restoration in this
location easier than at a site where a wetland
never existed. The second choice could be an
area along the edge of a lake or within the lake
itself which can be impounded. The Harbour
Project and the Iowa Department of Conservation
subimpoundments are good examples of the
success of this technique. For a large lake or
reservoir, the last location choice should be an
upland site along the lakeshore which can be
converted into a wetland via excavation. This
method would likely require the construction of a
permanent breakwater to provide a low wave-
energy environment unless a natural cove,
beach or barrier exists.
Site rhnrac
Having identified an appropriate site for
wetland creation/restoration, the permittee must
evaluate the site characteristics. These include
substrate, hydrology, and water quality
parameters. Substrates should be analyzed for
texture, nutrient levels, and contamination by
heavy metals or organics. When substrate is to
be taken from the destroyed wetland, it also
should be analyzed for the presence of a viable
seed bank (as described below under
"Revegetation"). Hydrologic characteristics
which should be evaluated include wave actions
and currents, water depth, potential degree of
sheltering from wind and waves, and extent and
periodicity of water level fluctuations.
Anticipated water level fluctuations are of
particular importance. Finally, water quality
parameters such as turbidity, alkalinity, pH, and
nutrient, heavy metal and organic contaminant
concentrations should be considered.
Water level control capability is an
important factor in many Midwest restoration or
creation projects. Diking has been commonly
used along the Great Lakes. Forty percent of the
wetlands along the U.S. Lake Erie shoreline
have been diked to allow water level control
(Jaworski and Raphael 1979). Diking has also
been performed by various state Departments of
Natural Resources to create wildlife refuges and
by hunting clubs to provide habitat for waterfowl.
These efforts may have protected many of the
Great Lakes wetlands from recent high lake
levels.
Slope angles are important in dike
construction. Slopes of 3:1 to 5:1 have been
successful in maintaining the integrity of the
dike (Farmes 1985). In addition, the top and
lakeward toe of the dike should be supported with
riprap. The amount of riprap needed depends
upon the magnitude and direction of the waves.
Dikes for the Sandusky Bay project were
constructed using these design characteristics.
For dredge spoil disposal operations, the size
of the containment area must be determined. Size
will depend upon the amount of spoil to be
disposed, the nature of the spoil, and the type of
environment to be created within the
containment site.
Once dikes have been created, the area
314
-------
within the dike must be contoured. A varied
topography within the impounded area is
preferred. In the Sandusky Bay project, the 37.2
ha impoundment was divided into four cells of
various sizes. The bottom of the cells were
contoured to create a mosaic of islands and
channels using dredge material. The Iowa
Department of Conservation (IDOC) employed a
similar scheme for their subimpoundments on
four large reservoirs (Moore and Pfeiffer 1985).
The diked areas were developed to provide a
habitat combination of 50% palustrine emergent
wetland (PEM) and 50% open water (POW),
creating a "hemi-marsh". This condition was
generally sought as the ideal habitat for
maximizing waterfowl use. IDOC also
maximized the shoreline lengths within these
areas to provide the greatest density of waterfowl
breeding territories.
Protection from grazing animals may be
necessary during establishment of vegetation.
Hoffman (1977) mentions the use of a barbed-
wire fence to prevent cattle from grazing on
recently transplanted grass and emergent
species. Furthermore, snow-fencing has
commonly been used to exclude geese and
muskrats from establishment areas.
Hydrology
The establishment and survival of wetland
species is determined by water levels and
fluctuations (Warburton et al. 1985, Keough 1987).
Water levels must be considered when
implementing both planting and wildlife
management strategies.
Where water level fluctuations cannot be
controlled, plant species must be chosen which
are tolerant of anticipated fluctuations. Table 3
lists some Midwestern species and their water
level fluctuation tolerances. The TVA uses
Japanese millet, common buckwheat
(Fagopyrum esculentum). and Italian ryegrass
(Lolium multiflorum') in their reservoirs where
water level fluctuations are severe (Fowler and
Maddox 1974, Fowler and Hammer 1976).
Water levels can be manipulated in some
instances to provide a desirable habitat for target
species (Knighton 1985). The IDOC manipulated
water levels in four subimpoundments to provide
water depths appropriate for establishing
waterfowl food stock species (e.g., smartweed,
Polvgonum: sedges, Carex sp.; and millet,
Echinochloa sp.) and for various species of
waterfowl (e.g., giant Canada goose, Biania
canadensis maxima).
Problems may be encountered if the water
level control structures fail. For example, water
levels became too high in a subimpoundment
built at the Hawkeye Wildlife Area in Iowa
(M.W. Weller, 1987, Texas A&M, pers. comm.).
This resulted in an open water pond instead of a
mixture of PEM and POW. This habitat failed to
meet the goal of the project: the attraction of a
large number of waterfowl.
The successful establishment of wetland
vegetation is also influenced by waves and ice.
The erosive forces of waves and ice can prevent
plant establishment or destroy existing
vegetation. Breakwater structures can lessen
these forces. To provide a low wave-energy
environment for soon-to-be-planted areas, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) has constructed two types of
breakwaters (Berge 1987). A tire breakwater two
meters wide (2 m = 7 tires) and 61 m long was
placed in approximately one meter of water. The
tires were not flush with the bottom and were
slightly exposed at the surface. The structure
allowed establishment of wild celery. A 30.5 m
geoweb breakwater was also installed. Geoweb is
a thick plastic honeycombed wall 6.1 m long, 1.2
m wide, and 20.3 cm thick. Each length is
comprised of numerous 10.2 X 20.3 cm
rectangular cells. The geoweb barrier was not
successful in this application, because it was not
heavy enough -to remain stationary against two
foot waves (Berge, 1988, WDNR, pers. comm.).
Substrate also influences the success of plant
establishment. Plants will fail if the substrate is
too hard or too soft (Kadlec and Wentz 1974). The
type of substrate also dictates which species will
survive at a site. Tables 3 and 4 list some
Midwestern wetland species and their
preferences for both substrate moisture content
and type.
Substrates may have to be prepared prior to
planting. For example, Hoffman (1977) plowed
and disked the substrate of 13 South Dakota
reservoir sites to improve the substrate's physical
characteristics. Fertilizer applications may also
be needed to overcome substrate nutrient
deficiencies. The TVA applied a N-P-K (6-12-12)
fertilizer to the exposed mud banks and slopes of
their reservoirs during seeding (Fowler and
Maddox 1974, Fowler and Hammer 1976). Local
U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension
Agencies may be helpful in determining
appropriate nutrient ratios for fertilizers for each
site.
Two techniques have been used to create
suitable substrate for vegetation. An Army Corps
of Engineers (St. Louis District) project on
Carlyle Lake, Illinois, used tire breakwaters to
accumulate sediment in an area where bulrush
was to be planted. However, the success of these
structures has been varied and is not well
documented. In Sandusky Bay, dredge materials
315
-------
Table 3. Aquatic macrophytes tolerant of water level fluctuation. Based on Martin and Uhler (1939).
Common Names Scientific Names
Soils Always Quite Moist
Pondweed PfttfflTTKMfBtftn americanuB
Pondweed Potamogetftn gramineua
Bur-reeds Sparyanium sp.
Seaside arrow grass Triylochi-n maritimum
Arrowheads ffogiPWIfl sp.
Fowl-meadow grass Glvceria striata
Spike grasses Distichlis sp.
Rice cutgrass Leeraia orvzoidea
Square-stemmed spike-rush Eleocharis ouadragulata
Dwarf spike-rush Eleocharia parvula
NA Eleocharia acicularis
Olney three-square Scirpus americanus
Hard-stemmed bullrush Scirpus acutus
Beak rushes Rhvnchospora sp.
Pickeral weed Potendaria cordata
Soils Sometimes Dry
Switchgrass Panicutn dichotomiflorutn
Water millet Echinochloa sp.
Yellow nutsedge Cvperus esculentua
Tearthumb/Smartweeds Polvpmum sp.
316
-------
Table 4. Midwestern wetland species substrate and depth preferences and methods of propagation. Synthe-
sized from Kadlec and Wentz (1974).
Species
\nnuals
iideng gp.O,Sa,Si
Crhinnrhloa sp.
•J. marina
'annichellia palnatris
Perennials
3raeenia gchreberi
2eratonhvlluin demersum
)istichlis snicata
Hndea canadenaig
-ieteranthera dnbia
_jG6mi^ OTyZQlBCB
Hvriophvllum altemifloru
tf. exalbescens
tf, heteroDnvUom
^fUPJfVW advena
>J. variegatum
i D1^?TQD ^YlllilDl
S elumbo vte{|
S vmohaea odorata
PhmnmitpB aiutnlia
Potame^Btnn amptifnliiia
?. folioans
P. gramineuB
?. natana
^ pectinatna
P. perfoliatiiB
P. pusillns
^ spirillua
P. zoeteriformig
Sapittaria latifnlia
S. platvphvlla
Scirons BC\>tve
§, americanns
S. californicus
S. fluviatiliH
S< olnfiyi
3. robustUB
S. validns
St>are amum ameiicaniim
S eurytarDUin
Si fUntUflflfl
S. minimnm
TVpha auyuati folia
yallianeria americana
Knsterg marina
AnnnaTa and Perennials
Carexsp. P,O,BO
Cvpenissp.
Unknown
i!]enchaHA acienlaTia
Ł equieetoidea
!le. Dftjustris
jobelja dortmanna
1 Substrate Legend:
BI = Black mud;
Preferred
Substrate1
Bl.Si,Sa,OO
OO
Si
o,c
OO.O.L
Si-C,Sa,C
OO.BO.C
O
m all
O.Sa
OO
O,Sa,Si
O
0
Si.C-O
OO,O,P,Sa
BO,Sa,Si
C,P-Sa
0,Sa,Si
Sa,Si,O,G
Bl,P,Sa,Si
OO.Cp
Si,Sa,0
C,ffl31,BO,Sa
Sa,Si,O
Sa,Si,0
O
Si,SaO
MLW
0
all
Sa,C
Sa,Si
0,C
0,C
O0~
o'
P,0
Sa-0,Si
SM.Sa.G
Sa,C,Si-L
P,0,Sa,Si
Sa,Si
Si,BO,Sa,P
BO = brown mod; C = day; G = gravel; L = loam;
Depth
Range (cm)*
30
30-800
30-150
6-180
<180
30-150
30-300
wet soil
<300
100-300
<300
30-150
<300
-100- +200
100-800
60-180
0-800
90-120
5-300
60-240
60-800
0-300
800
30-300 below
<30
<30
<150
<60
<180
<50
-7- +120
-15- +120
<120
<30
<120
<180
100
<60
<30
30-300
30-180
T,H,S
<30
<120
<50
wet soil
10-240
Methods of
Propagation9
S
S
T.W.S
T,W,S
S
S
wR'S
T,R,S
T.W.C
T,S
T,R
T.W.S.C
T.W.S.C
T',S.',S
T.R.S
TT^S
T',R',S
Ifcs
T,R',S'
T,R,C,Tu,S
T'.W.S
T,S
T,R,C,S
T.U.S
T,Tu,S
T|R'TU,S
T.R.S
T,R.Tu,S
T,R,S
T.R.S
T,R,S
T,R,S
T.R.S
T,R,S
T,R,S
T,R,S
T,R,S
T,R,S
T,W,R,Tu,S
T.R.TU.S
T,R,Tu,S
T.R,Tu,S
T,R,Tu,S
Ma = marl; O & organic; OO = ooze; P = peat; Sa = sand;
Si = silt; SM = sandy mud
a Depth Legend: MLW = mean low water
1 Propagation Legend:
C = cuttings; R = root stocks and rhizomes; S = seeds;
T = transplants; Tu = tubers; W = whole plants " '
317
-------
were pumped from a shallow open-water area
within the Bay into a nearby diked containment
area where a wetland was constructed. This
provided a useful disposal site for the spoils,
suitable planting substrates for wetland species,
and a seed bank for natural colonization.
Revefletation
There are two general techniques for
establishing wetland vegetation at a mitigation
site. One is natural colonization from air or
waterborne seeds, invasion from adjacent areas,
or seed banks within substrates transplanted
from other sites. The other technique, artificial
establishment, includes seeding and
transplanting whole plants, shoots, rhizomes, or
tubers (see Table 4). Natural colonization is
inexpensive, and the plants that become
established are generally ecotypically adapted to
the environment of the site. This method,
however, has several disadvantages. First, the
site may be unvegetated for a period of time
during which erosion can occur. Furthermore,
the permittee has little control of species
composition on the site. The site could become a
monotypic stand (e.g., cattail). Therefore, this
technique is usually inappropriate when project
goals dictate specific target species. Artificial
establishment is more expensive and time
consuming, however, the permittee has greater
control over species composition.
The only method of natural colonization that
we will discuss is the seed bank method although
other methods may be effective in a given
circumstance. The seed bank method uses
substrates from a destroyed wetland as the seed
source for the wetland being created. This
technique is only effective if the substrate has a
viable seed bank. Wetland soils can contain
6,405-32,400 seeds m'2 in the top 10 cm (Leek and
Graveline 1979). Similarly, van der Valk and
Davis (1978) found densities ranging from 21,455-
42,615 seeds m'2 in the top 5 cm of a marsh in
Eagle Lake, Iowa. A total of 40 species were
germinated under various water level conditions
from substrate at Eagle Lake. This diversity of
seeds means that a greater potential exists for
wetland plants to become established under a
variety of environmental conditions. Add-
itionally, seeds can remain viable for up to 30
years (van der Valk, unpublished), this provides
resiliency to the wetland. However, die presence
of a seed bank in a wetland soil is not
guaranteed (van der Valk, unpublished). Van
der Valk and Davis (1978) described methods for
determining species composition, presence, and
viability of seeds.
Artificial establishment is the other method
of revegetation. When using this method, the
permittee should choose species for planting
which are best suited for the environmental
conditions found at the site. The Illinois
Department of Conservation (1981) published a
catalogue of plant species used for habitat
restoration in Illinois. This catalogue describes
the preferred habitat of some wetland species,
including substrates and water depth. It can be
used as a guide for species selection throughout
the Midwest. Tables 3 and 4 of this publication
also list habitat preferences for fringe wetland
species.
The permittee's second consideration should
be the availability of the planting stock for these
species. Types of stock include seeds, rhizomes,
tubers, and whole plants. The Illinois
Department of Conservation (1981) catalogue also
lists nurseries where planting stocks are
available.
The Cooperative Wildlife Research
Laboratory (CWRL) has demonstrated the
importance of using local stock or stocks from a
similar environment for revegetation projects
(Nawrot 1985, Warburton et al. 1985, and
Klimstra and Nawrot 1985). CWRL conducted
research on factors which influenced the
successful establishment of wetland vegetation
in 12 slurry ponds. They found that individuals
which naturally colonized the slurry ponds were
ecotypically adapted to the conditions found in
these ponds (see Nawrot 1985 for
hydrogeochemical characteristics). When
transplanted to other slurry ponds, these
individuals became established more
successfully than did individuals of the same
species from commercial stocks. For example,
rhizomes of hardstem bulrush (Scjrpus acutus)
collected from slurry ponds had significantly
greater survival and produced greater growth
and spreading rates than rhizomes from
commercial stocks (Warburton et al 1985).
CWRL has developed populations of hardstem
bulrush, threesquare bulrush (Scirpus
americanus) and prairie cordgrass (Spartina
pectinata) in a "nursery pond" to provide
transplanting stock.
Environments which are less harsh than
slurry ponds can also produce ecotypic
adaptations in individuals. For example, Keough
(1987) described ecotypic variation along a depth
gradient in soft-stemmed bulrush. Using
individuals which are ecotypically adapted to
such site conditions as water depth and quality
will increase the success of artificial
establishment. Therefore, we recommend taking
propagules from the same water body and at the
same depth range where they will be
transplanted, whenever possible. Using local
stocks will also reduce the loss of propagules via
long-distance transport (Kadlec and Wentz 1974).
The availability of suitable stock will
restrict the permittee's choice of propagule type.
318
-------
Site characterises are another factor. Only
certain species types are possible given the life
history characteristics of the desired species (see
Table 4). The size of the site can also influence
propagule choice (Kadlec and Wentz 1974). If the
area is large, transplanting may be prohibitively
expensive. Environmental conditions at the site
must also be considered. For example, seeding
may not be as successful as transplanting at a
site subject to erosion, siltation, or wave action.
Once the permittee has chosen the desired
species and the propagule type, he should outline
a planting strategy. The planting method,
density, and timing will determine the success
of plant establishment. In the discussion below,
we describe by propagule type the planting
strategies used in several creation projects:
1. The Tennessee Valley Authority has seeded
the shorelines of its reservoirs with
waterfowl food species (Fowler and Maddox
1974, Fowler and Hammer 1976). The desired
species were Japanese millet, common
buckwheat, and Italian ryegrass. Seeds of
these plants were broadcast onto exposed mud
banks and on slopes with 20° to 45° angles
using a floating aquaseeder. A commercial
fertilizer (N-P-K, 6-12-12) and wood mulch
were applied on sloping areas. Seeding was
most successful when it occurred
immediately after soil exposure. Wood
mulch did not affect the success of plant
establishment. As an alternative to the
aquaseeder, helicopters were also used to
broadcast seeds with the same success as was
observed with the aquaseeder.
2. Wild rice was seeded in shallow areas of
Lake Puckaway, Wisconsin, as a food source
for waterfowl (Berge 1987). Berge did not
provide planting densities or times.
However, he did indicate the importance of
water level control to the success of plant
establishment. For this project, wild rice
seeding was successful until water levels
rose during the rice's floating leaf stage, at
which time all stands were destroyed.
3. Hoffman (1977) seeded thirteen sites along
the shorelines of two South Dakota reservoirs.
The sites were plowed and disked in
preparation for seeding. Desired species were
crested wheatgrass fAgropyron cristatum).
tall wheatgrass (A. elongatum),. western
wheatgrass (A. smithii). Garrison creeping
foxtail, turkey brome (Bromus biebeTBteinii).
basin wildrye (Elymua cinereus),
switchgrass (Panicum virgaiflim), and reed
canary grass. The sites were seeded in the
spring and autumn. Seeds were placed in
rows 0.1 m apart which ran perpendicular to
the water line. Reed canary grass was
successfully planted using these techniques,
as measured by a minimum of 10%
survival.
4 At the Harbour Project in Sandusky Bay,
cells were seeded and mulched in the spring
with reed canary grass, rice cut grass
(Leersia orvzoides). and manna-grass
(Glvceria canadensis). In some areas,
natural vegetation had become established
from the seed bank, and, therefore, these
areas were not seeded (D. Wilson, 1988,
ACOE Buffalo District, pers. comm.).
5. Berge (1987) outlines several techniques for
planting tubers. He planted tubers of wild
celery, wild rice, and sago pondweed
(Potamogeton pectinatus) on Lake Puckaway
on the leeward side of the breakwaters
described under "Hydrology". Tubers placed
in peat pot, clay balls, and polyethylene
produce bags weighted with gravel were
planted on several different sediment types.
Single tubers with nails attached for weight
were also planted. Berge recommends
planting wild celery tubers in late April and
early May in densities of 1000-5000 per 0.4 ha
(1 acre), depending on wind conditions. The
produce bag and nail methods proved to be
most successful, whereas the peat pots and
clay balls were not productive. Berge (1988,
WDNR, pers. comm.) has since found that
cotton mesh bags are also successful, and he
prefers them. He recommends using bags
that will maintain their structure for six to
eight weeks to allow the tubers to establish.
The best plant growth and survival occurred
in areas with a firm bottom and with a
sediment of sand and organic matter.
Plantings of wild celery were successful
despite waves of up to two feet in the lake.
The tire breakwater protecting them was
removed after three years, at which time the
wild celery patch itself could dissipate wave
energy itself (D. Berge, 1988, WDNR, pers.
comm.).
5. Tubers in weighted mesh bags was also used
to plant wild celery at a restoration project
on Navigational Pool 8 on the Mississippi
River near La Crosse, Wisconsin (Peterson
1987). Seventeen 0.4-ha plots were each
planted during the spring with 8,000 tubers of
wild celery. These tubers were harvested
from nearby Lake Onalaska using ft
hydraulic dredge. Water depths in the
planted plots ranged from one to two meters.
The project was successful in establishing
wild celery. Seventy to 75% of the tubers
sprouted and produced new plants during the
summer.
6. Warburton et al. (1985) found that perennial
species which produce rhizomes or tubers
were most successfully established in slurry
319
-------
ponds. CWRL's greatest successes occurred
when rhizomes were planted in the spring,
although threesquare bulrush also did well
when planted during summer (Warburton et
al. 1985). Rhizomes were successful when
planted at a depth of 5 to 13 cm. CWRL
recommends spacing rhizomes at 0.3 to 1.5 m
intervals, depending on species. Planting at
1.5 m intervals was sufficient for
threesquare bulrush, which spread rapidly in
one season. Hardstem bulrush was less
prolific, and it required a planting density of
0.3 to 0.9 m to be successful.
7. Hoffman (1977) also used transplants to
vegetate the South Dakota reservoirs. He
used transplants of broad-leaved cattail,
giant bulrush, common reed, reed canary
grass, Garrison creeping foxtail, and
western wheatgrass, placing them in rows 0.1
m apart which ran perpendicular to the water
line. Garrison creeping foxtail, reed canary
grass, common reed, giant bulrush, and
broad-leaved cattail were successfully
established, as measured by a minimum of
10% survival. In some areas, garrison
creeping foxtail and reed canary grass
spread into 1 hectare stands. All the sites
flourished from one to three years. After the
third year, water inundated the sites long
enough to destroy the vegetation.
We feel a permittee should indicate which
species are to be established and the methods he
will use. These species should be shown to
succeed in the environment they will be planted
in, and the proposed planting method (including
type of propagule and planting method, density,
and liming) should be a proven method. Because
of the lack of control under natural revegetation,
we do not recommend this as a primary
revegetation technique. We believe, however, that
the seed bank method in particular can be
effective when used concurrently with artificial
establishment (e.g., transplants), a combination
which could provide both immediate cover and a
backup source of propagules. These propagules
could ensure some type of vegetative cover if the
transplants die as a result of changing
environmental conditions.
Reintroduction of Fauna
In general, reintroduction of fauna should be
passive. Lakes and reservoirs attract wildlife
and usually have numerous fish species present.
Target organisms will find the created wetland
and should remain there if the habitat is suitable.
Diked or impounded wetlands, however, exclude
fish. To remedy this, fish ladders have been
built into dikes to allow fish to move into an
impounded wetland (Anderson 1985). On an
impoundment on Cass Lake, Minnesota, two fish
ladders were constructed to allow northern pike
to travel to and from the impounded wetland,
however in this case, the pike did not make use
of the structure.
Long-term management plans are a
necessity, particularly when water level control
structures are used. Drawdown can be used to
effectively manage desired plant and animal
species. The effect of lake drawdown on wetland
plant establishment has been well documented
(Salisbury 1970, Richardson 1975, Pederson 1979,
Pederson 1981, Knighton 1985, Cooke et al. 1986).
The timing of drawdown is also an important
consideration. Cooke et al. (1986) provided a
table of the response of 74 species to drawdown for
an entire year, summer only, and winter only.
Animal species are also affected by drawdown,
both directly and indirectly due to plant species
composition changes (Weller 1981, Jaworski et
al. 1980). See Weller (this publication) for a
more detailed discussion of drawdown.
Controlled burning is another long-term
management method. It is especially useful for
controlling nuisance plant species and for
waterfowl habitat maintenance (Linde 1985).
Burning can also be used to 1) remove the dead
canopy of the previous summer's vegetation; 2)
control woody vegetation in subimpoundments
and dikes; 3) clean impoundment basins after
drawdown and prior to reflooding; and 4)
produce more nutritious and palatable forage for
early spring use by waterfowl. The timing of
burning is important, and is best in late summer
or early fall where hunting is not a
consideration. Otherwise, winter or early spring
burns can be used, if done in advance of snows
or after snow melt. Burning should never be
done in April, May, or June, since this is the
nesting period for most waterfowl.
Animal species can also be nuisances, and
their population numbers may need to be
controlled. For example, Berge (1987) removed
carp (Cvprinus carpiol from Lake Puckaway to
improve water quality. This increased the
success of wild celery establishment. An active
trapping program initiated on the Sandusky Bay
Harbour Project successfully controlled the
muskrat population, which had threatened the
integrity of the dikes.
We feel that the a long term management
plan should include the identification of
responsible parties and a financial plan to help
ensure that long-term management is initiated
and continued at the mitigation site. For
example, the permit for the Harbour Project on
Sandusky Bay stated that the applicant or a
designated party (e.g., the City of Sandusky) was
responsible for overseeing and funding water
level management.
320
-------
MONITORING
MONITORING
A notable omission in all the permits we
reviewed was a monitoring plan. A monitoring
plan is essential to determine the success of a
project and to evaluate the need for mid-course
corrections. The plan must describe what is
monitored, how it is monitored, how long it is
monitored, and how the monitoring results will
be interpreted.
The plan must first outline those parameters
of the wetland which will be monitored. If the
goal of the project is to create a wetland to
compensate for one that is to be destroyed, then
vegetation survival and growth may be the
chosen parameters. Specifically, the vegetation
should be monitored for species composition,
percent survival of plants over time, percent
cover relative to the size of the area seeded, the
rate of expansion of the planted area, ratio of
vegetation to open water, or whether the stand has
coalesced.
Next, the plan must describe how the
monitoring will be carried out. For example, for
vegetation, field measurements can be made
using a simple point grid system covering the
planted area. To determine percent survival, a
count of successful plants per grid could be
compared to planting densities for each target
species. In addition, the presence of non-target
species could also be noted to identify future
problems. In large areas where sampling the
entire area is unfeasible, random samples could
betaken.
Monitoring should occur quarterly for the
first year and in early summer and early fall
for at least the following two years. Additionally,
monitoring should occur immediately after large
storm events, particulary in undiked fringe
wetlands. When a temporary breakwater is used,
monitoring should continue at least one year
after the breakwater is removed.
Results from the monitoring program can be
compared to criteria established in the permit.
These criteria would be based upon the successes
exhibited in similar projects. For example, 70-
75% of the wild celery tubers planted in one to two
feet of water were successfully established in
Navigational Pool 8 on the Mississippi River
(Peterson 1987). A permittee should be expected to
achieve similar success rate given similar
circumstances. In harsher environments, a
lower success rate may be permissible and, in
fact, should be expected.
Additional parameters should be included in
the monitoring plan which reflect the goals of the
project. If a wetland is being created to provide
fish or waterfowl habitat, these organisms should
be monitored. This can be done directly by
counting individuals or indirectly by counting
such surrogates as nests. Sampling schemes
such as mark and recapture can be used. As
mentioned above, the results should be compared
to expected values from other projects or as noted
in wetland literature.
MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS
Many things can go awry during the
creation of a wetland. Unexpected water level
changes is one example. The dikes on the
Harbour Project, in Sandusky Bay, were
threatened by high lake levels in Lake Erie in
1986-87. To correct this problem, an emergency
permit was issued which allowed for
reinforcement of the dikes. The wetlands within
the impounded area were thus saved. The
opposite problem was encountered on an Iowa
subimpoundment, which failed to fill with water
during a spring with little rainfall (Moore and
Pfeiffer 1985). The Iowa DOC pumped water
from a nearby river to provide the pool level
dictated by management plans. This correction
allowed the establishment of the target plant
species.
Another example of how plans can go awry
is a revegetation plan that was too successful.
Berge (1988, WDNR, pers. comm.) suggested that
the wild celery became too dense in some of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
projects. Although this may be a wetland
restorers dream, it can cause problems. Engel
(1984,1985) suggested that a completely vegetated
shoreline is not the best fish habitat. He has
experimented with harvesting and screening
vegetation to open feeding lanes for predatory
fish in two Wisconsin lakes. On Halverson
Lake, Engel harvested 50-70% of the vegetation to
a depth of 1.5 m in June. The vegetation grew
rapidly after this harvest and nearly reached
preharvest densities by July, when it was
harvested again. Vegetation recovery was
slower after this July harvest. Macrophyte species
composition changed in the harvested areas from
the original dominants of Berchtold's pondweed
(Po tarn ope ton berchtoldii) and sago pondweed to
curly-leaf pondweed (P. crispus)T coontail
(Ceratophyllum demersum). bushy pondweed
(Naiaa flexilis). and water stargrass
(Heteranthera dubia). After harvesting, bluegills
CLepomis macrochirus') continued to feed on
aquatic insects in the macrophyte beds but also
consumed macroinvertebrates made available by
the disruption of the vegetation. Largemouth bass
used the harvested channels to cruise for prey,
321
-------
and some individuals were larger than 40 cm.
On Cox Hollow Lake, Engel placed screens on
the lake bed in May and left them in the lake for
one to three years. After one year, some screens
began accumulating sediment and supporting
vegetation, and required some maintenance.
This technique was successful, for few plants
grew back after screen removal. Harvesting and
screening may also provide a method of
maintaining optimum vegetation to open water
ratios in waterfowl habitat.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH
Although a fair amount of information is
available about fringe wetlands of the Midwest,
further research is needed. For example,
relatively few studies of nutrient cycling include
a water budget. This precludes the calculation of
a true nutrient mass balance. These calculations
are necessary to determine whether a wetland
functions as a nutrient source or sink. More
research is also needed to determine how species
(when alive and during decomposition) affect
nutrient cycling. For example, the American
lotus has spread throughout the Midwest, and
little is known of its nutrient cycling functions.
Information is also needed to understand
further how water level fluctuations influence
species composition and nutrient cycling in
fringe wetlands. Although information exists to
show how fringe wetlands protect shorelines, this
effect needs to be quantified. Research should be
conducted to compare shoreline area loss between
a vegetated and nonvegetated shoreline and to
determine which plant species or communities
provide the best protection. Finally, more local
nurseries should be developed to provide wetland
planting stock which is ecotypically adapted to
Midwestern ecoregions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank M. Beth Levine
for her unfathomable patience. Her technical
writing skills were much needed and greatly
appreciated.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, HJI. 1978. Role of wetland plants in erosion
control of riparian shorelines, p. 403-414. In PJ3.
Greeson, JJR. Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland
Function and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. American Water Resources Assoc-
iation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Amundson, R.W. 1970. Nutrient availability of a
marsh soil. M.S. Thesis. Department of Water
Chemistry, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Anderson, GJR. 1985. Design and location of water
impoundment structures, p. 126-129. In M.D.
Knignton (Ed.), Water Impoundments for Wildlife:
A Habitat Management Workshop. U.S. Forest
Service, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Banus, M.D., I. Veliela, and JM. Teal. 1975. Lead,
zinc, and cadmium budgets in experimentally
enriched salt marsh ecosystems. Eatuarine and
Coastal Marine Science 3.421^30.
Barnes, M.D. 1980. Appendix B, p. 340-363. In C.E.
Herdendorf and S.M. Hartley (Eds.), Fish and
Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands within the United States. Center for Lake
Erie Area Research, Technical Report Number 170:1,
Columbus, Ohio.
Beam, JH. 1983. The effect of annual water level
management on population trends on white crappie
in Elk City Reservoir, Kansas. North Amer. J.
Fish. Mgmt. 3:3440.
Bender, M.E. and D.L. Correll. 1974. The Use of
Wetlands as Nutrient Removal Systems. CRC
Publication No. 29. Bentley, EM., EH. 1969. The
effect of marshes on water quality. Ph.D. Thesis.
Department of Water Chemistry, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Berge, DA. 1987. Native plants, fish introduced in a
lake restoration effort (Wisconsin). Note #30.
Restor. Mgt. Notes 51:35.
Boyd, C.E. 1970a. Production, mineral nutrient
absorption, and pigment concentrations in Tvpha
latifolia and Scirpus americanus. Ecology 51:285-
290.
Boyd, C.E. 1970b. Losses of mineral nutrients during
decomposition of Tvpha latifolia. Arch. Hvdrobiol.
66:511-517.
Brady, N.C. 1984. The Nature and Properties of Soils.
322
-------
Macmillan Publishing Comp., New York.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North
America. Blakiston, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Carbine, W.F. 1943. Egg production of the northern
pike, ESQX. lucius L., and the percentage survival of
eggs and young on the spawning grounds. Mich.
Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters 20d23-137.
Chamie, JPM. 1976. The Effects of Simulated Sewage
Effluent upon Decomposition, Nutrient Status, and
Litterfall in a Central Michigan Peatland. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R.
Newroth. 1986. Lake and Reservoir Restoration.
Butterworth Publishers, Boston.
Cowardin, LJd., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife
Service OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Davis, C.B. and L.A. Harris. 1978. Marsh plant
production and phosphorus flux in Everglades
Conservation Area 2, p. 105-131. In MA. Drew (Ed.),
Environmental Quality Through Wetlands
utilization. Coordinating Council on the Kissimmee
River Valley and Tayler Creek-Nubbin Slough
Basin, Tallahasee, Florida.
Davis, C.B. and A.G. van der Valk. 1978. Litter
decomposition in prairie glacial marshes, p. 99-113.
In RJ3. Good, DJF. Whighman, and R.L. Simpson
(Eds.), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes
and Management Potential. Academic Press, New
York.
Dean, R.G. 1978. Effects of vegetation on shoreline
erosional processes, p. 415-426. In PJ3. Greeson, J.R.
Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland Function and
Values: The State of Our Understanding. American
Water Resources Association. Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Edzwald, J.K. 1977. Phosphorus in aquatic systems:
The role of the sediments, p 183-214. In IB. Suffet
(Ed.), Fate of Pollutants in the Air and Water
Environments, Part 1, Vol. 8. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Engel, S. 1984. Restructuring littoral zones: a
different approach to an old problem, p. 463-466. In
J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake and Reservoir Management:
Proceedings of the North American Lake
Management Society. U.S. EPA Office of
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Engel, S. 1985. Aquatic community interactions of
submerged macrophytes. Technical Bulletin No.
156, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Farmes, R.E. 1985. So you want to build a water
impoundment, p. 130-134. In M.D. Knighton (Ed.),
Water Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat
Management Workshop. U.S. Forest Service, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
Fenneman, N.M. 1970. Map of the Physical Divisions of
the United States, p. 60. In The National Atlas of the
United States of America. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Fowler, DJt. and D.A. Hammer. 1976. Techniques for
establishing vegetation on reservoir inundation
zones. J. of Soil and Water Conservation. 31:116-118.
Fowler, D.K. and J.B. Maddox. 1974. Habitat
improvement along reservoir inundation zones by
barge hydroseeding. J. of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion 29:263-265.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1977. Marsh development for shore
erosion control, p. 77-91. In P.L. Wise (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Role of
Vegetation in Stabilization of the Great Lakes
Shoreline. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1975a. Wildlife,
Appendix 17 of the Great Lakes Basin Framework
Study, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1975b. Shore Use and
Erosion, Appendix 12 of the Great Lakes Basin
Framework Study, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hassler, TJ. 1970. Environmental influences on early
development and year class strength of northern
pike in Lakes Oahe and Sharpe, South Dakota.
Tntna. Amer. Viah. Snc. 9:369-380.
Hoffman, G.R. 1977. Artificial establishment of
vegetation and effects of fertilizer along shorelines
of Lakes Oahe and Sakakawea, main stem Missouri
River reservoirs. In P.L. Wise (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Workshop on the Role of Vegetation in
Stabilization of the Great Lakes Shoreline. Great
Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1981. Illinois
Plants for Habitat Restoration. Illinois Department
of Conservation, Mining Program. Springfield,
Illinois.
Jaworski, E., C.N. Raphael. 1978. Fish, Wildlife, and
Recreational Values of Michigan's Coastal
Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin
Cities, Minnesota.
Jaworski, E. and C.N. Raphael. 1979. Mitigation of fish
and wildlife habitat losses in Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. In G.A. Swanson (Ed.), Proceedings from
the Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop of
Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats.
U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Jaworski, E., J.P. McDonald, S.C. McDonald, and C.N.
Raphael. 1980. Overview of fish and wildlife
resources, p. 54-95. In C.E. Herdendorf and S.M.
Hartley (Eds.), Fish and Wildlife Resources of the
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands within the United
States. Center for Lake Erie Area Research,
Technical Report Number 170:1, Columbus, Ohio.
Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec. 1978. Wetlands and
water quality, p. 436-456. 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.
323
-------
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kadlec, J-A. and W.A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-Art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural.
Volume 1: Report of Research. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Keith, W.E. 1975. Management by water level
manipulation, p. 489-497. In H. Clepper (Ed.), Black
Bass Biology and Management. Sport Fishing
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kelley, J.C. 1985. The role of Emergent Macrophytes to
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Clycling in a Great Lakes
Marsh. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Kelley, J.C., T.M. Burton, and W.R. Enslin. 1985. The
effects of natural water level fluctuations on N and
P cycling in a Great Lakes marsh. Wetlands 4:159-
175.
Keough, J.R. 1987. Response by Scirpus validus to the
physical environment and consideration of its role
in a Great Lakes estuarine system. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
King, D.L. 1985. Nutrient cycling by wetlands and
possible effects of water levels, 69-86. In H. H.
Prince, and F.M. D'ltri (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands.
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Klimstra, W.D. and JR. Nawrot. 1985. Wetlands as a
by-product of surface mining: midwest perspective,
p. 107-119. In RJ». Brooks, DJS. Samuel, and J.B. Hill
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Wetlands and Water
Management on Mined Lands Conference, Penn
State University, State College, Pennsylvania.
Klopatek, JJtf. 1975. The role of emergent macrophyte
in mineral cycling in a freshwater marsh, p. 359-
393. In F.G. Howell, J.B. Gentry, and H.M. Smith
(Eds.), Mineral Cycling in Southeastern Ecosystems.
ERDA Symposium Series (CONF-740513).
Klopatek, JM. 1978. Nutrient dynamics of freshwater
riverine marshes and the role of emergent
macrophytes, p. 195-216. In R.E. Good, D.F.
Whighman, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater
Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press, New York.
Knighton, M.D. 1985. Vegetation management in water
impoundments: water-level control, 39-50. In M.D.
Knighton (Ed.), Water Impoundments for Wildlife:
A Habitat Management Workshop. U.S. Forest
Service, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Landers, DJL and E. Lottes. 1983. Macrophyte dieback:
Effects on nutrient and phytoplankton dynamics, p.
119-122. In J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake Restoration,
Protection Management: Proceedings of the North
American Lake Management Society. U.S. EPA
Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Leek, MA. and K.J. Graveline. 1979. The seed bank of
a freshwater tidal marsh. Amer. J. Bot. 66(9)1006-
1015.
Lee, GJ1., E. Bentley, and R. Amendson. 1975. Effects
of marshes on water quality, p. 105-127. In A.D.
Hasler (Ed.), Coupling of Land and Water Systems,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Linde, AJ?. 1985. Vegetation management in water
impoundments: alternatives and supplements to
water-level control, 51-60. In M.D. Knighton (Ed.),
Water Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat
Management Workshop. U.S. Forest Service, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
Listen, C.R. and S. Chubb. 1985. Relationships of water
level fluctuations and fish, p. 121-140. In H.H. Prince
and F.M. D'ltri (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands. Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Loucks, O.L. 1981. The littoral zone as a wetland: Its
contribution to water quality, p. 125-137. In B.
Richardson (Ed.), Selected Proceeding of the
Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and
Management. Minnesota Water Planning Board, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
Lunz, J.D., T. W. Zeigler, R.T. Huffman, R.J. Diaz,
E.J. Clarrain, and L.J. Hunt. 1978. Habitat
Development Field Investigations, Windmill Point
Marsh Development Site, James River, Virginia;
Summary Report. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Martin, A.C. and FJli. Uhler. 1939. Food of Game Ducks
of the United States and Canada. U.S.DA. Technical
Bulletin No. 634.
McNicholl, MIL 1979. Destruction to nesting birds on a
marsh bay by a single storm. Prairie Nat. 11:60-62.
McNicholl, MIL 1985. Avian wetland habitat functions
affected by water level fluctuations, p. 87-98. In H.H.
Prince and FM. D'ltri (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands.
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Miranda, L.E., W.L. Shelton, and T.D. Bryce. 1984.
Effects of water level manipulation on abundance,
mortality, and growth of young-of-the-year
largemouth bass in West Point Reservoir, Alabama-
Georgia. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 4:314-320.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Moore, B.C., H.L. Gibbons, WJH. Funk, T. McKarns, T.
Nyznyk, and M.V. Gibbons. 1984. Enhancement of
internal cycling of phosphorus by aquatic
macrophytes, with implication for lake
management, p. 113-117. In J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake
and Reservoir Management: Proceedings of the
North American Lake Management Society. U.S.
EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, D.C.
Moore, R. and D. Pfeiffer. 1985. Subimpoundments: New
waterfowl habitat. Iowa Conservationist. 4411:2-5.
Nawrot, J.R. 1985. Wetland development on coal mine
slurry impoundments: principles, planning, and
practices, p. 161-172. In R. P. Brooks, DJS. Samuel,
and J.B. Hill (Eds.), Proceedings of the Wetlands
and Water Management on Mined Lands
Conference. Penn State University, State College,
Pennsylvania.
324
-------
Nichols, D.S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to
remove nutrients from wastewater. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 55:495-505.
Nute, J.W. 1977. Mountain View Sanitary District
Marsh Enhancement Pilot Program Progress Report
No. 2. J. Warren Nute, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Pederson, R.L. 1979. Seed Bank Study of the Delta
Experimental Ponds. Marsh Ecology Research
Program 1979 Annual Report, Delta Waterfowl
Research Station, Delta, Manitoba, Canada.
Pederson, R.L. 1981. Seed hank characteristics of the
Delta Marsh, Manitoba: applications for wetland
management, p. 61-69. In B. Richardson (Ed.),
Selected Proceeding of the Midwest Conference on
Wetland Values and Management. Minnesota
Water Planning Board, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Peterson, L.N. 1987. Wild celery transplanted
(Wisconsin). Note #31. Restoration and
Management Notes 5:1:35-36.
Prentki, R.T., T.D. Gustafson, and M.S. Adams. 1978.
Nutrient movements in lake shore marshes, p. 169-
194. In R.E. Good, D.F. Whighman, and R.L.
Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological
Processes and Management Potential. Academic
Press, New York.
Prince, H.H. 1985. Avian response to wetland vegetative
cycles, p. 99-120. In H.H. Prince and P.M. D'ltri
(Eds.), Coastal Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.
Richardson, L.V. 1975. Water level manipulation: a
tool for aquatic weed control. Hvacith Control
Salisbury, E. 1970. The pioneer vegetation of exposed
muds and its biological features. Philosophical
Transactions of the Roval Society of London Series
B. 259207-255.
Schults, D.W. and K.W. Maleug. 1971. Uptake of
radio phosphorus by rooted aquatic plants, p. 417. In
D.J. Nelson (Ed.), Radionuclides in Ecosystems.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
Seidel, K. 1976. Macrophytes and water purification, p.
109-121. In J. Tourbier and R.W. Pierson, Jr. (Eds.),
Biological Control of Water Pollution. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Semkin, R.G., A.W. McLarty, and D. Craig. 1976. A
Water Quality Study of Cootes paradise. Water
Resources Assessment, Technical Support Section,
Canadian Ministry of the Environment.
Spangler, F., W. Sloey, and C.W. Fetter. 1976.
Experimental use of emergent vegetation for the
biological treatment of municipal wastewater in
Wisconsin, p. 161-171. In J. Tourbier and R.W.
Pierson, Jr. (Eds.), Biological Control of Water
Pollution. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sullivan, P. 1976. Versatile wetlands - An endangered
species, (reprint from) Conservation News. 42:20:2-5.
Tilton, D.L. and V.R. Schwegler. 1978. The values of
wetland habitat in the Great Lakes Basin, p. 267-277.
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.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Toth, L. 1972. Reed control eutrophication of Balaton
Lake. Water Res. 6:1533-1539.
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(2):322-335.
van der Valk, A.G., C.B. Davis, J.L. Baker, and C.E.
Beer. 1979. Natural freshwater wetlands as nitrogen
and phosphorus traps for land runoff, p. 457-467. 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.
Warburton, D.B., W.B. Klimstra, and J.R. Nawrot.
1985. Aquatic macrophyte propagation and planting
practices for wetland development, p. 139-152. In
R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Wetlands and Water
Management on Mined Lands Conference, Penn
State University, State College, Pennsylvania.
Weiler, P.R., E.S. Menges, D.R. Rogers, and O.L.
Loucks. 1979. Equations, specifications, and selected
results for a nominal simulation of the aquatic
ecosystem model WINGRA III. On file at the
Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Weiler, M.W. 1981. Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and
Wildlife Management. University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Willenbring, P.R. 1985. Wetland treatment systems-
Why do some work better than others?, p. 234-237. In
J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake and Reservoir Management:
Practical Applications, Proceedings of the North
American Lake Management Society, U.S. EPA
Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Wolverton, B.C., R.M. Barlow, and R.C. McDonald.
1976. Application of vascular aquatic plants for
pollution removal, energy, and food production in a
biological system, p. 141-149. In J. Tourbier and
R.W. Pierson, Jr. (Eds.), Biological Control of Water
Pollution. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
325
-------
APPENDIX I: ADDITIONAL READINGS
Barten, J. 1983. Nutrient removal from urban
stonnwater by wetland filtration: the Clear Lake
restoration project, p. 23-30. In J. Taggart (Ed.),
Lake Restoration: Protection and Management.
Proceedings of the North American Lake
Management Society. U.S. EPA Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Bedinger, M.S. 1978. Relation between forest species and
flooding, p. 427-435. In PJE. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and
JJL Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values:
The State of Our Understanding. American Water
Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Branch, W.L. 1988. Design and construction of
replacement wetlands on lands mined for sand and
gravel, p. 168-172. In J. Zelanzy, and J.S. Feierabend
(Eds.), Increasing Our Nations Wetlands Resources.
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Burton, T.M., D.L. King, and J.L. Ervin. 1979. Aquatic
plant harvesting as a lake restoration technique, p.
177-111. In Lake Restoration: Proceedings of the
North American Lake Management Society. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Busch, WD. and L.M. Lewis. 1983. Responses of wetland
vegetation to water level variations in Lake Ontario,
p. 519-523. In J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake Restoration:
Protection and Management. Proceedings of the
North American Lake Management Society. U.S.
EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Carpenter, S.R. 1983. Submersed macrophyte community'
structure and internal loading: relationship to lake
ecosystem productivity and succession, p. 105-111. In
J. Taggart (Ed.), Lake Restoration: Protection and
Management. Proceedings of the North American
Lake Management Society. U.S. EPA Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C.
Clark, J. 1978. Fresh water wetlands: habitats for aquatic
invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, p. 330-
342. In P.E. Greeson, JJt. Clark, and J.E. Clark
(Eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
Our Understanding. American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Crowder, L.B. and WJS. Cooper. 1979. The effects of
macrophyte control on the feeding efficiency and
growth of sunfishes: evidence from pond studies, p.
251-268. In JJE. Breck, R.T. Prentki, and O.L. Loucks
(Eds.), Aquatic Plants, Lake Management and
Ecosystem Consequences of Lake Harvesting.
Institute of Environmental Studies, University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
DeMarte, J.A. and R.T. Hartman. 1974. Studies on
absorbtion of 32P, B9Fe, and 46CA by water-milfoil
fMvriophvllum cxalbesccns Fernald). Ecology 55188-
194.
Eckert, J.W., M.L. Giles, and G.M. Smith. 1978.
Concepts for In-Water Containment Structures for
Marsh Habitat Development. Technical Report D-78-
31, Waterways Experiment Station, US ACOE,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Emerson, F.B., Jr. 1961. Experimental establishment
of food and cover plants in marshes created for
wildlife in New York state. N.Y. Fish and Game
Journal 55130-1 44.
Fetter, C.W., Jr., W.E. Sloey, and F.L. Spangler. 1978.
Use of a natural marsh for wastewater polishing, i
Water Polluj, Cgflfaol Fed, 50290-307.
Frederickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Managment
of Seasonally Flooded Impoundments for Wildlife.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Research Publication
148.
Freidman, R.M., C.B. DeWitt. 1978. Wetlands as
carbon and nutrient reservoirs: a spatial, historical,
and societal perspective, p. 175-185. 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.
Glooschenko, W.A., and IP. Martini. 1987. Vegetation
of river-influenced coastal marshes of the
southwestern end of James Bay, Ontario. Wetlands
7:71-84.
Godshalk, G.L. and R.G. Wetzel. 1978. Decomposition
in the littoral zone of lakes, 131-143. In R.E. Good,
D.F. Whighman, and R.L. Simpson (Eds.),
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and
Management Potential. Academic Press, New York.
Hall, V.L. and J.D. Ludwig. 1975. Evaluation of
Potential Use of Vegetation for Erosion Abatement A
Long the Great Lakes Shoreline. Miscalaneous
Paper 75-7, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
US ACOE, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Haller, W.T., J.V. Shireman, and FJ. DuRant. 1980.
Fish harvest resulting from mechnical control of
hydrilla. Trans. Amur. Fisheries Soc. 109:517-520.
Harris, S.W. and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of
water-level manipulations on a northern marsh.
Eo2kgy.44(2):331-343.
Huff, D.D. and H.L. Young. 1980. The effect of a marsh
on runoff: I. a water-budget model. J. Environ. Qual..
9(4)^33-640.
Jaynes, M.L. and S.R. Carpenter. 1985. Effects of
submersed macrophytes on phosphorus cycling in
surface sediment, p. 370-374. In J. Taggart (Ed.),
Lake and Reservoir Management: Practical
Applications, North American Lake Management
Society. U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C.
Jewell, W.J. 1971. Aquatic weed decay: dissolved
oxygen utilization and nitrogen and phosphorus
regeneration. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 431457-
1467.
327
-------
King, D.L. and TJtf. Burton. 1980. The efficiency of weed
harvesting for lake restoration, p. 158-161. In
Restoration of Lakes and Inland Waters:
Proceedings of the North American Lake
Management Society. U.S. EPA Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Kistritz, R.U. 1978. Recycling of nutrients in an enclosed
aquatic community of decomposing macrophytes
fMvrionhvllum spicatum ). Oikos 30:475-47&
Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate
associations and waterfowl. J. Wildlife
Management 34(4}:707-718.
Linde, AJP. 1969. Techniques for Wetland Management.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Report
45, Madison, Wisconsin.
McMuUen, J.M. 1968. Selection of plant species for use
in wetland creation and restoration, p. 333-337. In J.
Zelanzy and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing Our
Nations Wetland Resources. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington, D.G.
McNabb, CD., Jr. and DJ>. Tierney. 1972. Growth and
Mineral Accumulation of Submerged Vascular
Hydrophytes in Pleioeutrophlc Environs. Institute of
Water Resources Technical Report 26, Michigan
State University, East Tanning, Michigan.
McRoy, CJ>. and RJ. Barsdate. 1970. Phosphate
absorbtion in eelgrass. Limnology and
Orgfintyaphv 15:6-13.
Mickle, AM. and R.G. Wetzel. 1978. Effectiveness of
submersed angiosperm-epiphyte complexes on
exchange of nutirents and organic carbon in littoral
systems: I. Inorganic nutrients. Aquatic Bntanv
4303-316.
Mikol, G.F. 1984. Effects of mechanical control of
aquatic vegetation on biomass, regrowth rates and
juvenile fish populations at Saratoga Lake, New
York, p. 466-462. In J. Taggart (Ed.) Lake and
Reservoir Management: Proceedings of the North
American Lake Management Society. U.S. EPA
Office of Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C.
Nawrot, J.R., D.B. Warburton, and W.B. Klimstra.
1988. Wetland habitat development techniques for
coal mine slurry impoundments, p. 185-193. In J.
Zelanzy and J.S. Feierabend (Eds.), Increasing Our
Nations Wetlands Resources. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington, D.C.
Nichols, D.S. and D.R. Eeeney. 1973. Nitrogen and
phosphorus release from decaying water-milfoil.
Hvdrobioloyica 42:609-525.
Orberts, G-.L. 1981. Impact of wetlands on watershed
water quality, p. 213-226. In B. Richardson (Ed,),
Selected Proceeding of the Midwest Conference on
Wetland Values and Management. Minnesota
Water Planning Board, St. Pad, 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
Proceeding of the Midwest Conference on Wetland
Values and Management. Minnesota Water
Planning Board, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Reed, R. B. and D.E. Willard. 1986. Wetland Evolution
in Midwestern reservoirs (unpublished), School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Storch, TA. and J J). Winter. 1983. Investigation of the
Interrelationships Between Aquatic Weed Growth,
Fish Communities, and Weed Management
Practices in Chautaugua Lake. Environmental
Resources Center, State University of New York,
Fredonia, New York.
van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a
Gleasonian approach. Ecology 623:688-696.
Weller, M.W. 1978. Management of freshwater
marshes for wildlife, p. 267-284. In R. Good, D.
Whigham, and R. Simpson (Eds.), Freshwater
Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management
Potential. Academic Press, New York.
Wile, I. 1978. Environmental effects of mechanical
harvesting. J. Aquatic Plant Management 16:14-20.
328
-------
APPENDIX It PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
THE HARBOUR PROJECT, SANDUSKY BAY, OHIO
Sandusky Bay on Lake Erie was the site of a large
wetland mitigation project permitted by the Buffalo
District Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Permit No.
82-475-3 revision A) in 1982. Each step of the project
was clearly outlined in the permit. The project goal
was to construct a 37.2 ha wetland in Sandusky Bay to
mitigate 5-6 ha of emergent wetland lost from dredging
channels and constructing a marina and resort.
Complete construction plans were detailed in the
permit. Dikes were constructed to impound a 37.2 ha
area using 116,000 cubic meters (152,000 cu. yds) of
imported material. The bayward face and the tops of
the outer dikes were riprapped to ensure the integrity of
the dikes during high water events. Over 306,000 cubic
meters (400,000 cu. yds) of dredge material were
pumped into this impounded area, which was divided
into four cells of various sizes. As dictated by the
permit, the bottom of each cell was contoured to create a
mosaic of islands and channels.
Planting strategies were also outlined in the permit.
The cells were mulched and seeded with reed canary
grass (Phalaria arundinacea). rice cutgrass (Leeraia
orvzoidea). and manna grass (Glvceria canadenaia)
in the spring. In some areas, natural vegetation had
established from the seed bank, and therefore, these
areas were not seeded.
The long-term management plan for the project was
primarily for water level management to provide a
suitable environment for plant establishment and to
allow fish access to the wetland during critical stages
in their lifecycles. The permit stated when and how
water level was to be managed and identified who was
responsible for overseeing and funding the
management plan. No monitoring plan was outlined.
However, the permit stipulated that research was to be
conducted at the site. The research was to 1) document
gross and net productivity in the system, 2) identify
floral and faunal populations, and 3) determine the
impact of carp (Cvprinus carpio') on the establishment
of freshwater marshes. The research was to be
conducted over a three year period.
The project has been considered a success by the
ACOE and local users of the wetland. Wetland plants
became established both naturally and as a result of
seeding. The wetland provided such a favorable habitat
for muskrat (Ondatra zibethicat that the species
became a nuisance. Accordingly, an active muskrat
trapping program was established. The wetland also
provided habitat to bald eagles (Haliaeetua
leucocephalua ). which use the site for feeding.
This project was not without problems, however.
High water levels in 1986-87 undermined the dikes.
The ACOE issued emergency permits to allow the
dikes to be strengthened. This mid-course correction
succeeded in saving the wetlands.
Ironically, the original wetland had not been
destroyed at the time of this writing.
Contact: Don Wilson
Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District
Buffalo, NY 14207
(716)876-5454
CAKLYLE LAKE, ILLINOIS
We understand that Carlyle Lake in Illinois
receives substantial pressure for recreation. To relieve
this pressure, the St. Louis District of the ACOE has an
active dredge-and-fill operation to maintain existing
marinas and create new ones. Although they are
exempt from a Section 404 permit, the District
internally mitigates for wetlands lost due to their
operations.
One such project was to create a 0.37 ha lacustrine
and palustrine wetland to mitigate the loss of a 0.32 ha
lacustrine and palustrine wetland due to marina
development at another site on the lake. They
modified the site by grading at least 25% of the banks
and bottom with a 5:1 slope and the remainder with a
2:1 slope. The rationale for this was not provided. The
banks were planted with smooth bromus (Bromua sp.),
timothy grass (Phleum pratens). and ladino clover
(Trifolium reoens).
The edge of the banks was planted with Scirpus sp.
Vegetation establishment was failing in the summer of
1988 due to a drought.
At another site, tire breakwaters were constructed to
accumulate sediment and thereby provide a suitable
substrate for planting Scirpus sp. The success of these
breakwaters has varied and was not well documented.
The ACOE has diked an incoming stream on
Carlyle Lake to create a 4 ha Scirpus sp. nursery. The
nursery will provide planting stocks for their
numerous mitigation projects.
Contact: Pat McGinnis
Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District
St. Louis, Missouri
(314)263-5533
329
-------
LAKE PUCEAWAY, WISCONSIN
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) implemented a plan to restore the natural
vegetation and game fish in the lake after they noticed
a decline in water quality, aquatic vegetation, and fish
populations. A secondary project goal was to provide a
food source for canvasback ducks (Avthva valianeria).
To reduce competition with desired fish species and
improve water clarity, carp (Cvprinus carpio ) were
removed using drawdown, chemical treatment, and
electric barriers. Drawdown also encouraged the
growth of aquatic vegetation.
To provide a low wave-energy environment in which
plants could become established, WDNR constructed
two types of barriers, tire and geoweb. A tire barrier
two meters wide (2 m = 7 tires) and 61 m long was
placed in approximately one meter of water. The tires
were not flush with the bottom and were slightly
exposed at the surface. A 30.5 m geoweb breakwater
was also installed. Geoweb is a thick plastic
honeycombed wall 6.1 m long, 1.2 m wide, and 20.3 cm
thick. Each length is comprised of numerous 10.2 X
20.3 cm rectangular cells. The geoweb barrier was not
successful in this application, because it was not heavy
enough to remain stationary against two foot waves.
Wild celery (Vallianeria americana). wild rice
(Zizania aquatica). and sago pondweed ( Potamogeton
pectinatus) were planted on the leeward side of the
barriers using several planting techniques.
Specifically, tubers placed in peat pot, clay balls, and
polyethylene produce bags weighted with gravel were
planted on several different sediment types. Single
tubers with nails attached for weight were also planted.
Tubers were planted in late April and early May in
densities of 1000-5000 per 0.4 ha (1 acre). Wild rice was
also seeded in shallow areas.
The produce bag and nail methods proved to be most
successful, whereas the peat pots and clay balls were
not. The best growth and survival occurred in areas
with a firm bottom and with a sediment of sand and
organic matter. Wild rice seeding was successful until
water levels rose during the floating leaf stage, which
destroyed all stands. Plantings of wild celery behind
the tire breakwater were successful despite waves of up
to two feet in the lake. The tire barrier was removed
after three years, at which time the wild celery patch
could dissipate wave energy itself.
The overall project was successful, as measured by
an establishment of target vegetation, increase in
water clarity, and surviving populations of walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum). northern pike (Esox luciua).
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). black
crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). yellow perch
(Perca flavescens). and bluegills (Lepo mi s
macrochirus).
Contact: DaleBerge
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Montello, WI 53949
(608)297-2888
COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE RESEARCH LABORATORY'S SLURRY POND
PROJECTS, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA
The Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory
(CWRL) has developed planting stock ecotypically
adapted to slurry pond environments. CWRL
developed this stock based upon their research on
factors which influenced the successful natural
establishment of wetland vegetation on 12 slurry pond
wetlands totaling over 480 acres.
CWRL found that species which naturally colonized
the slurry ponds were ecotypically adapted to the
conditions found in these ponds. When transplanted to
other slurry ponds, individuals of these species became
established more successfully than did individuals
from commercial stocks. For example, rhizomes of
hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) collected from
slurry ponds had significantly greater survival and
produced greater growth and spreading rates than
rhizomes from commercial stocks. CWRL has
developed populations of hardstem bulrush, threesquare
bulrush (Scirpus americanus) and prairie cordgrass
(Spartipa pectinata) in a "nursery pond" to provide
transplanting stock.
CWRL found that perennial' species which produce
rhizomes or tubers are most successfully established in
these ponds. They have had the greatest success when
rhizomes were planted in the spring, although
threesquare bulrush also did well when planted during
summer. Rhizomes were successful when planted at a
depth of 5 to 13 cm and spaced at 0.3 to 1.5 m intervals,
depending on species. Planting at 1.5 m intervals was
sufficient for threesquare bulrush, which spread
rapidly in one season. Hardstem bulrush was less
prolific, and it required a planting density of 0.3 to 0.9
m to be successful.
Contact: W.B. Klimstra, J.R. Nawrot,
or D.B. Warburton
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois 62901
330
-------
HOFFMAN'S MISSOURI RIVER RESERVOIR PROJECTS, SOUTH DAKOTA
A shoreline stabilization project was performed on
two Missouri River reservoirs in South Dakota. The
shorelines of these reservoirs were devoid of
permanent vegetation as a result of 3.5 m water level
fluctuations. The goal of the project was to establish
shoreline vegetation and evaluate different planting
techniques and fertilizer application. These planting
techniques may be applicable to the Midwest.
Thirteen sites along the shorelines of these
reservoirs were plowed and disked in preparation for
planting. They were planted with nine grass and two
emergent hydrophyte species. Crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron criatatum>r tall wheatgrass (A»
elongatum). western wheatgrass (A. amithiil. Garrison
creeping foxtail (Alopecunia arundiaceua\ turkey
brome (Bromus biebersteinii). basin wildrye (Elymus
cinerejlfl), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum1). and reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) were planted via
seeding. Broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia )r giant
bulrush (Scirpua validua). common reed ( Phraymites
auatraliaX reed canary grass, Garrison creeping
foxtail, and western wheatgrass were transplanted.
Both seeds and transplants were placed in rows 0.1 m
apart which ran perpendicular to the water line. A
fertilizer (N-P-K, 50-50-33) was applied to half the area
of each plot. Furthermore, each site was surrounded by
a barbed-wire fence to prevent cattle grazing, a problem
encountered during previous planting attempts.
Garrison creeping foxtail (from transplants), reed
canary grass (from both seeds and transplants),
common reed, giant bulrush, and broad-leaved cattail
were successfully established, as measured by a
minimum of 10% survival. In some areas, garrison
creeping foxtail and reed canary grass spread into 1
hectare stands. All the sites flourished from one to
three years. After the third year, water inundated the
sites long enough to destroy the vegetation. The results
of fertilization were only preliminary, and no
conclusions could be drawn. No attempt was made to
quantify the shoreline stabilization provided from
these temporary fringe wetlands.
Source: Hoffman 1977.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SUBIMPOUNDMENTS, IOWA
The Iowa Department of Conservation has built
numerous subimpoundments around four large
reservoirs to provide duck habitat. These
subimpoundments are generally located at or above the
confluence of the reservoirs and the feeding stream.
The area within the dikes was shaped to provide a
diverse topography. A habitat combination of 50%
palustrine emergent (PEM) and 50% open water
(POW), creating a "hemi-marsh" condition, was
generally sought as the practical ideal condition for
maximizing waterfowl use. Furthermore,
maximization of shoreline length was desired to
provide the greatest density of breeding territories.
Water levels are manipulated to provide water depths
appropriate for various species of waterfowl (e.g., giant
Canada goose, Branta canadensis maxima) and to
allow planting of food stock for waterfowl [e.g.,
smartweed (Polvpmum). sedges ( Carex). and millet
fEchinochloa)1. Pumping water into these areas was
sometimes necessary when natural runoff was
insufficient.
Source: Moore and Pfeiffer 1985.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATIONAL POOL 8, WISCONSIN
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created a
wetland in Navigational Pool 8 on the Mississippi
River near La Crosse, Wisconsin. The goal of the
project was to provide a food source for staging
canvasbacks. Using techniques described for Lake
Puckaway, 17 0.4-ha plots were each planted during the
spring with 8,000 tubers of wild celery. These tubers
were harvested from nearby Lake Onalaska using a
hydraulic dredge. Water depths in the planted plots
ranged from one to two meters. The project was
successful in establishing wild celery. Seventy to 75%
of the tubers sprouted and produced new plants during
the summer.
Contact: Leslie N. Peterson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602
(608)783-6451
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PROJECTS, TENNESSEE
The Tennessee Valley Authority has improved
waterfowl habitat in its reservoirs by creating
wetlands containing waterfowl food sources. The
species planted were Japanese millet (Echinochloa
cruapalli). common buckwheat (Fagonvrum
eaculentum). and Italian ryegrass (Lo li u m
multi florum). Seeds of these plants were broadcast onto
exposed mud banks and on slopes with 20 ° to 45° angles
331
-------
using a floating aquaseeder. A commercial fertilizer
(N-P-K, 6-12-12) and wood mulch were applied on
sloping areas. Three to four hectares per hour were
seeded using the aquaseeder at a cost of $18.13/acre.
Seeding was most successful when it occurred
immediately after soil exposure. Wood mulch did not
affect the success of plant establishment. As an
alternative to the aquaseeder, helicopters were also
used to broadcast seeds. They covered 61-81 hectares per
hour, cost only $5.59/acre, and had the same success as
was observed with the aquaseeder.
Contact: Tennessee Valley Authority
Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and
Wildlife Development
Norris, Tennessee 37828
COX HOLLOW AND HALVERSON LAKES, WISCONSIN
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) formed a network of open water passageways
within two fringe wetlands in Wisconsin to improve
fish habitat.
In Cox Hollow Lake, the WDNR placed fiberglass
screens n the lake bed in May and left them there for
one to three years to inhibit vegetation growth. After
one year, some screens began accumulating sediment
and supporting vegetation, and some maintenance
became necessary. This method was temporarily
successful, however, for few plants grew back for one to
three months after the screens were removed.
On Halverson Lake, the WDNR harvested 50-70% of
the aquatic vegetation to a depth of 1.5 m in June and
July. Vegetation grew rapidly after the June harvests
and nearly reached preharvest densities. Vegetation
recovery was slower, however, after the July harvest.
Macrophyte species composition changed in the
harvested areas from the original dominants of
Berchtold's pondweed (Potamogeton berchtnldiil and
sago pondweed ^PntHlrPnjfp^/'n pcctinatiia} to curly-leaf
pondweed (P. criapua ), coontail ( Ceratophvllum
^r bushy pondweed (Najfla flerilin^ and
water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia). After
harvesting, bluegills continued to feed on aquatic
insects in the macrophyte beds, but they also consumed
macroinvertebrates made available by the disruption
caused by the harvester. Largemouth bass used the
harvested channels to cruise for prey. Some
individuals were over 400 mm. Both screening and
harvesting created a more diverse littoral zone which
was beneficial to the fish populations.
Contact Sandy Engel
Bureau of Research
Nevin Hatchery
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
332
-------
CREATION AND RESTORATION OF RIPARIAN WETLANDS
IN THE AGRICULTURAL MIDWEST
Daniel E. Willard, Vicki M. Finn, Daniel A. Levine,
and. John E. Klarquist
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
ABSTRACT. Effective restoration of riparian wetlands in the agricultural midwest demands
an early determination of project goals. Established goals will narrow the choices of potential
project sites, which can then be evaluated based on hydrology, substrate, seedbank viability,
and water quality. Creation and restoration plans should include a realistic timetable that
accounts for construction and hydrology constraints, including specifications for revegetation
species. Finally, plans should estimate long term vegetation management requirements and
establish monitoring schedules to assess project success.
INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of this chapter, the "agricul-
tural midwest" region of the U.S. consists of the upper
midwestern states generally associated with major
rivers (such as the Mississippi, Missouri, and Wabash
rivers). Following this arbitrary (and somewhat
shady) distinction, we include Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin, Missouri, eastern Iowa, southern Michi-
gan, western Kentucky, and western Ohio within
this region.
Following Bailey's Ecoregions (Bailey 1978), this
region covers portions of both the warm continental
division, including portions of the Laurentian mixed
and eastern deciduous forest provinces, and the prai-
rie division, including portions of the prairie
parkland and tallgrass prairie provinces.
This chapter focuses on riparian ecosystems. The
term "riparian zone" is not restricted to riverine
systems, and is often applied to meadows, pond mar-
gins, etc. We include those communities conceivably
affected by periodic flooding (e.g., bottomland hard-
wood communities) in our discussion of riparian
wetlands. Following Cowardin's classification sys-
tem (Cowardin et al. 1979), we include palustrine
emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested systems, in
addition to riverine systems. We also discuss some of
these systems, as well as lacustrine wetlands, in our
paper on fringe wetlands (Levine and Willard, this
volume).
Over 70% of the riparian systems in the U.S.
have been altered, with natural riparian plant com-
munities reduced 70% overall (95% in some areas).
Brinson, etal. (1981) estimate that 10-15 million
acres of riparian ecosystems remain in the U.S. (ap-
proximately 1.5% of U.S. land area). According to
Hey et al. (1982) the rivers in the upper midwest
were originally shallow, slow-moving, and meander-
ing. The more extensive floodplain areas were often
moist meadows. The more southern floodplains
often supported bottomland hardwood communities,
many of which have been destroyed or are currently
threatened. Virtually all of these systems have been
altered to some extent by activities such as channeli-
zation or draining.
333
-------
EXTENT OF CREATION/RESTORATION
TYPICAL PROJECTS AND GOALS
Common goals for creation or restoration
projects include stormwater retention, water
quality improvement, sediment capture,
wastewater treatment, creation of fish and
wildlife habitats, and recreational use. Many
projects are undertaken simply to perform
mitigation required under state and/or federal
permits. Although these permits may require
specific mitigation activities (eg., habitat
replacement), often the mitigator's goal is to
complete the project, doing only what is required
as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Appendix II contains descriptions of wetland
restoration and creation projects that have taken
place, or are in progress, in this region. Each
description includes information on project
types, goals and methods.
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
Goals of wetland creation and restoration
projects have rarely been clearly defined, which
makes judgement of success in meeting goals
difficult. Often projects are considered successful
when vegetation is established. However,
adequate follow up measurements to gauge long-
term success are rare. Some projects, such as the
Des Plaines Wetland Demonstration Project,
have well-defined goals, but it is too early to
judge whether these goals have been achieved
(Hey and Philippi 1985).
One ironic example shows the difficulties in
determining success or failure in the Midwest.
One source (who did not wish to be named) cited
an instance in which the highway department of
his/her state routed a project through a 200 year
old forest to avoid a cattail marsh and, thus,
avoid Section 404 mitigation requirements. We
have seen several similar situations in which
applicants have proposed destroying old upland
sites to create emergent marshes. Unfortunately,
old upland sites are also valuable habitat and are
quite rare over much of the Midwest.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Wetlands are dynamic systems. It is
impossible to isolate specific design criteria as
guides to successful projects, since wetland
attributes interrelate. Choices of appropriate plant
species will depend on hydrology, while choices
of water control structures will depend on
variables such as desired species and habitat
values. Wetland creation and restoration
projects require a holistic approach to design
considerations to approximate these dynamics.
As Chapman and others put it, "knowledge of
particular combinations of substrate, micro-
climate, nutrient and water level regimes, and
the dynamism of wetland or riparian plant
communities in both time and space is requisite"
(Chapman et al. 1982, p. 40).
The Des Plaines River Wetland
Demonstration Project can serve as a model for
project planning (Hey 1987, Hey and Philippi
1985, Hey et al. 1982). A complete conceptual plan
was developed before basic decisions such as
construction criteria and species selection were
made. This plan is an excellent guide to the
kinds of questions and considerations which
should be addressed in any project. It is unlikely
that our discussion will improve upon it.
DETERMINING PROJECT GOALS
Clearly defined goals are essential to a
successful project. All design considerations will
depend upon these goals. It is not sufficient to
simply set goals such as creation of "x acres of
wetland".
Several basic questions should be asked,
including:
1. Is the wetland being created to replace
habitat? What type? Is a similar habitat
feasible? What species (plant and animal)
are desired?
2. Is the wetland expected to perform specific
functions, such as flood control, wastewater
treatment, and sediment trapping? What
features are required to perform these
functions (area, flow rate, etc.)?
All too often sites are selected before goals
are established. This severely limits potential
project goals, requiring even more careful site
evaluation, goal definition, and design
tailoring.
334
-------
PKE-CONSTRUCT1ON
CONSIDERATIONS
Selection of a suitable project site may be the
most difficult stage of the planning process. A
potential site should be carefully evaluated with
particular goals in mind. For example, if
wildlife habitat is being created, the proposed site
should be in, or adjacent to, an assured corridor.
To create or restore riparian wetlands,
adequate room for flood flows is needed. Size
requirements can be predicted to some extent by
estimating inflow following heavy rains, extent
and duration of flooding, and vegetation flood
tolerances (Kobriger et al. 1983). Although much
of this information will not be available until
project planning is completed, educated guesses
goals will provide a fair idea of appropriate size.
Past and present land uses also are
important considerations. The best sites have
historically supported wetlands. However, the
hydrology of the area may have been drastically
altered since wetlands existed at the sites,
hampering attempts to replace them. Planners
should also consider the likelihood of future land
use changes (eg., development) which might
block or contaminate ground and/or surface
water supplies (Bell 1981). Verry (1983) provides
a "cookbook" approach to selection of suitable
impoundment sites.
Potential sites should be carefully evaluated
in terms of substrate, seedbank viability, and
water quality. Perhaps most importantly,
planners should study a potential site's
hydrology and historical hydroregime. Is the
hydroregime appropriate given project goals?
Substrate can be altered and seeded, and water
quality can often be improved, but a project
cannot significantly change the hydroperiod.
The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)
(Adamus 1988a, Adamus et al. 1987) may be
useful in determining whether it is possible to
create a wetland with specific functions on a
particular site.
Richardson and Nichols (1985) raise several
questions that must be answered if project goals
include wastewater treatment. Estimates of the
hydraulic load and nutrient load, including
expected variability, are essential to gauge area,
plantings, and other requirements. Reed and
Kubiak (1985) present a schematic ecological
evaluation procedure useful in the planning
stages of wetland wastewater treatment. Their
procedure helps determine appropriate impact
evaluations for different types of projects.
Practical considerations are also important
in site selection. For example, proximity to the
fill source may be important. Often mitigators
prefer using a portion of the site of the project
requiring mitigation for wetland creation since
they do not have to acquire additional land.
Also, they might be able to work on both projects
concurrently, minimizing equipment costs.
Detailed plans cannot be developed without
knowledge of pre-construction conditions and
consideration of these conditions given project
goals. A complete survey of soil, hydrology,
water quality, vegetation, and wildlife
parameters will be essential data for project
planning and future monitoring efforts (see
discussion of monitoring methods below). It may
be necessary to redefine goals in light of these
findings.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN
Timing
A good timetable for a project should
minimize exposure of open ground. Exposure of
open ground, especially during rainy seasons,
can lead to heavy soil erosion. Also, if
revegetation efforts will rely on seedbanks, these
must be protected from winter exposure to avoid a
frozen seedbank.
The timetable also should allow for planting
in the proper season. Different species must be
planted at different times of year depending on
individual life-histories. A great deal of time
and money will be wasted if these requirements
are not met.
Include contingency plans. There will be
delays and unforeseen problems preventing
adherence to the original schedule. Plan for them
by developing alternative timetables, including
provisions for ground protection, and by
budgeting for the added expenses these
alternatives might incur.
Construction
Well planned construction will improve the
chances of project success. Plans including
areas for equipment parking and turning will go
a long way towards reducing soil compaction
and unnecessary disturbance. If the topsoil will
be saved for its seedbed, it must be minimally
disturbed and carefully stored. An isolated
location should be identified for this purpose.
Controlling erosion during construction is
very important. Exposed ground (including
topsoil pile, if any) should be covered if possible.
Shuldiner et al. (1979) report mixed success with
jute mesh and excelsior mat covers. Plastic
sheeting and filter cloths are cheap, effective
methods of temporary erosion control.
Excavation methods are important
335
-------
considerations. Linde (1983) discusses several
methods of earthmoving including blasting,
level ditching and the use of draglines. Weller
(1981) advocates blasting or bulldozing over
dragging and ditching.
Variable depths are best accomplished by
excavating deepest areas first. The depth of
excavation is critical since it determines future
water depths. Shuldiner et al. (1979) recommend
providing water depths of 15-60 cm during the
growing season for emergent marshes. For
submerged vegetation they recommend deep
zones of 0.5-2 m. Scattered pits over 3 m deep will
increase aquatic diversity.
A varied bed form adds diversity. Herricks
et al. (1982) suggest excavating holes one to three
feet deep and using the fill to create riffles. This
will provide depth diversity at low flow rates.
Stream channels can be improved by
creating meanders. New meanders should follow
historical paths if possible. The outside curve of
the meander should be the deepest point, with the
bed sloping towards the inside curve. Herricks
et al. (1982) suggest using riprap to stabilize the
banks. Stoplog structures are also commonly
constructed.
Extensive floodplains are characteristic of
midwestern riparian systems. Bell (1981)
recommends creating a gradual slope (under
1%) for riparian shorelines. This will provide
gradual vegetation zonation based on water
levels, consequently increasing diversity.
Kobriger et al. (1983) recommend construction of
flat impoundments with slopes less than 1% to
slow outflow. Weller (1981) also recommends
gradually sloping sidewalls and irregularly
shaped basins for wildlife habitat enhancement.
Streambank stabilization is essential to
minimize soil erosion. Gray (1977) identified
35 ° as the maximum slope angle for vegetation
establishment, although this varies to some
extent with soil type. In addition to establishing
stabilizing vegetation, it may be necessary to
place stone riprap at the toes of slopes. This is
particularly important on undercut banks.
Revetments can also be used to stabilize banks
(Allen 1978). Although possibly limiting
vegetation establishment, rock revetments can
promote increased invertebrate populations.
(Canter 1985).
Wildlife habitat creation/restoration
requires additional considerations. In general,
patches of open water and vegetation used to
maximize edge effects are needed for adequate
habitat diversity. Brinson et al. (1981) suggest
creating diverse habitat using live and dead
vegetation, areas of standing water, and floating
structures. Weller (1981) recommends a 50:50
ratio of cover to open water. Areas of deep open
water are necessary for some waterfowl (eg.,
diving ducks). Other waterfowl species (eg.,
geese) prefer open water interspersed with
islands. Herricks et al. (1982) suggest diverse
patches of wetland, herbaceous, and woody
vegetation for nongame wildlife species.
Hydrology
Wetland communities are determined by
hydrology. Wetland vegetation is adapted to, and
often depends upon, water level changes.
Managers should strive to maintain
hydroregime variability as far as practicable.
This practice can have added benefits. For
example, a shallow, fluctuating water level that
occasionally falls below soil surface is
recommended for management of highway
pollutant runoff (Kobriger et al. 1983).
Stable water levels can lead to increased
nesting success (Weller 1981). This suggests
managing water levels during the nesting
season, but allowing water level fluctuations
during the rest of the year.
Preferably, the project will rely on the
natural site hydrology. Of course, this means
that managers will have to accept the inevitable
fluctuations in water level and flow rates. But,
as we discuss elsewhere, these changes will, over
time, support a variable dynamic wetland
(Willard and Killer, Volume II).
A second option is to install permanent, low
maintenance water control structures. Simple
dam structures, such as drop-inlet and whistle
stop dams, can be effective impoundments.
Several states have established design
specifications for dikes, • floodgates, and
impoundments, so planners should check with
state agencies before serious designing begins.
(Shuldiner et al. 1979).
Dams are usually placed at the narrowest
portion of flow. Typical design parameters
include heights 2-3 feet above the expected crest
elevation and widths of 10 feet (unless dam will
be used as a roadway). Side slopes are
determined by the type of material used in
construction, with sand dams requiring flatter
slopes than clay dams (Anderson 1983).
It is possible to significantly alter the
hydrology of a site by installing pumping
equipment and drains, creating impoundments,
and redirecting water flow. The Des Plaines
project is a good example of this type of approach
(Hey and Philippi 1985). Project planners hope
that by judicious grading and equipment
installation they will be able to recreate some of
the original floodplain characteristics and
provide varied wetlands for research purposes.
336
-------
However, major alteration of site hydrology
through pumps and other approaches requiring
continuous mechanical manipulations is very
expensive, and often requires a great deal of
maintenance. What happens ten years down the
line when the money runs out and equipment
begins to break down?
There are two major substrate considerations
important for wetland creation/restoration: will
the substrate, in conjunction with the
hydroregime, support the desired wetland
functions? (consider factors such as soil
permeability, water retention); will the substrate
support desired vegetation? (consider factors such
as nutrients, compaction).
Substrate can be altered through removal or
importation of soil materials. Kobriger et al.
(1983) suggest adding a layer of clay or other
fine material to porous substrates to slow
percolation. Using imported topsoil for seedbank
revegetation is common and has the advantage
of providing suitable substrate for plant
establishment.
Liming may be necessary to raise the pH of
very acid soils. Kobriger et al. (1983) recommend
using fertilizers only on very infertile
substrates. In these cases they recommend
application of low levels of slow release formulas
at the root zone.
Weller (1981) recommends muddy marsh
bottoms which have cracked from wetting and
drying. These cracked conditions also could be
created. Scarification is a useful technique for
improving moisture retention and reducing
compaction. This is typically done using tractor-
pulled disc-harrows or deep chisels. However,
site conditions may not be suitable for this type of
equipment, suggesting hand hoeing methods
(Herricks et al. 1982).
Revegetation
Selection of appropriate species is essential to
successful revegetation efforts. Choice of species
will depend upon project goals and upon site
characteristics such as hydrology, climate,
substrate, and grade.
Several factors should be considered when
selecting species (Table 1). A short time frame
for revegetation may require planting of
annuals and biennials for rapid establishment
with plantings of perennials for later succession.
The availability of ecotypically adapted planting
materials (seeds, shoots) is another important
consideration. Also it is crucial that species
tolerances be matched with soil moisture
conditions.
The planners at the Des Plaines project are
basing their choices of vegetation on
autecological ratings (adapted from Swink and
Wilhelm 1979) of the likeliness of invasion and
colonization. Another factor being considered is
the extent of annual biomass production, since
fall burning is planned as a management
strategy (Hey et al. 1982).
Different project goals will require different
types of vegetation. Herricks et al. (1982)
recommend plantings of reed canary grass
(Phalaris sp.) and red top (Agrostis stolonifera)
for erosion control, although many other grasses
are commonly used. Creation of wildlife habitat
suggests choices of woody vegetation since woody
plant communities increase habitat values
(Brinson et al. 1981). Wastewater treatment
projects typically use hardy species such as
cattails CTvpha sp.), bulrushes { Scirpus sp.), and
reed grass fPhragmites communist, depending
on the specific plant layout. Bell (1981), Kadlec
and Wentz (1974), Hey et al. (1982), and many
other sources can provide guidance on
appropriate species selection for different types of
revegetation.
To some extent plant species selection may
be superceded by a desire to use the seedbank. At
the same time a preference for natural
revegetation may give way to a need to establish
vegetation quickly (e.g., by transplanting).
Natural revegetation is probably the most
common method used in the midwest. In many
cases projects have relied upon colonization from
adjacent wetlands. Nearby natural communities
can be used as indicators of likely colonizers.
Natural emergent dominants such as cattails,
reed grass, bulrushes, burreeds fSparganium
sp.), perennial sedges (Carex sp.), rushes (Juncus
sp.) and spike rushes (Eleocharis sp.) can be
expected. Woody vegetation would likely include
red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). hack-
berry (Celtis occidentalism buttonbush (Cepha-
lanthus occidentals), willows ( Salix sp,) and
alders (Alnus sp.), cottonwood (Populus
deltoides). silver maple (Acer saccharinum).
and oaks (Quercus sp.) (Lindsey et al. 1961,
Brinson et al. 1981, Kobriger et al. 1983).
Often the seedbank is incidental to the
project and may lead to problems of weed
invasion. Van der Valk (1981) discusses methods
of evaluating seedbanks for seed viability and
species composition. Seedbanks are potential
sources of diverse native (and introduced)
species. However, since seed distribution may
not be even and germination rates may be poor,
revegetation may yield unpredictable patchy
vegetation (Kobriger et al. 1983).
Seedbank relocation is another common
technique. Often wetland topsoil is removed from
a development site and transferred to the
337
-------
Table 1. Emergent vegetation types, characteristics, and environmental tolerances. Adapted from Kobriger et al. (1983).
Vegetation
Type
Cattails
XEBhflBpp.
Reeds
PhragnriteB
spp.
Rashes
Juncus gpp.
over 200 spp.)
Sedges
Carex gpp.
Sedges-
nutsedges
Cyperos spp.
Sedges-bulrushes
Scirpus spp.
Canary grass
PhfllarJK gpp.
Cordgrass
Spartina Bpp.
Height
0.7-2.7
spreading
mats &
thick
stands
3-4 m
open stand*
0.02-1.5
m dense
clumps
0.1-1 rain
clumps
8-50 cm
0.3-3 m
30cm
flower
spikes
0.6-2 m
short
forms 0.3-
0.4 m; tall
PLANT OCCURRENCES OR TOLERANCES
Water
Soil pH (water) Salinity Depth
mud & sflt wide range
w/ 26 cm detrital 4.7-10.0
& humic layers;
organic content
up to 32%
clay, sand or silt wide range
under swampy 2.0-8.5
conditions
6-54%
organic soils
mock or clay 4.9-7.4
with up to 10 cm
detrital layer; up
to 45% organic
content
see Carat 7.1
opufmunj
range of 3-8
seeCarei 4-9
sflt loam 6.1-7.5
sandy substrate 4.7-7.8
0-15 ppt
(up to 25
ppt some
spp.)
0-10 ppt
optimum;
up to 40 ppt
some spp.
0-14 ppt; up
to 36 ppt
some spp.
MA ppt
0-0.4 ppt
4-20 ppt
optimum; 0-
32 ppt range
generally
freshwater
9-34 ppt
0.2-1 m
60-8 cm
optimum;
ranges
from -0.3
to 4m
at or just
below soil
surface
-0.05 to 0.95 m
at or just
above
ground
surface
-0.05 to 0.3 m
nun 0-10
CHI. *TUT.
depth
varies w//
spp.
at or just
below soil
surface
-.15 to 0.7 m
Air
j/empcratUTC
931 °C
seed germ
at 18-24 °C
11-32 °C
seed germ
at 10-30 t
16-26 °C
15-210C
(range of 14-
32 °C
32 °C
optimum
(range of 16-
jeOrn
*Kf \sj
17-28 °C
15-25 °C (up
to SOt
some spp.)
seed germ
atl8-35 t
12-29 °C
seed germ
1835 °C
forms 1.2-
2m
338
-------
mitigation site. This may provide a suitable
seedbank, but only if topsoil is from a site with
species ecotypically adapted to the new project
site. Worthington and Helliwell (1987) reported
successful transfer of three carefully maintained
soil horizons. Revegetation was rapid, and
reexaminations six years later found no overall
decrease in diversity.
Weller (1981) has found that seedbank
revegetation is suitable for sedges, arrowhead
(Sagitarria sp.), hardstem and softstem
bulrushes (Scirous acutus and S. validus).
cattails, willows, and cottonwood (Populus
deltoides). but not for sago pondweed
(Potamogeton pectinatus).
Planting vegetation may provide more
reliable results than reliance on natural
revegetation. Methods of planting will depend
upon the species, season, and timeframe of the
project (i.e., can you wait several years for
seedlings to become established).
Planting success will depend upon species
choices and site conditions. Thompson (1984)
reports successful plantings of prairie cord grass
(Spartina pectinara). common three square
(Scirpus americanus). nut sedge ( Cvperus sp.),
Japanese millet (Echinochloa cruzgali).
smartweed (Polvgonum sp.), switchgrass (Pan-
icum virgatum). reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea). rice cutgrass (Leersia orvzoides).
hardstem bulrush, and chufa (Cvperus
esculentus) in wet areas of an Indiana slurry
pond. The area was first fertilized and limed to
raise the pH.
Seeding is an alternative to natural
revegetation. Seeds must be collected when ripe,
and may require stratification, scarification,
and/or specific germination conditions (e.g.,
temperature, photoperiod). These requirements
can be identified through the life histories of
different species. Many of these conditions can
be met by distributing locally collected
(ecotypically adapted) seeds at the time of year
when they are naturally dispersed (Kobriger et
al. 1983). Seeding rates will vary depending on
the purity of the seed stock, the expected
germination rate, and on factors such as
credibility of the land (Herricks et al. 1982).
There are several methods of seeding which
can be used for revegetation. Drill seeding is a
good method for fine, fluffy seeds, but requires
firm soil conditions to attain correct depths.
Commercial drill seeders such as grassland or
Truax seeders can be used. Herricks et al.
recommend planting depths four times the seed
diameter. A hydroseeding truck can be used to
spread an aqueous seed suspension on steep
slopes. Fertilizer can be incorporated into the
suspension if necessary.
Broadcast seeding is the most common and
versatile seeding method since seeds can be
distributed by hand, or using broadcast seeding
equipment, from the ground, a boat, or an
aircraft. However, seeding rates are usually
higher (up to two times) than for drill seeding.
Aerial seeding can be effective for large
areas. Commercial cropdusters often have
equipment for aerial seeding. It is also possible
to broadcast seeds by hand from light aircrafts
(Ldnde 1983).
Wetseeding has been successful for seeding
Japanese millet under flooded conditions. Seeds
are soaked until they sink and are then
broadcast from a boat. This is only suitable for
seeds which absorb water and sink, and which
can tolerate standing water (Linde 1983).
Most woody vegetation does not succeed when
broadcast seeded. However, Herricks et al.
(1982) suggest that this method may be suitable
for fall plantings of native species of Cornus and
Mvrica.
Transplanting of native vegetation is
becoming increasingly common in the midwest.
Woody vegetation is commonly transplanted
from nursery stocks or cuttings, while
herbaceous vegetation is often transplanted using
rhizomes or plugs. Prairie plant nurseries are
also starting to include native wetland plants in
their regular stocks (Bell 1981).
Roots and tubers can be collected from
nearby wetlands and planted at the appropriate
time of year (eg., when dormancy is broken).
These materials require protection from damage
due to digging, transporting, and planting
(Kobriger et al. 1983). Herricks et al. (1982)
recommend spring planting to avoid damage
from frost heaving and cold temperatures. It is
important to make holes big enough for roots to
spread and to place plants at the same depth
relative to the soil surface as they were
previously growing (Herricks et al. 1982).
Kobriger et al. (1983) discuss collection and
planting of plugs. This method is most
successful with perennials and species adapted to
standing water (eg., Tvpha sp.). Plugs can be
collected from local wetlands, hand-grown, or
taken from nursery stocks. These plugs can be
stored for a few days before planting. Planting
intervals of 0.5-1 m for herbaceous perennials
have successfully filled areas within one to two
growing seasons.
Seagrasses have been successfully planted as
sod, with the sod anchored to the substrate surface
by spikes. This might be feasible for other
grasses, if the sod can be removed so that the
sediment is intact without damaging root
339
-------
systems (Kobriger et al. 1983).
Woody vegetation can also be planted with
cuttings. Herricks et al. (1982) recommend
taking cuttings 12-18 inches long from stems
under one inch in diameter, making a clean cut
above a vigorous bud. Cuttings should be stored
in moist sand. These should be planted in the
spring so that short segments below the buds are
exposed.
Herricks et al. (1982) recommend planting
species such as Populus and Salix in clumps of 6-
15 individuals two feet apart at a rate of 10-20
clumps/acre. They also suggest planting single
species dense patches of alders, red-osier
dogwood, and arrowwood fViburnum dentatum )
near aquatic borders. Allen (1978) suggests
planting willows between the expected mean and
mean high water levels, and planting alders,
poplars (Populus sp.), ashes (Praxinus sp.),
maples (Acer sp.), and elms (Ulmus sp.) at and
above the mean high water level. Sigafoos (1964)
reminds us that woody seedlings will not survive
unless there are extended periods of low flow.
Reintrodiiction nif Fauna
Methods of re-introduction will depend
somewhat on which species are desired. Passive
reintroduction is by far the most common
method, relying on immigration from nearby
populations. However, passive methods will work
only if there are adequate corridors to allow
movement between existing populations and the
project site. Construction of nesting structures
may help attract desired waterfowl.
More active efforts may be necessary in a
variety of situations. If desired species are
isolated from the site by manmade or natural
barriers (ie., no corridors), or are not very
mobile, active stocking will be necessary. In
cases of rare and endangered species, planners
may not want to rely on passive methods, and
instead may endeavor to establish populations
through importation, and possibly through
supplemental feeding and predator control.
Buffers
As we discuss elsewhere (Willard and
Hiller, this volume) buffers are an essential
component of wetland systems. In addition to
providing protection from outside disturbances,
they also act as corridors between sites. There is
no formula for appropriate buffer size. The Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) recommends
buffers 400 meters wide. This may not be
sufficient since the areas within 200 meters of
open water are most frequently used by
terrestrial wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).
Long-term Management
A long-term management strategy is an
essential component of the project plan.
Strategies will depend upon the goals of the
project.
Vegetation management is the most common
form of longterm management. Traditional
methods include draining of impoundments and
mowing. Controlled burning is a common cheap,
effective method for control of woody vegetation
(fall burns) and removal of dead biomass
(winter burns). Care must be taken to minimize
wildlife disturbance. In particular, avoid spring
burning, which disrupts nesting (Linde 1983).
Warners (1987) studied controlled burns as a
means of controlling shrub invasion in sedge
meadows. He found no significant reduction in
shrub cover, but did find a shift in species
composition from bog birch fBetula sandbergii't
and poison sumac (Rhus vernix) to red-osier
dogwood fCornqs sto^onifera). He also found that
shrub-invaded areas were wetter than uninvaded
areas.
Managers often wish to dredge wetlands. As
Novitzki (1978) discusses, wetlands will
accumulate sediment. The extent of accum-
ulation will vary with water velocities.
Dredging can significantly disturb wetland
communities (Darnell 1977). Before dredging,
managers should evaluate, and possibly modify,
their methods of water control. Alternatively,
they can accept the accumulation as a natural
part of wetland dynamics.
MONITORING
Monitoring should begin prior to
construction. A thorough pre-construction site
evaluation will not only provide baseline data
for future monitoring efforts, but will also
provide valuable information for project
planning.
Managers must develop consistent methods.
Platts et al. (1987) discuss a broad range of
established evaluation methods which could be
used for this purpose. A variety of assessment
methodologies could also be used.
340
-------
Frequent evaluations (e.g., monthly) will be
necessary immediately following project
completion and continuing for the first few
years. Regular follow up evaluations (e.g.,
annually) for subsequent years (a few decades)
would be necessary to assess persistence.
Hydrologic characteristics such as
streamflow, water levels, dispersion, and
stage/discharge balances should be monitored
(Kobriger et a!. 1983). Platts et al. (1987) and
Novitzki (1987) discuss methods suitable for these
purposes.
Water quality parameters such as nutrient
budgets, suspended solids, and pollutant levels
(e.g., metals) should also be monitored above,
within, and below site. This can be accomplished
using standard sampling and analytic
techniques. In addition, sediments should be
monitored for excessive sediment and pollutant
deposition.
Monitoring programs also should include
vegetation characteristics such as planting
success, patterns of competition and invasion,
and habitat values. Establishing permanent plots
will enable repeated evaluations of species
composition, diversity, and dominance. The
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) can be used
as a way of getting at habitat values (Adamus
1988b).
Wildlife population dynamics and breeding
success can be monitored through population
sampling (e.g., mark-recapture, seining), and
through regular bird counts. Invertebrate and
plankton populations should also be monitored.
Assessments of project success will depend
on these monitoring efforts, in conjunction with
project goals. Traditionally success has been
defined in narrow terms, such as vegetation
establishment. Allen (1978) states that success of
streambank stabilization is usually judged
qualitatively, such as by evaluating before and
after photographs. Adamus (1988b) discusses
more sophisticated methods of evaluating project
success. The WET procedure can be used for
before/after assessment of a wide range of
wetland functions.
CONCLUSIONS^RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no systematic records of the
changes and developments that have occurred in
and around several hundred large midwestern
reservoirs with extensive wetland systems. A few
states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, have
well-established wetland programs which can
"track" wetland status; while others, such as
Kentucky, have only rudimentary programs.
Establishing centralized programs capable of
monitoring changes in created and restored
wetlands, in conjunction with use of historical
records, would go a long way towards developing
an understanding of the patterns of wetland
change in the midwest.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, P.R. 1988a. The FHWA/Adamus (WET)
method for wetland functional assessment. In D.D.
Hook, W.H. McKee Jr., H.K. Smith, J. Gregory,
V.G. Burrell Jr., M.R. DeVoe, RJE. Sojka, S. Gilbert,
R. Banks, LJS. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews,
and T.H. Shear (Eds.), The Ecology and
Management of Wetlands, Volume 2: Management,
Use and Value of Wetlands. Timber Press,
Portland.
Adamus, P.R. 1988b. Criteria for created or restored
wetlands. In D.D. Hook, W.H. McKee Jr., H.K.
Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell Jr., M.R. DeVoe,
RJ3. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, LJL Stolzy, C.
Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and T.H. Shear (Eds.), The
Ecology and Management of Wetlands Volume 2:
Management, Use and Value of Wetlands. Timber
Press, Portland.
Adamus, P.R., EJ. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and RJE.
Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical
Report Y-87, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Allen, H.S. 1978. Role of wetland plants in erosion
control of riparian shorelines. In P.E. Greeson, J.R.
Clark, and JJ3. Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding.
Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetland
Functions and Values, Nov 7-10, Lake Buena Vista,
Florida.
Anderson, G.R. 1983. Design and location of water
impoundment structures. In Water Impoundments
for Wildlife: A Habitat Workshop. U.S.Dept. of
Agric. Forest Service General Technical Report NC-
100.
Bailey, R.G. 1978. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S.
Forest Service, Intel-mountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
Bell, H.E. 1981. Illinois Wetlands: Their Value and
341
-------
Management. State of Illinois Institute of Natural
Resources Document Number 81/33.
Brinson, M.M., B.L. Swift, R.C. Plantico, and J.S.
Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their Ecology
and Status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-81/17.
Canter, L.W. 1985. Environmental Impacts of Water
Resources Projects. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan.
Chapman, R.J., T.M. Hinckley, L.C. Lee, and R.O.
Teskey. 1982. Impact of Water Level Changes on
Woody Riparian and Wetland Communities,
Volume X. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/23.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Darnell, RJkf. 1977. Overview of major development
impacts on wetlands. Proceedings of the National
Wetland Protection Symposium, June 6-8, Reston,
Virginia.
Gray, H.D. 1977. The influence of vegetation on slope
processes in the Great Lakes region. In Proceedings
of the Workshop on the Role of Vegetation in
Stabilization of the Great Lakes Shoreline. Great
Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Mich. Cited
in Allen 1978.
Herricks, E.E., A.J. Erzysik, RJS. Szafoni, and D.J.
Tazik. 1982. Best current practices for fish and
wildlife on surface-mined lands in the eastern
interior coal region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-80/68.
Hey, D.L. 1987. The Des Plaines River Wetlands
Demonstration Project: creating wetlands hydrology.
National Wetlands Newsletter 9(2):12-14.
Hey, D.L. and N. Philippi (Eds.). 1985. The Des
Plaines River Wetland Demonstration Project, Vol
m. Wetlands Research Inc.
Hey, D.L., J.M. Stockdale, D. Kropp, and G. Wilhelm.
1982. Creation of Wetland Habitats in Northeastern
Illinois. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources Document Number 82/09.
Kadlec, JA. and WA. Wentz. 1974. State of the Art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural.
Vol I: Report of Research. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.
Contract Report D-74-9.
Kobriger, NJ*., T.V. Dupuis, WA. Kreutzberger, F.
Steams, G. Guntenspergen, and JJt. Keough. 1983.
Guidelines for the Management of Highway Runoff
on Wetlands. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 264. National Research
Council Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Linde, AJ. 1983. Vegetation management in water
impoundments: Alternatives and supplements to
water-level control. In Water Impoundments for
Wildlife: A Habitat Workshop. U.S. Dept. of Agric.
Forest Service General Technical Report NC-100.
Lindsay, A.A., R.O. Petty, DJC. Sterlin, and W. Van
Asdall. 1961. Vegetation and environment along
the Wabash and Tippecanoe rivers. Ecological
Monographs 31(2)105-156.
Novitzki, R.P. 1987. Some observations on our
understanding of hydrologic functions. National
Wetlands Newsletter 9(2):3-6.
Novitzki, R.P. 1978. Hydrologic characteristics of
Wisconsin's wetlands and their influence on floods,
stream flow and sediment. In PJ2. Greeson, J.R.
Clark, and J.E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding.
Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetland
Functions and Values, Nov 7-10, Lake Buena Vista,
Florida.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, B. Mason, 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.
General Technical Report INT-221. U.S. Dept. of
Agric. Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Ogden, Utah.
Reed, D.M. and T.J. Kubiak. 1985. An ecological
evaluation procedure for determining wetland
suitability for wastewater treatment and discharge.
In PJ. Godfrey, EJt. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski, and J.
Benforado (Eds.), Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Richardson, C J. and D.S. Nichols. 1985. Ecological
analysis of wastewater management criteria in
wetland ecosystems. In PJ. Godfrey, E.R. Kaynor,
S. Pelczarski, and J. Benforado (Eds.), Ecological
Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of
Municipal Wastewaters. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York.
Schuldiner, P.W., DJP. Cope, and R.B. Newton. 1979.
Ecological Effects of Highway Runoff on Wetlands.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 218B. National Research Council
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Sigafoos, R.S. 1964. Botanical evidence of floods and
floodplain deposition, vegetation and hydrologic
phenomena. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 485-A. Cited in Allen 1978.
Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago
Region. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
Thompson, C.S. 1984. Experimental practices in
surface coal mining-creating wetland habitat.
National Wetlands Newsletter 6(2):15-16.
Van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a
Gleasonian approach. Ecology. 62:688-96.
Verry, E.S. 1983. Selection of water impoundment sites
in the lake states. In Water Impoundments for
Wildlife: A Habitat Workshop. U.S. Dept. of Agric.
Forest Service General Technical Report NC-100.
342
-------
Warners, D.P. 1987. Effects of burning on sedge Worthington, T.R. and D.P. Helliwell. 1987.
meadow studied. Restoration and Management Transference of semi-natural grassland and
Notes 5(2)50-91. marshland onto newly created landfill. Biological
Conservation 41: 301 -311.
Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwater Wetlands: Ecology and
Wildlife Management. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis.
343
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READINGS
Anon. 1981. Illinois plants for habitat restoration.
Illinois Department of Conservation, Mining
Program. Springfield, Illinois.
Provides information on habitat requirements,
wildlife values, and commercial availability of
Illinois native plants.
Hey, D.L. and N. Philippi (Eds.). 1985. The Des
Plaines River Wetland Demonstration Project, Vol
HI. Wetlands Research Inc. AND
Hey, D.L., J.M. Stockdale, D. Kropp, and G. Wilhelm
1982. Creation of wetland habitats in northeastern
Illinois. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources Document Number 82/09.
An excellent model for project planning. Thorough
discussions of considerations important to a wide
variety of project types.
Kadlec, J.A. and WJV. Wentz. 1974. State of the Art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural.
Vol I: Report of Research. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Contract
Report D-74-9.
Comprehensive survey of values and establishment
of wetland species.
Linde, A.F. 1969. Techniques for wetland
management. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Research Report 45.
A excellent resource for management techniques.
Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago
Region. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
Assigns autecological ratings to regional plant
species indicating the likelihood that individual
species will volunteer at a given site.
Teskey, R.O. and T.M. Hinckley. 1978. Impact of
water level changes on woody riparian and wetland
communities, Volume III: Central forest region;
Volume IV: Eastern deciduous forest region. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/87.
Good discussions of bottomland ecology and
dominant species. Extensive information on vegetation
flood tolerances.
345
-------
APPENDIX It PROJECT PROI
The following descriptions of projects in the midwest is
not a complete survey. However, it does include a broad
range of projects somewhat representative of the types that
have been attempted.
The project descriptions are organized by state.
Project numbers correspond to the sites identified in
Figure 1. The Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetland
Classification System (Cowardin et al. 1979) is used to
classify wetland type (e.g., PEM = palustrine
emergent, PFO = palustrine forested). Each description
identifies the sources) used, which could be contacted
for further information.
MCHENRY COUNTY FOX RIVER PROJECT, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 1
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: McHenry County Highway
Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAE)--
Chicago District.
Wetlands Lost: 1.66 acres of PEM (sedge meadow and
wet prairie).
Wetlands Created: 1.75 acres of PEM.
Procedure: Excavation of upland adjacent to wetland,
revegetation (seed bank relocation).
Status: Under construction in July 1988.
Source: Public Notice, USAE-Chicago Dist., Feb. 1987,
Application #2808703.
Comments: The creation project was proposed as
mitigation for PEM habitat destroyed during
development. Revegetation will be accomplished by
stockpiling soil stripped from sedge meadow and top
dressing the excavated site with this soil. Steep slopes
will be reseeded with grasses.
DES PLAINES RESTORATION PROJECT, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 2
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Wetland Research Inc., Illinois
Dept. of Energy & Natural Resources,. USF&WS, Lake
County Forest Preserve District.
Wetlands Created: 250+ acres of PEM/POW and
riverine types.
Procedure: Large scale excavation reshaping the
original stream and flood plain.
Status Long term experimental site; should have some
initial feedback on vegetation success in late '88.
Source: Creation of wetland habitat in N.E. El., Doc.
82/90, Illinois Dept. of Energy & Natural Resources
(IDENR), May 1982. Hey, D. and N. Philippi, ed. 1985.
The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration
Project, Vol. HI, Wetlands Research, Inc. (312) 922-
0777.
Comments: The goal of this experiment was to restore
the drainage characteristics associated with the
original creeks and floodplains in N.E. Illinois. To
create diverse wetland habitat managers constructed
irrigated river terraces, floodway marshes, and
aquatic shelves and revegetated with a variety of
native wetland species. Although Des Plaines is a
large scale project the Wetlands Research, Inc.
document discusses a variety of concerns associated
with both large and small creation projects.
KLEFSTAD CO., BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS
Project Number. 3
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: USAE-Chicago Dist., Klefstad
Companies, Inc.
Wetlands Lost: 13.4 acres of PEM and POW.
Wetlands Created: 18.4+ acres of PEM and POW.
Procedure: Excavation and revegetation (seed bank
relocation).
Status: Under construction, July 1988.
Source: Public Notice, USAE-Chicago dist., July 1986,
347
-------
Figure 1. Locations of the projects described in Appendix II. Numbers correspond to the project
numbers listed in the appendix.
348
-------
Permit #NCCCO-R 0148602.
Comments: This project serves as mitigation for
filling of portions of a floodway along Aptakisic
Creek. The filled area consisted of reed canary grass
and cattails with patches of sedges and rushes. The
created area will incorporate topsoil removed from the
sedge/rush areas as topcover on the site. Additionally
seeds of wetland vegetation will. be spread on the
creation site.
DU PAGE TOLLWAY, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 4
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: 111. State Toll Highway Authority,
USAE-Chicago Dist., USF&WS.
Wetlands Lost: 76 ACRES OF PEM wet prairie.
Wetlands Created: 117 acres of PEM wet prairie.
relocation).
Excavation, revegetation (seed bank
Status: Construction complete.
Source: Mehler, N. du Page fights to save wetlands
from dry grave. Chicago Tribune, 9 July 1987, section
2.P-1.
Comments: Revegetation efforts incorporated the
transport of excavated wetland soil from the destroyed
site several miles to creation sites. On the new sites
observers have recorded the occurrence of 60 wetland
plant species out of the 200 found on the original site.
WOOD RIVER UPLAND RESERVOIR, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 5
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: Illinois Dept. of Transportation
(IDOT)
Wetlands Lost: 0.79 acres riparian vegetation.
Wetlands Created: 1.1 acres PEM, 2.5 acres of PSS.
Procedure: Dike and excavation to create a palustrine
community from the original smaller riparian
wetland, revegetation.
Status Proposed 1987 but delayed due to property rights
questions.
Source: Personal communication, IDOT, Rick Gosch,
6 May 1987 and 19 July 1988.
Comments: This project is proposed to mitigate
damage to riparian wetlands caused by the creation of
a flood control reservoir. The project replaces the
riparian community with a shallow water palustrine
community.
Proposed Plantings:
Submerged areas
sago pondweed CPntamngftsin pectinatiia^
duck potato (Saggitaria rigida)
Seasonally flooded
bulrush (Scirpua fluviatilia >
pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata)
arrowhead (Saygitaria latifolia)
Scrub/Shrub
red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)
elderberry fSambucua canadenaia)
Tree seedlings
pin oak (Quercua pahiatria)
sweet gum (Liguidambar stvraciflua)
green ash (Fraxinua penn aylvanica 1
CAKLYLE LAKE, BOULDER MARINA AREA, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 6
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: USAE-St. Louis Dist.
Wetlands Lost: 0.8 acres of PEM.
Wetlands Created: 0.9 acres of PEM and 10 acres
moist soil.
Procedure: Excavation, revegetation disturbed high
grade slopes.
Status: Complete.
Source: Personal Communication, P. McGinnis, USAE-
St. Louis Dist., 21 July 1988.
Comments: As part of an internal mitigation project
the USAE excavated a site to achieve an emergent
wetland with diverse elevations. The USAE has created
an additional 10 acres of moist soil wetland to act as a
nursery area for wetland plants for future Corps'
mitigation projects. Despite these efforts wetland
revegetation attempts at Carlyle have suffered because
of recent droughts. The St. Louis Dist. views the
Carlyle Lake site as an opportunity to show how
wetland acreage can be created inexpensively. The
Dist. plans to continue experimentation with wetland
creation around the lake.
349
-------
GALUM CREEK RESTORATION, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 7
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: Consolidation Coal Co.
Wetlands Lost: 137 acres of PFO.
Wetlands Created: 17 to 39 acres of PEM, POW, and
PSS.
Wetlands Restored: 100 acres of PFO.
Procedure: Earthmoving and revegetation.
Status Successful marsh creation, PFO restoration in
progress.
Source: Consolidation Coal Company, application for
Excellence in Surface Mining Awards, Burning Star
#4 mine, 1986.
Comments: The project acts as mitigation for the 137
acres of hardwood bottomland forest destroyed by
stream diversion for a coal mine. Instead of
attempting to restore the whole site as PFO area with
black alder, green ash, river birch, bald cypress,
hickory, silver maple, pin oak, sycamore, and
sweetgum. The forested areas are still in a scrub/shrub
stage of development. The marsh areas are naturally
revegetating with cattail, bulrush, pondweed,
smartweed, and coontail.
KASKASB3A WETLAND RECLAMATION, ILLINOIS
Project Number: 8
Part of Required Mitigation: Coal mine reclamation.
Parties Involved: Southern Illinois Univ., Peabody
Coal Co.
Wetlands Lost: Unknown amount of riverine habitat.
Wetlands Created: 200 acres of PEM and POW.
Procedure: Selective grading of mining spoilbanks,
creation of nesting islands, water level control
structures.
Status Initiated Spring 1986.
Source: Coal Research Newsletter, So. HI. Univ., Vol.8
No.3,1986.
Comments: This wetland creation is part of a
reclamation by Peabody Coal Company. The goal is
the development of moist soil and emergent wetland
plant communities with the use of water control
structures.
CRANE MARSH, INDIANA
Project Number: 9
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources (IDNR), Ducks
Unlimited.
Wetlands Converted: 8 acres of PEM seasonal
converted to 8 acres PEM semipermanent.
Wetlands Created: 10 acres PEM.
Procedure: Flooding, dike, water direction baffles.
Status: Complete 1987.
Source: Personal communication, J. New, 28 July 1987.
Comments: The project had a three part purpose: 1)
wildlife habitat creation for wetland species, 2)
tertiary treatment marsh for sewage, and 3) brooding
pond for muskellunge. IDNR relied on natural
revegetation except for the higher gradient dam which
was seeded with grasses. The marsh will be monitored
once it is established and compared with
preimpoundment water testing.
LAKE MAXINKUCKEE, INDIANA
Project Number: 10
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: IDNR, SCS, Dept. of Environmental
Mgmt. (DEM), local interests.
Wetlands Created: 6 separate acres. Total: 3 acres
PEM saturated, 68 acres PEM intermittently exposed.
res Dikes, baffles, islands, some revegetation.
350
-------
Status 4 structures complete, 2 awaiting funding.
Source: Personal communication, J. New, IDNR, 28
July 1987.
Comments: Project involves the creation of six sites
ranging in size from 1 acre to 40 acres. Cattail shoots
will be introduced in wetter areas while dikes will be
planted with grasses for erosion control. Water quality
will be monitored after the project is complete.
WILLOW SLOUGH FISH & WILDLIFE AREA, INDIANA
Project Number: 11
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: IDNR, USAE-Detroit District
Wetlands Created: 700 acres of PEM, 800 acres of
POW.
Procedure: Levee damming channel to make
reservoir, water level control-ditches and culverts.
Status Complete.
Source: Permit approval, USAE-Detroit Dist., 19 Oct.
1982, permit #82-156-001.
Comments: The levee construction was performed to
stabilize the water level on the management area. The
resulting flooding of uplands created a lake bounded
by a cattail edge.
ELK CHEEK MARSH, IOWA
Project Number: 12
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: ICC
Wetlands Created: 600 acres of PEM.
Procedure: Development of 6 water control structures
on Elk Creek.
Status: Complete
Source: Iowa Conservationist, Vol. 38 No.6, June 1979.
Comments: This major creation project was performed
on the management area to increase the amount of
waterfowl habitat and hunting opportunities.
SWEET MARSH, IOWA
Project Number: 13
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: State agencies.
Wetlands Created: 1098 acres of PEM/POW.
Procedure: 200' dam used to create a shallow water
reservoir, 5 additional subimpoundmenta flooded with
reservoir water, drawdowns to stimulate vegetation
growth.
Status Complete.
Source: Zohrer, J. Sweet Marsh. Iowa Conservationist,
Feb. 1977.
Comments: First state attempt to create a large marsh
area where none had previously existed. Marsh now
serves as wildlife habitat and fills hunting/fishing
demands.
DUBUQUE PACKING COMPANY, IOWA
Project Number: 14
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: USAE-Rock Island Dist., City of
Dubuque, USF&WS.
Wetlands Lost: 1.91 acres of PEM.
Wetlands Created: 2.5 acres of PEM/PSS.
Procedure: Excavation/dredging and revegetation.
Status Completed.
Source: Environmental Assessment, USAE-Rock
Island Dist., 1980, permit #NCROD-S-070-OX6-1-079180.
Personal communication, N. Johnson, USAE-Rock
Island Dist., 29 July 1988.
351
-------
Comments: This project provides two sites to examine
(Gil site and creation site). In many cases the fill site
will create a new edge which requires grading and
revegetation similar to any creation site. The USAE
required the fill site to be graded at 3:1 with grass
plantings to control erosion. While most plant species
at the creation site were expected to revegetate
naturally, additional plantings of button bush,
deciduous holly, red osier dogwood, and white ash were
proposed. Although no specific follow up studies were
performed, observations of the site- have recorded only
about a 50 percent survival rate on the planted woody
vegetation. Some willow, cottonwood, and silver maple
are beginning to naturally colonize the upland slopes.
SAYLORVILLE WILDLIFE AREA, IOWA
Project Number: 15
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Iowa Conservation Commission
(ICC).
Wetland* Created: 100 acres of PEM.
Pr
we Diking, stop log water control structures.
Statute Completed.
Source: Iowa Conservationist, Vol. 44 No. 11,1985.
Comments: ICC used four subimpoundments to
successfully create waterfowl habitat and control
flooding. The Red Rock Reservoir (ID #14, 1000 acres
PEM), Hawkeye Wildlife Area (ID #15, 210 acres
PEM), and Rathburn Reservoir projects (ID #16, 178
acres PEM) all relied on stop log impoundments for
creation. These additional Iowa creation sites are
reviewed in the same volume of the Iowa
Conservationist.
OTTER CREEK MARSH, IOWA
Project Number: 16
Part of Bequired Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: ICC
Wetlands Created: 1000 acres of PEM (at
water levels).
Procedure; Extensive 8 segment dike system, periodic
drawdowns.
Status Completed.
Source: Iowa Conservationist, Dec. 1977.
Comments: Project met its goals of creating additional
wildlife habitat and hunting areas. Drawdowns
stimulate the development of beds of smartweed,
sedges, duckweed, cattail, and arrowhead.
HARDIN, KENTUCKY
ProjectNomber: 17
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA)
Wetlands Created: 6000 m2 of PEM (4 cell X 1478m2).
Procedure Excavation, pumping, revegetation
fPhragmiteg).
Starting in 8/87.
Source: Steiner et al. 1987. Municipal waste water
treatment with artificial wetlands in Aquatic plants
for waste water treatment and resource recovery
(Reddy, K. and W. Smith, ed.), Orlando: Magnolia
Publishing Inc., p. 923.
Comments: Similar to the other SteinenTVA projects
but this creation relies on the root zone method for
water treatment. A four year evaluation scheme is
proposed.
CENTRAL CITY BYPASS, KENTUCKY
Project Number: 18
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: Kentucky Dept. of Transportation,
USAE-Louisville Dist.
Wetlands Lost: 20 acres of PEM/POW.
Wetlands Created: 20 acres of PEM/POW.
Procedure: Pond excavation with grass seeding on
steep slopes.
352
-------
Status In progress July 1987.
Source: Adams, J. Bypass wetlands must be replaced.
Allen Lake, Messenger-Inquirer, June 1987.
Comments: Four ponds of varying depths are being
created to mitigate for wetlands destroyed during
highway construction.
BENTON, KENTUCKY
Project Number: 19
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Wetlands Created: 4.4 ha of PEM/POW.
Procedure: Excavation, pumping stations, revegetation.
Status Operational Jan. 1988.
Source: Steiner et al. 1987. Municipal waste water
treatment with artificial wetlands in Aquatic plants
for waste water treatment and resource recovery
(Reddy, K and W. Smith, ed.), Orlando: Magnolia
Publishing Inc., p. 923.
Comments: This project was created by Steiner/TVA to
demonstrate the sewage treatment capability of wetland
habitat based on a lagoon method. The creation
involves the conversion of a secondary lagoon system
to a 3 cell bulrush/cattail waste treatment system. A
four year evaluation scheme is proposed to monitor the
project's success.
PEMBROKE, KENTUCKY
Project Number: 20
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA)
Wetlands Created: 6000 m2 of PEM/POW.
Procedure; Excavation, pumping, revegetation.
Construction complete 9/87.
Source: Steiner et al. 1987. Municipal waste water
treatment with artificial wetlands in. Aquatic plants
for waste water treatment and resource recovery
(Reddy, K. and W. Smith, ed.), Orlando: Magnolia
Publishing Inc., p. 923.
Comments: Similar to the other Steiner/TVA projects
in this study but this relies on a 3-part marsh-pond-
meadow system for water treatment.
Plantings:
Marsh cell - cattail or bulrush
Pond cell - duckweed
Meadow-Reed Canary grass or sedge/rush
MAPLE RIVER STATE GAME AREA, MICHIGAN
Project Number: 21
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MWHF, Mich. Chapter of the Mich.
Duck Hunter Assoc., Capital Area Audubon Society.
Wetlands Created: 200 acres of PEM.
w Dikes, flooding with pump (15,000
gaUminute).
Status; Completed 1986.
Source: Michigan Wildlife Habitat News, Vol. 1 No.3,
p.2. Personal communication, D. Fijalkowski,
MWHF, 28 July 1988.
Comments: This restoration site (200 ac.) abuts the
Milli-Ander wetland project (270 ac.) and another 200
ac. wetland. The pump will be used to keep the total 670
acres flooded. MWHF relied on natural colonization
for revegetation. No follow up studies performed, but
MWHF considers the projects a success because of high
wildlife and recreational use of the areas.
MILLI-ANDER WETLANDS, MICHIGAN
Project Number: 22
Part of Required Mitigation: No
353
-------
Parties Involved: Michigan Wildlife Habitat
Foundation (MWHF)
Wetlands Created: 270 acres.
Procedure: Diking, nesting structure construction.
Completed in 1984.
Source: Michigan Wildlife Habitat News, Vol. 1, No.
l.P-3.
Comments: This MWHF restoration project involved
the construction of 7000 ft. of diking and four rock spill
ways to enhance wildlife habitat. Nesting structures
were established for wood ducks, mallards, and osprey.
SHIAWASSEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (AND SATELLITES), MICHIGAN
Project Number: 23
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Wetlands Created: >500 acres made up of several
smaller impoundments.
Procedure: Dikes, water control structures (pumps, stop
log structures), island creation, drawdowns.
Status Complete with ongoing management by
USF&WS.
Source: Shiawassee Eefuge Operations Journal. 1984.
Comment*: This is the only USF&WS refuge in the
review, but the creation/restoration techniques
described indicate that this and other wildlife refuges
will prove valuable sources of information of applied
creation techniques. Impoundments responded well to
drawdowns providing a variety of emergent vegetation
(cattails and bulrushes dominant). Stable water levels
maintained on other impoundments enhanced
muskrat use.
BENGEL MARSH RESTORATION, MICHIGAN
Project Number: 24
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
(MDNR).
Wetlands Created: Restoring 2000 acres.
Procedure: Excavation/dredging, flooding.
Status: Completed in 1985.
Source: Michigan Wildlife Habitat News, Vol. 1 No. 2,
Comments: Nineteen shallow potholes, 1/6 of an acre
each, and 4000 ft. of shallow connecting canals were
dug throughout the 400 acre marsh.
FOUNTAIN GROVE WILDLIFE AREA, MISSOURI
Project Number: 25
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 2,200+ acres PEM/PFO/POW and
upgrade 2,300 acres of PEM/PFO/POW.
Status: In progress or completed.
Source: Fountain Grove Wildlife Area Mgmt. Plan,
MDOC, 1983.
Comments: Part of a large plan to both rehabilitate
wetlands already present on the refuge and create new
wetland acres increasing habitat values and hunter
access.
Acquisition, impoundments, pumping.
SHOAL CREEK PROJECT - BIRMINGHAM DRAINAGE DISTRICT, MISSOURI
City Dist.,
Project Number: 26
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: USAE-Kansas
Birmingham Drainage Dist.
Wetlands Lost: 4 acres of floodplain.
354
-------
Wetlands Created: 41 acres of PEM/POW (retention
basin).
Procedure: Excavation.
Status: Complete and successful.
Source: USAE-Kansas City Dist., May 1981, Permit
#2SBOXI1349.
Comments: Wetland species that became naturally
established in the area were broad-leaf arrowhead
(Sayittaria latifolia). bulrush ( Scripus sp.). and river
bulrush (Scripus fluviatilis ).
GRAND PASS WILDLIFE AREA, MISSOURI
Project Number: 27
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 1600 acres of PEM.
Procedure: Develop 20 moist soil impoundments with
independent flood and drainage capabilities,
revegetation.
Status Proposed 1986.
Source: Grand Pass Wildlife Area Mgmt. Plan,
MDOC, 1986.
Comments: The goal of this project is to reclaim 1600
acres of wetland from drained cropland creating
habitat for migrating dabbling ducks and Canada
geese. On 50 - 70% of each unit managers will
maintain water depths not exceeding 12 in. to
encourage the production of moist soil plants: millet,
smartweed, and sedges. On the rest of each unit
managers will encourage permanent emergent
vegetation: cattails, bulrush, spike rush, water lily,
and arrowhead.
BIG ISLAND WETLAND HABITAT REHABILITATION, MISSOURI
Project Number: 28
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 500 acres of PEM/POW.
Procedure: Dikes, stop log structures, submersible
electric pump (5000 gaUminute).
Status Proposed Nov. 1986.
Source: Upper Miss. River System Env. Mgmt.
Program - General Plan Appendix, MDOC, 1985.
Comments: The proposed area would serve as improved
habitat for migratory waterfowl and wintering bald
eagles. Based on a 30-year project life expectancy the
average annual cost for the project would be $30/acre.
Revegetation is proposed only for stabilization of the 3:1
levee slopes.
CLARKSVELLE REFUGE HABITAT REHABILITATION, MISSOURI
Project Number: 29
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Missouri Dept. of Conservation
(MDOC).
Wetlands Created: 325 acres of PEM.
Procedure: Levee (1.5 miles), portable pump (175 h.p.),
revegetation of levee slopes with grasses.
Proposed December 1985 (request for funds).
Source: Upper Miss. River System Env. Mgmt.
Program - General Plan Appendix, MDOC, 1985.
Comments: This proposal suggests removing soil from
other parts of the refuge to build the levee and to
simultaneously create additional wetland areas.
Based on a thirty year project life expectancy the
average annual cost for rehabilitating this wetland
would be $14.25/acre.
POOL 25 &26; MOSIER, WESTPORT, DARDENNE, AND BOLTERS ISLAND
ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI
Project Number: 30
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 830 acres of PEM/POW.
355
-------
Procedure: Diking, stop log structures, dredging, barge
mounted pump.
Status: Proposed 1987.
Source: Upper Miss. River System Env. Mgmt.
Program - General Plan Appendix, MDOC, 1987.
Comments: The proposal requests funds for the
restoration of wetlands on four separate islands.
Pumping facilities are suggested to give managers the
ability to maintain wetland water level separate from
the river level. The project's goal is to provide habitat
for waterfowl and spawning/nursery areas for
fisheries.
DRESSER ISLAND WETLAND HABITAT REHABILITATION, MISSOURI
Project Number: 31
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created/Restored: 993 acres PEM/ PFO/
POW.
Procedure: Levee (3.5 miles), dikes with screw gates,
stop log structures.
Status Proposed 1985.
Source: Upper Miss. River System Env. Mgmt.
Program - General Plan Appendix, MDOC, 1985.
Comments: The project is proposed to restore wetland
acres filled by sedimentation associated with the Miss.
River. Based on a 30 year life expectancy the average
annual cost is predicted to be $20.44/acre.
RIVERPORT ASSOCIATES, MISSOURI
Project Number: 32
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: Riverport Associates, USAE-Kansaa
City Dist.
Wetlands Lost: PEM
Wetlands Created: 13 acres PEM/POW (retention
basin).
Procedure: Excavation, revegetation, water control
structure.
Excavation completed, revegetation in progress.
Source: Personal communication, Kathleen Mulder,
USAE-Kansas City Dist., 11 Aug. 1988. USAE-Kansas
City Dist., 1985, Permit #2SB OXR 20.51.
Comments: Wetland plantings were initiated in
Spring '88 but have been largely unsuccessful due to
the drought. Upland grasses that were planted have
survived, but they have begun to move into areas
reserved for emergent and moist soil vegetation.
TEN MILE POND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, MISSOURI
Project Number: 33
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 400 acres of PFO.
Procedure: Seedling planting with periodic flooding
when trees are established.
Status: In progress.
Source: Ten Mile Pond Wildlife Mgmt. Area Plan,
MCOC.1984.
Comments: Because of the difficulty in establishing
seedlings and the size of the area the MDOC realizes
this reforestation project will take several years.
Seedling species chosen for reforestation include pin
oak, cherry bark oak, overcup oak, cypress, tupelo, ash,
maple, sycamore, and willow.
TEN MILE POND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, MISSOURI
Project Number: 34
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 650 acres of PEM/POW and moist
soil.
Procedure: Levee system, water control structures,
wells with pumps, and drawdowns.
Status: In progress.
356
-------
Source: Ten Mile Pond Wildlife Mgmt. Area Plan,
MCOC.1984.
Comments: Goal is to develop multiple wetland units
providing "a mosaic of herbaceous vegetation" for use
by wetland wildlife species. Managers will rely on
agricultural cropping to control succession in moist
soil units. This plan shows a heavy reliance on water
control structures (pumps & stop log) to modify habitat
type and plant distribution.
COON ISLAND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MISSOURI
Project Number: 35
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: MDOC
Wetlands Created: 2000 PEM, POW, PFO
Procedure: Dikes, water level control.
Status Proposed 1986.
Source: Coon Island Wildlife Mgmt. Area Plan,
MDOC, 1986.
Comment*: The 2000 acres will consist of 850 acres of
moist soil crop and plant production, 950 acres of
seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood forest, and
200 acres of old sloughs and oxbows. Plans provide for
50% open water and 50% emergent vegetation (cattails,
pondweed, arrowhead, and sedges). Managers also
plan to encourage bald cypress, tupelo, and button bush
on the edges of permanent wetlands.
mLLBUCK MARSH, WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO
Project Number: 36
Part of Required Mitigation: No
Parties Involved: Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
(ODNR), Ducks Unlimited.
Wetlands Created: Restores 325 acres of PEM/POW.
Procedure! Repair of damaged dike.
Status; In progress.
Source: Personal communication, R. Whyte, Ohio
DNR, 9 July 1987.
Comments: The repair of breaches in the dike will
reflood 325 acres enhancing the area's value to
migratory waterfowl.
MADISON SOUTH BELTLINE PROJECTS (MONONA, WS), WISCONSIN
Project Number: 37
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Parties Involved: Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation
(WDOT), USAE-St. Paul Dist.
Wetlands Lost: Unknown
Wetlands Created: 3630 yd2 of PEM/POW.
Procedure: Excavation, diking, revegetation (seed
bank).
Complete.
Source: WDOT project #1206-2-73, Transportation Dist.
1.
Comments: Project was characterized by extensive
excavation and revegetation plans.
Plantings:
High Marsh (0 -1.5 ft. above water table)
Phragrmten communis. Spartina pectinata
Shallow Marsh (0.5 - 1.0 ft. of water)
Sparganium eurvcarpum. Sagittaria latifolia.
Polvgonum muhlenbertrii. Pontederia eordata.
Scirpus fluviatilis. Acorus calamus
Deep Marsh (1 - 2 ft. of water)
Sajrittaria rigida. Scirpus acutua. Potamogeton
pectinatus. Nvmohea tuberosa. Vallisneria
apiralis
357
-------
MADISON SOUTH BELTLINE PROJECTS (MONONA, WS), WISCONSIN
Project Number. 38 Source: WDOT project #1206-2-75, Transportation Dist.
1.
Part of Required Mitigation: Yes
Comments: lake project #40 this creation relied on
Parties Involved: MDOT, USAE-St. Paul Dist. thorough written plans.
Plantings:
Wetlands Lost: Unknown High Marsh (0-1.5 ft. above water table)
Sedge mixture, C! al a m agroati a ga^iadengja,
WartttTnlg f>x»^^^»H; 1+acre Spartina pectinate. Iris shrevei
Shallow Marsh (0.5 -1.0 ft. of water)
Procedure; Excavation, diking, culverts, sediment Scirpus fluviatilis. Sparganium enrvcarnum.
basin. Scirpus validua. Sayittaria latifolia
Deep Marsh (1 - 2 ft. of water)
Status; Complete. ftagittaria rigidar Scirpua
358
-------
THE CREATION AND RESTORATION OF RIPARIAN HABITAT
IN SOUTHWESTERN ARID AND SEMI-ARID REGIONS
Steven W. Carothers and G. Scott Mills
SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants
and
R. Roy Johnson
Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit
University of Arizona
ABSTRACT. Though the literature on characteristics, values, and functions of riparian
habitats in Southwestern arid and semi-arid regions is fairly extensive, few papers that
pertain to its creation or restoration are available. Very few creation and restoration projects
are more than ten years old and most large projects have been undertaken in the last five
years. Because they are so recent, evaluations of successes and failures are based on short-
term results; long-term survival and growth rates are, as yet, unknown.
In most cases, creation and restoration projects have involved the planting of vegetation
and not the creation of conditions suitable for the natural regeneration of riparian habitats.
Many planted riparian forests do not reproduce and their longevity is therefore determined by
the lifespan of the individual trees. Mitigation provided by such forests is temporary.
Important considerations for riparian creation or restoration projects in the Southwest
include:
1. Depth to water table.
2. Soil salinity and texture.
3. Amount and frequency of irrigation.
4 Effects of rising and dropping water tables on planted trees.
5. Protection from rodent and rabbit predation.
6. Elimination of competing herbaceous weeds.
7. Protection from vandalism, off-road vehicles, and livestock.
8. Monitoring of growth rates as well as survival.
9. Project design flexible enough to allow for major modifications.
Because the creation and restoration of riparian habitats in the Southwest is new and
mostly experimental, more information is needed for virtually every aspect of revegetation.
Two major questions that need to be answered are whether planted trees survive for more than
a few years and reach expected sizes, and what ranges of planting parameters are most cost-
effective. Specific information needs include the identification of: the most suitable watering
regimes; suitable soil conditions for various tree species; long-term survival and growth rates;
and effects of variable water table levels on planted trees.
359
-------
INTRODUCTION-OVERVIEW OF REGION
AND WETLAND TYPES DISCUSSED
CHARACTERISTICS OF REGION
The geographical area discussed in this
chapter includes the arid and semi-arid areas of
the Southwest, bounded roughly by 27 degrees
north and 37 degrees, 30 minutes north latitude
and 103 degrees west and 118 degrees west
longitude. The climate is warm temperate to
subtropical with mild winters and long, hot
summers. Rainfall is low throughout most of the
region and primarily occurs bi-seasonally
(summer and winter) or seasonally (winter).
Summer rainfall usually occurs in intense local
thundershowers which commonly result in flash
floods and ephemeral flows in typically dry
washes. Because of rapid evaporation, little of the
precipitation is available to plants. In winter,
rainfall is generally light and widespread and
occurs for longer periods of time. These rains
produce fewer flash floods and more of the water
that falls is available to plants. Annual
precipitation in arid regions varies from 2 to
about 15 inches (Benson and Darrow 1981).
Topography is varied and ranges from flat
plains to rugged mountains.
WETLAND AND RIPARIAN TYPES
Various classification systems and
definitions of wetland and riparian habitats
exist (Brown 1982, Cowardin et al. 1979, Johnson,
et al. 1984, Johnson and Lowe 1985, Ohmart and
Anderson 1982, Warner and Hendrix 1984). In
the arid Southwest, emphasis has been on
riparian habitats because true wetlands as
defined by Cowardin et al. (1979) are extremely
rare. For the purposes of this chapter, we define
riparian habitat as:
"Environs of freshwater bodies,
watercourses, and surface-emergent
aquifers (springs, seeps, and oases)
whose transported waters provide soil
moisture sufficiently in excess of that
otherwise available through local
precipitation to potentially support the
growth of mesic vegetation" (Warner
and Hendrix 1984).
Many riparian areas are not wetlands as
interpreted by the Army Corps of Engineers
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
some, especially the drier ephemeral and
possibly intermittent systems, do not even meet
the criteria established by Cowardin, et al. (1979).
The great majority of riparian vegetation in the
Southwest occurs along watercourses, and with
few exceptions, all restoration and revegetation
efforts summarized in this chapter involve the
reestablishment of trees and shrubs along
perennial streams.
Riparian habitats of the American Southwest
evolved from the major Tertiary Geofloras
during the past 100 million years, and are
remnants of once-greater biotic communities of
an expanded geographic "Southwest" (Brown
1982). Riparian habitats are classified primarily
on the basis of vegetation and not on soils or
hydrology (Johnson et al. 1984). For example,
Brown et al. (1979) classify riparian vegetation
in arid regions into four major biomes based on
dominant species and plant size. These four
major biomes are:
1. Interior Southwestern Riparian Deciduous
Forest and Woodland.
2 Sonoran Riparian and Oasis Forest.
3. Interior Southwestern Swamp and Riparian
Scrub.
4 Sonoran Deciduous Swamp and Riparian
Scrub.
Dominant plants in the Interior
Southwestern Riparian Deciduous Forest and
Woodland biome include Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii^ willows (Salix spp.),
Arizona sycamore (Plantanus wriyhtii). ash
(Fraxinus velutina). and walnut (Juglans
majox). Sonoran Riparian and Oasis Forests are
generally dominated by Fremont cottonwood,
Goodding's willow (Salix gooddinpii ). and
honey mesquite f Prosopis juliflora'). but may also
contain large numbers of net-leaf hackberry
CCeltis reticulataV ash, blue paloverde
(Cercidmm floridum) or elderberry ( Sambucus
mexicana). Saltcedar (Tamarix chinenmat may
be dominant in both Interior Southwestern
Riparian Scrub and Sonoran Deciduous Swamp
and Riparian Scrub biomes. The latter may also
support vegetation dominated by screwbean
mesquite ( Prosopis pubescenat, honey mesquite,
and arrowweed (Teaaaria sericea).
Habitat creation and restoration has been
restricted to forest types which support large trees
and consequently the highest densities and
diversities of wildlife.
The riparian habitats considered in this
chapter are limited to lowland areas of the
Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Mojave deserts in
360
-------
southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, West
Texas and limited areas in Nevada and Utah.
The entire area is drained by the Colorado or Rio
Grande river systems. Specific drainages where
revegetation efforts have been made include the
Lower Colorado, Salt, Gila, Verde, and Rio
Grande rivers and some of their tributaries.
Kev Functions Performed
The many functions and relative values of
Southwestern riparian habitats have been
reviewed in a number of publications (Johnson
and Jones 1977, Warner and Hendrix 1984,
Johnson and McCormick 1978). These functions
and values can be divided into three major
categories:
1. Flora and wildlife.
2. Recreation.
3. Environmental quality.
Southwestern riparian habitats are valued
for the high densities and diversities of wildlife
they support (Johnson et al. 1985, Stamp 1978,
Szaro 1980). Breeding bird densities are among
the highest in the United States (Carothers et al.
1974) and have been shown to be proportional to
total vegetation volume (Mills and Carothers
1986, Mills et al. 1989). A number of species, such
as Bald Eagle fHaliaeetua leucocephalua ),
Common Black-Hawk (Buteog allus
anthracJTius^. Gray Hawk fButeo nitidus). and
me&quite mouse fParoTnvacus TnerHami^,. are
restricted or functionally dependent on riparian
habitats. Riparian vegetation is also important
for sustaining healthy fisheries along streams
with perennial flow (Platts and Nelson 1985,
Platts and Rinne 1985).
Riparian habitats provide a wide range of
consumptive and non-consumptive recrea-
tional activities (Johnson and Carothers 1982).
Studies by Sublette and Martin (1975) in the Salt-
Verde River Basin of central Arizona placed a
1972 consumer surplus value of approximately
$50 to $60 million on recreation in an area
comprising only 12 percent of the State's potential
recreational area. This unusually large value is
probably due in part to the proximity of
metropolitan Phoenix. Water-based recreation is
in such heavy demand in this desert metropolis
that it boasts of having one of the larger
concentrations of boats per capita in the United
States. More than 20,000 recreationists (Tonto
National Forest files) can be found on some
weekend days along a stretch of approximately
five miles of the Salt River and its riparian
environs near Phoenix.
Riparian habitats play a major role in the
hydrologic relations of the watershed (Mitsch et
al. 1977). Odum believes that the greatest
contribution of riparian habitats is a result of
their function as a buffer and filter system
between man's urban and agricultural
developments and the aquatic environment
(Johnson and McCormick 1979). Riparian
habitats play a major role in improving water
quality through the deposition of sediments,
assimilation of nutrients and organic matter,
degradation of pesticides, and accumulation of
heavy metals (McNatt et al. 1980). These unique
ecosystems also contribute to flood and erosion
control. In healthy riparian habitats, water is
stored throughout the floodplain during high
flows and released slowly during low flow
periods.
EXTENT TO WHICH CREATION AND RESTORATION HAS OCCURRED
GOALS
The goal of most restoration efforts has been
to provide mitigation for impacts to wildlife
habitat caused by changes in floodplain and
streamflow characteristics. Mitigation has
usually been out-of-kind. For example,
cottonwood and willow trees, because of their
disproportionately high wildlife values
(apparently due to high foliage volume), have
been planted as mitigation for the loss of other
riparian species. Wildlife value has rarely been
defined, that is, no species or group of species has
been identified as a currency upon which to
calculate the amount of mitigation required, or to
evaluate success or failure of the mitigation
attempt. However, in at least one case (James
Montgomery Engineers 1986), total breeding bird
density was used to quantitatively estimate
potential mitigation value for a planted riparian
forest
A goal of some restoration efforts has been
the evaluation of various revegetation techniques
and their costs. In a few projects, bank
stabilization has been at least a secondary goal.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Creation and restoration of riparian habitats
in the Southwest has occurred on a significant
scale only since about 1977. Though a number of
projects have been attempted, many have been
small (<1 acre) and haphazardly planned and
conducted. Only five larger, well-planned
361
-------
projects have been carried out, most in the last
three years.
Most revegetation projects have occurred
along the Lower Colorado River. Between 18 and
20 "major" projects ranging in size from less
than one acre to about 70 acres have been carried
out since 1977 (Table 1). A summary of these
projects, including an evaluation of their
success, is in preparation at the Bureau of
Reclamation (Murphy 1988), but is not yet
available. Projects elsewhere in the Southwest
have been mostly small and casual. A major
exception is the one undertaken by the Safford,
Arizona District of the Bureau of Land
Management, which has planted more than
10,000 dormant cottonwood and willow poles and
bareroot walnut and sycamore trees over the past
seven years. Unfortunately, no records of
planting designs, successes, or costs have been
kept (Brick Campbell, BLM Safford District,
pers. comm. 1987).
TYPES OF CREATION
AND RESTORATION
Unlike most other wetland types, riparian
habitat restoration and creation in the arid
Southwest has almost exclusively involved
planting of trees and rarely has included
creating conditions for natural revegetation.
Restoration of most other wetland types requires,
as a prerequisite, the reestablishment of suitable
hydrologic conditions. In the Southwest, natural
watercourses have been so impacted by man and
are so controlled by dams that it is rarely
possible to create conditions for natural
revegetation. Riparian plant species that largely
rely on floods for successful seed germination,
such as cotton woods, no longer reproduce
naturally in many of these areas (Brown 1982).
Because of high water demands and residential
and agricultural uses of floodplains, restoration
of natural flow conditions is unlikely.
As a result of the changes in hydrologic
conditions caused by flood control and
channelization, most restored riparian forests
have not reproduced, and are extremely unlikely
to do so. The longevity of most planted forests is
therefore determined by the lifespan of the
individual trees. Perpetuation of restored
riparian forests would require a maintenance
program involving periodic plantings. To our
knowledge, none of the existing or planned
restoration efforts include such a maintenance
program.
SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
When defined, mitigation goals usually
have been based on long-term survival of trees.
Many projects have been obvious failures, with
few living trees remaining, however, there are
still high percentages of apparently healthy,
growing trees at some revegetation sites. Because
no revegetation projects are more than 11 years
old, none can be considered a long-term success.
The oldest revegetation project along the Lower
Colorado River (Anderson and Ohmart 1982),
which was largely experimental, has trees 10
years old and appears to have been "successful"
in demonstrating that revegetation is possible
and in identifying some of the key factors
necessary for successful plantings. However, a
recent inspection of this site determined that all
planted willows (46 percent of planted trees) and
many of the planted cottonwoods (36 percent of
planted trees) are moribund (Murphy 1988). No
data are available to evaluate the current
wildlife value of this revegetation effort, and
almost all other major revegetation projects are
less than three years old.
Evaluations of success have been hampered
by a lack of monitoring and record keeping.
Many projects along the Colorado River have
only recently been checked for success and
results are not yet fully available. The Safford
District of BLM keeps no records of success or
failure.
The primary reasons for project failures
appear to be lack of proper planning, lack of
monitoring, and lack of effective action to solve
problems. Though a number of environmental
conditions (such as soil types, water table depth,
and rabbits, deer, and beavers) make
revegetation more difficult or impossible, most of
these problems are easily solved or avoided with
proper site selection and careful project design
and implementation.
DESIGN OF CREATION/RESTORATION PROJECTS
Revegetation projects have included a
variety of techniques, such as rooted one-gallon
cuttings, dormant pole plantings, and seeding
(described in Appendix I), using a variety of
upland plant species such as paloverdes and
saltbush as well as riparian species such as
cottonwood, willow, honey mesquite, and
screwbean mesquite.
362
-------
Table 1: Restoration/Revegetation Attempts in the Arid and Semi-Arid Southwest.
CO
Oi
CO
*
1
LOCATION
Seal slough
DATE
1980/81
SOURCE
Murphy, 1988
AGENCY*
BLH/CDGF
RIPARIAN SPECIES
Cottonwood, Willow
Mesquite, Palo
Verde
STATUS/OMCNTS: Approximately 40 cottonwood and willow trees (of 650 orig
Floods and lack of irrigation are reasons for mortality.
2
Topock Marsh
1986
Murphy, 1988
USBR/USFUS
Cottonwood, Willow
Mesouite
AREA
a) 6 ac.
b) 4 ac.
c) 4-5 ac.
DEPTH TO UATER
a) 6- 8 ft.
b) 6- 8 ft.
c) 11-13 ft.
IRRIG.
Yes
nally planted) had survived by 1987.
Not reported
Variable over
area (0-10 ft.)
Yes
APPROXIMATE
COST
$ 20,000
The surviv
$ 12,000***
SUBSTRATE
Dredge spoi I and fine sand
PLANTING
1-gallon
(12-24")
ng trees range in height from 5 to 13 feet.
Dredge spoil and fine sand
1-gallon
STATUS/CuWtNrs: Present survival over the entire site is estimated at 70 percent. Trees growing closest to water table survived best, some now in excess of 20 feet
tall. Mortalities attributed to problems with irrigation, beavers, and soil salinity.
3
Bankline-Phase I
1986
Mills and
Tress, 1988
USSR/
SWCA, INC.
a) 303 Cottonwood
and Ui I lows
b) Honey Mesqui te,
and at ri pi ex
2 ac.
25-30 ft.
Yes
$ About
80,000
Sandy loam with a few clay
layers
a) 1-gallon
b) seeds
STATUS/CUICNTS: Experimental vegetation of riprapped banklines. Most trees planted on sloping riprap died because of bank failure. After two growing seasons, trees
averaged > 15 feet tall. Mriplex has done very well. Hesquite seeds were largely unsuccessful.
4
Bank line- Phase II
1987
Mills and
Tress, 1988
USSR/
SWCA, INC.
a) 60 Cottonwood
and Willow
b) Tree/shrub mix
0.5 ac.
5-12 ft.
No
$ 1,200
Sandy loam
a) dormant
poles
b) seeds
STATUS/COMMENTS: More than 50 percent of dormant poles were alive more than one year after planting. Mortality greatest for poles planted where water table was deep-
est. Seed experiments planted directly on riprap were mostly unsuccessful.
5
No Name Lake
1987
Murphy
USBR/KERR
LANDSCAPE
Cottonwood, Willow
Mesquite, Wolf-
berrv. Fan Palms
STATUS/CCMCNTS: Plants presently have a high rate of survival, however su
6
A-10 Backwater,
River Mile 115-116
1984-86
Murphy
BLM
Cottonwood, Willow
41.5 ac.
ficient time
5.5 ac.
4-12 ft.
Yes
$175,000
Sandy loam
1-gallon
has not passed to adequately evaluate the project success.
12 ft.
Yes
t 10,000
Dredge spoil and sand
STATUS/CCMCNTS: Overall, the trees at the site had a 53 percent survival rate through the spring of 1987. Mortality attributed to livestock and deer grazing/browsing
and high soil salinity.
* Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
* Per surviving tree.
* Some labor costs not included.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
ALC - Anderson Landscape and Construction Co.
AO - Anderson and Ohmart (ASU)
BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
COFF - California Dept. of Fish and Game
CUL - C. W. Cloud
FMTF - Fort McDowell Tribal Farm
MLS - Montana Lawn Service
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
USBR - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Table 1 (Con't)
CO
t
7
LOCATION
River Mile 1S1
DATE
1987
SOURCE
Murphy
AGENCY*
USSR
RIPARIAN SPECIES
Quailbush, Palo
Verde, Mesquite,
Wolf berry, Forbs,
and Grasses
AREA
1 Mile of
Bank
DEPTH TO WATER
2-20 ft.
I BUG.
Yes
APPROXIMATE
COST
$ 3,400
SUBSTRATE
Sandy loam on riprap
PLANTING
Hydromuleh
STATUS/COMMENTS: After one month of watering, same quatlbush, mesquite, and palo verde had germinated and died from the heat. Irrigation suspended until winter 1988.
Project still in process, too early to evaluate.
8
Palo Verde Oxbow- 1
1984-86
Murphy
STATUS/COUCNTSi There was an initial morta
percent of the mesquitea are Infested with dt
9
Palo Verde Oxbow- 2
1983
Murphy
US8R/COFG
a) Cottonwood,
UUlow, Screw-
bean Mesquite
b) Cottonwood,
Willow, Honey
Mesoutte
a) 1 ac.
b) 6.5 ac.
1-8 ft.
Yes
ity rate of approximately 40 percent for both sites. Trees on the
imaging insects (psyllids). Gophers killed approximately 25 mesquiti
BLH
Cottonwood, Willow
Honev Mesowtte
A ac.
405 ft.
Yes
STATUS/COMMENTS: Thirty (30) percent of the trees were killed ((mediately after planting due to the unusually h
(spring 1984}, approximately 200 willow trees germinated naturally on the site. Arrowweed eventually proltferan
willows and small cottonwoods remain from the original planting 2Ł the natural germination after the 1985 flood.
10
Palo Verde Oxbow- 3
(Experimental
seeding)
1986
Murphy
USSR
Screwbean and
Honey Mesquite
STATUS/COmaiTS: Three one-half acre plots were cleared and seeded. The 3(
ity was associated with mammal and insect damage and settling dredge spoil <
11
Cibola Refuge
(Experimental
seeding)
STATUVCOHNEMTS: Qua
quite is doing better
12
Cibola Refuge
1986
Murphy
USSR
Quailbush, Honey
Mesquite, Screw-
bean Mesquite,
Blue Palo Verde
1.5 ac.
3-5 ft.
Yes
a) $ 2,000
b) *17,000
Dredge spoil/sand
1-gallon
larger site range in size from 2-12 feet. Fifty (50)
t trees. No additional data on survivorship available.
$ 6,800
Dredge spoil/sand
Rooted Starts
(12-24-1
gh floods of the sunnier of 1983. After the flood
K) on the site, dominating the area. Today only a few
$ 400
Dredge spoil/sand
Seed broadcast
surviving t ees were on the plot where trees were individually fenced from rabbits. Mortal-
.overing and suffocating the plants.
8 20x30 ft.
plots
4 ft.
Yes
S 1,100
Dense clay
Salinity range equals
6,000-60.000 ppm
Seed broadcast
Ibush is growing well. Rabbits have dug under the fences erected on all plots and have subsequently damaged all mesquite trees. Screwbean mes-
than honey mesquite. There are now six to 24 surviving mesquite trees per plot. None of the palo verde sprouts survived.
1978
Anderson and
Ohmart, 1982
STATUS/COMMENTS: Surviving cottonwool trees
US8R/AO
Cottonwood, Honey
Mesquite, Willow,
Blue Palo Verde
50 ac.
Unknown
Yes
$190,000
Dense soil
Salinity range equals
500-90.000 DIM
1-gallon
are now in excess of 20 feet and the willou trees are in excess of 20 feet. The quailbush and Suaeda are 15-20 feet tall.
* Bureau of Und Management (BUM)
* Per surviving tree.
* Some labor costs not included.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
ALC - Anderson Landscape and Construction Co.
AO - Anderson and Ohmart (ASU)
BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
COFF - California Dept. of Fish and Game
CUL - C. W. Cloud
FMTF - Fort McDowell Tribal Farm
MLS • Montana Lawn Service
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
USSR - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFUS - Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Table 1 (Con't)
f
13
LOCATION
Cibola Refuge
Dredge Spoils
DATE
1977-78
SOURCE
Anderson and
Ohmart, 1982
AGENCY*
USBR/AO
RIPARIAN SPECIES
Cottonwood, Willow
Honey Mesquite
AREA
70 ac.
DEPTH TO INTER
9-14 ft.
IRRIG.
NEEDED
Yes
APPROXIMATE
COST
$276,000
SUBSTRATE
Dredge spot I
PLANTING
Rooted cuttings
STATUS/COMMENTS: The initial success of this project was evidenced by trees reaching he ghts in excess o 40 feet. Present y, the growth has stopped and stabilized and
by late 1987 all the willows were dead or dying. Many of the cottonwoods were moribund. Palo verdes, mesquites, and quail bush are apparently still health and growing.
The reason for the mortalities is not known.
U
Mittry Lake
1986
Murphy, 1988
USBR/ALC
Cottonwood, Willow
Screwbean Mesquite
Honey Mesquite,
Quailbush, Blue
Palo Verde, Wolf-
berry
57 ac.
6-14 ft.
Yes
$474,000
Heterogeneous-sand, rock,
gravel, silts, and clay
Trees 1 -gallon
(12-24")
Shrubs
STATU»/COtatNT$: Overall survival of the vegetation was initially over 90 percent. Almost all the paloverde and wolfberry died imnediately after planting, however
these were replaced. Present growth varies widely between species. Cottonwood have shown the most growth, some having reached eight feet in height. Screwbean mesquite
are more vigorous than honey, the former reaching five feet in height. Deer browsing has destroyed nest of the willows, damage to cottonwoods was extensive until the
beaver MBS caught, insect (psyllids) damage to some honey mesquites has occurred, and rabbit browsing on the honey mesquite and quailbush is extensive.
15
Fortune Wash
Fishing Pond
1985
Murphy, 1988
USBR/CUC
Cottonwood, Willow
Mesquite
STATUS/CEMENTS: Irrigated trees have grown well and most are in excess of
poles have not grown much. Some beaver damage has occurred.
16
Tacna
1986
Murphy, 1988
USBR/HLS
a) 103 Honey
Mesquite/ac.,
5 Cottonwood/ac
5 willows/ ac.
b) Honey Mesouite
8 ac.
five feet ta
a) 109 ac.
b) 30 ac.
10-11 ft.
I; some of the u
a) 6- 8 ft.
b) 10-14 ft.
Yes
t 60,000
How cuttings have
Yes
$400,000
Sand with underlying clay
exceeded ten feet in height.
Fine sandy soil
Poles and
1-gallon
(12-24")
The willow
1-gallon
(6-36")
STATUS/CEMENTS: Survival of sites A and B are approximately 37 and 85 percent, respect vely. Mortalities are associated with gopher and insect (psyllid) damage. The
mesquites are approximately four to six feet in height, while some cottonwood and willows are in excess of six feet.
17
Fort McDowell
1986
Murphy. 1988
SCS/FUS/BIA
USBR/FMTF
STATUS/COMMENTS: Of 71 trees originally planted, approx
water table.
Cottonwood, Willow
N/A
1-5 ft.
No
$ 2.000**
Sand and cobbles
York poles
(4-10" diam.)
mately 26 trees were still alive in late 1987. Mortalities were associated with flooding and/or a dropping
* Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
** Per surviving tree.
*** Some labor costs not included.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
ALC - Anderson Landscape and Construction Co.
AO - Anderson and Ohmart CASU)
BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
CDFF - California Dept. of Fish and Game
CWL - C. U. Cloud
FMTF - Fort McDowell Tribal Farm
MLS - Montana Lawn Service
SCS - Soil conservation Service
USBR - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
PRECONSTRUCnON CONSIDERATIONS Hydrology and Irrigation
A key factor in assuring success of
revegetation is matching physiological
requirements of the selected plant species to the
environmental conditions of the planting site.
Considerations in site selection should include
soil salinity and type, depth to water table, and
probability of prolonged or heavy flooding. For
example, in areas where soil moisture
availability is limited, drought tolerant species
such as mesquite and paloverde will have much
greater probability of survival than will species
such as cottonwood and willow. Virtually any
species can be forced into unsuitable areas if
appropriate modifications to soil conditions and
water availability are made, but costs are
usually very high and such planted trees may be
entirely dependent on artificial irrigation.
Availability of water for at least temporary
irrigation is necessary for most revegetation
projects regardless of species planted.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN
Timing
Project timing depends upon the revegetation
method used. Most one-gallon plantings and
dormant pole plantings have been done in late
winter or early spring (February to April). Few
tree plantings at other times of year have been
attempted, but fall plantings may work. Growth
rates of Atri pi ex planted from seed under
similar irrigation regimes did not differ
between March and September plantings near
Parker, Arizona (Mills and Tress 1988). It
appears to be advisable to avoid the hot summer
months (June to September) because of extremely
high transpiration rates.
CollfitntCtlQP ComndGrfltioTifis Conistmrimf*
Slopes. KlftvatioTia. Si«»
Because typical areas where riparian
revegetation efforts occur are usually relatively
flat, contouring and slope are generally not
considerations. With proper design, it should be
possible to establish riparian trees on slopes if
other requirements are met. However, in one
study (Mills and Tress 1988), a high percentage
of trees planted on 1.5:1 riprapped slopes were lost
because of bank instability and failure.
Elevation should not be a problem as long as
climatic conditions are suitable for the species to
be planted. Revegetation efforts of any size are
possible, though larger projects tend to be more
cost-effective. Irrigation labor costs, which often
constitutes the most significant portion of a
revegetation budget, is usually relatively
independent of the number of trees planted.
Depth to water table is a critical factor for
most revegetation efforts. For most projects, the
idea is to get the roots to the water table so that
trees are independent of irrigation or rainfall.
The time it takes for trees to reach the water table
depends on soil conditions, depth to water table,
and amount of irrigation. For most projects so
far, the water table has been at 6 to 14 feet and
most trees appear to have reached groundwater in
the first or second growing season. In one
current project (Mills and Tress 1988) where the
water table is between 25 and 30 feet, watering
has been done for nearly two growing seasons
and most trees do not appear to have made it to
the water table though most are large and
healthy. In some cases, it is easy to determine
when a tree has reached the water table simply by
observing its growth. Trees become much
greener and grow faster after they appear to have
reached the water table. It may be necessary to
decrease irrigation and closely monitor tree
condition to determine when trees are
"independent". A neutron probe, which measures
soil water content, used in PVC vertical access
tubes buried to the water table is a useful device
for determining how deep irrigation water and
tree roots have gone (see Mills and Tress 1988).
One unresolved issue involving irrigation is
its timing and amount. One school of thought,
which appears to us the most reasonable, is to
give the trees an overabundance of water so that
the soil is saturated to the water table nearly
constantly. Another school of thought is that trees
should be watered less frequently and stressed to
some degree to encourage deeper root growth.
In situations where it is not possible or
desirable to force roots to the water table, such as
trees planted along golf courses or other irrigated
areas, rate of tree growth and wildlife value is
generally proportional to the amount of
irrigation water provided.
Dormant pole cuttings must be placed in wet
soil. In most cases, pole cuttings are used where
the water table is less than three or four feet
below the surface, though poles have been planted
in areas with water tables 8 to 12 feet below the
surface (Mills and Tress 1988). Twenty-seven of
40 (67.5 percent) cottonwood and willow poles
planted where the water table was eight feet
survived and grew, but only 6 of 10 cotton woods
and none of 10 willows at 12 feet survived the
first four months, though all leafed out initially
(Mills and Tress 1980).
Effects of rapidly rising and dropping water
tables on planted trees and dormant poles are
unknown, but may significantly reduce the
success of revegetation efforts. Water levels
along parts of the Lower Colorado River have
366
-------
varied by more than 10 feet during the last
several years and may vary by more than two
feet on a daily basis. The alternate drying and
flooding of roots caused by fluctuating water
tables may cause stress that results in slow
growth rates, susceptibility to disease or insect
predation, or death.
Along the Colorado River, soil condition and
texture have been shown to be critical for
successful revegetation (Anderson and Ohmart
1982). High salinity reduces the chances of
survival for many species (saltbush and
screwbean mesquite appear to be most tolerant).
Areas with very high salinities should be
avoided. Moderate salinities can be lessened to
some degree by leaching before planting and
during irrigation. However, long-term effects of
moderate salinities, which will increase as
infrequent rains wash salts back around planted
trees, are unknown. In areas of very low
rainfall and especially when trees are planted in
upland areas, soils should be tested for salinity
before planting. In areas where cottonwoods,
willows, and mesquites already occur, soils
probably do not need to be tested.
Heavy clay content or clay lenses in the soil
also may prevent successful revegetation. Clay
prevents irrigated water from reaching the water
table; irrigation water moves laterally and not
down. Though trees may grow large and appear
healthy as long as they are irrigated, they will
die if irrigation is stopped. Soil augering has
been shown to be critical for successful
revegetation to break up clay lenses and insure
downward water movement. Vertical holes at
least 15 inches in diameter should be augered to
the water table before trees are planted. A self-
cleaning auger, which mixes soil more
thoroughly, works best.
Type of Plant Material. Source. Handling
Most large revegetation efforts have used
rooted one-gallon plants grown from cuttings
(Table 1). In most cases, these one-gallon plants
have been obtained from nurseries in Phoenix,
Arizona, such as Mountain State Nurseries.
Cottonwoods and willows are grown from plant
cuttings from the general planting area
(preferably as close as possible) which are taken
the previous fall. These plants are usually
available only in early spring. Mesquites,
paloverdes, and shrubs are grown from seed and,
like cuttings, must be ordered in advance.
Plants should be transported in closed vehicles to
prevent wind damage. When it is necessary to
store implanted trees on site, they should be kept
in covered nurseries and watered daily. It is
generally better to plant them as soon as possible
after reaching the site.
Though we are aware of no cases where
transplanted mature trees have been used for
mitigation, such trees have been used for
revegetation and might be considered for some
mitigation projects. These trees are often
salvaged from construction sites and are
currently available or can be special-ordered
from a number of commercial nurseries in
Phoenix and Tucson. The advantage of using
mature trees is that mitigation for lost
vegetation, and much wildlife, is almost
instantaneous. It is not necessary to wait several
years for planted trees to reach maturity. These
trees are very expensive, however, and their use
appears to be most warranted in special
situations where instant replacement is
desirable. Use of salvaged trees is most
reasonable for slower-growing species such as
mesquite or paloverde; use of salvaged rapidly-
growing species such as cottonwood or willow
rarely appears to be warranted.
To maximize adaptability to the planting site
and reduce possible genetic contamination,
dormant pole cuttings (York, in Johnson et al.
1985) should be taken from the nearest available
source. Small numbers of poles are usually
fairly easy to obtain, but large projects may have
difficulty locating large numbers. The ideal
source for pole cuttings is from dense even-aged
stands three to five years old. These trees are
very straight and have few branches; poles 10 to
20 feet long are easily obtained. Taking every
fifth or tenth tree in such stands also does
negligible damage to the source area; remaining
trees quickly fill in gaps. One of the best sources
along the Lower Colorado River is the Bill
Williams unit of Lake Havasu National
Wildlife Refuge. Hundreds of cottonwoods and
thousands of willows are available and refuge
personnel have allowed some harvesting.
Though dormant poles greater than six
inches in diameter are often recommended, our
experience has shown that almost any size works
if poles are protected from rodents and rabbits.
No differences in survival between poles with
two and three inch diameters and those with five
and six inch diameters was found in one study
where 40 poles were planted (Mills and Tress
1988). Non-dormant poles also appear to work if
all branches and leaves are stripped off prior to
planting. Along the Lower Colorado cottonwoods
and willows are "dormant" for only about two
weeks in some winters.
Dormant poles can be transported uncovered
for short distances, but should be stored in water
if kept more than 12 hours before planting.
Treating poles with a fungicide or rooting
hormone is desirable.
Native seeds are available from a variety of
commercial sources in Phoenix and Tucson.
367
-------
One-gallon cuttings and dormant poles of
cottonwoods and willows should be fenced if
beavers are present in the planting area. Entire
projects have been lost to beavers. A 2x4 inch
welded wire mesh fence four feet high around
each tree appears to be necessary for complete
protection. In some cases a fence around an
entire project is adequate, but fencing each tree
separately, though sometimes more expensive,
appears to be the best long-term strategy. In areas
with beavers, trees will need protection for then-
entire lives; cottonwoods with trunks more than
two feet in diameter have been felled by beavers.
Because trees do not outgrow their vulnerability
to beaver predation, beaver control measures,
such as trapping, will provide only a temporary
solution to this problem. In some areas, deer are
serious willow predators; no entirely successful
solution to this problem has been developed.
One-gallon mesquites and paloverdes should
be fenced with 18 inch high chicken wire for
protection from rodents and rabbits. Screwbean
mesquite appears to be largely immune to rabbit
attack.
Competing herbaceous plants, especially
Bermuda grass (Cvnodon dactvlon) and Russian
thistle (Salaola kali), significantly reduce tree
growth and can result in project failure.
Weeding of tree wells is necessary, however,
only in some cases.
Rflrntroduction
Unless planting sites are extremely remote,
they should be adequately fenced to keep out off-
road vehicles. Fencing may also be necessary to
keep livestock from feeding on planted trees.
Fences must be monitored and maintained. In
some areas it may be wise to leave a cleared fire
break around planting sites or plant in patches to
prevent total loss from a single wildfire.
Irrigation pumps left on site eventually are
stolen; it is best to use portable pumps carried to
and from the site.
No reintroduction of fauna has been done in
conjunction with revegetation efforts and does
not appear to be necessary.
This appears to be the most critical element
for revegetation success. Many past projects
have suffered from virtual abandonment after
planting. In many cases, the immediate causes
of failure could have been easily eliminated if
someone had been aware of them and taken
corrective action. Agency attitudes on many
early projects appeared to assume all that was
required was to plant trees; whether or not they
survived did not appear to matter. Some projects
were "cook-booked"; trees were planted, watered
for some predetermined number of months on
some specified schedule, and then abandoned.
Planting techniques and watering regimes
developed at one site were applied to other sites
without regard to differences in soils, water
tables, beavers, etc. Fixed plans and techniques
were drawn up ahead of time that allowed little
flexibility in dealing with unanticipated
problems. Over the last year, encouraging
changes have been occurring. Many agencies
have shown more flexibility and a greater
commitment to successful projects.
MONITORING
Monitoring is a critical element of
revegetation projects that, as pointed out above,
has been largely missing from past efforts.
Management plans with budgets large enough to
handle significant changes, such as an
additional year of irrigation, should be an
essential part of any revegetation plan.
WHAT AND HOW TO MONITOR
Monitoring should occur throughout the
"construction phase" of the revegetation project,
and beyond. During the planting and irrigation
phase for one-gallon tree plantings, monitoring
should concentrate on the health of the trees and
the depth of soil saturation and root growth.
Health of trees is best assessed by an experienced
person who can gain much information simply
by inspecting trees and noting leaf color,
presence of salt burn, relative growth rate, etc.
Frequent measurements of tree growth are not
necessary but should probably be made once a
year for the first two or three years, and then
perhaps every five or so years, as long as no
major problems are detected. Because of their
apparent relationship to wildlife value, some
direct measure or index of vegetation biomass or
volume appears to be the most meaningful
measurement to make. For even-aged trees, we
have found that a simple linear measurement
such as height or radius often correlates closely
with volume. In these cases, the simpler
measurement provides nearly as much
information but at a much cheaper cost. Basal
diameter has not correlated well with volume in
our studies. Depth of water penetration and root
depth are best done with a neutron probe.
368
-------
Pole cuttings simply require inspection and
possibly replacement of dead ones.
All planting sites should be monitored for
damage caused by rodents and rabbits, and for
weed problems. Appropriate actions should be
taken when necessary.
Where some "currency" has been chosen to
measure "wildlife value", the currency should
also be monitored. In some lower Colorado River
projects (e.g., James Montgomery Engineers
1986), breeding and winter bird densities have
been chosen as a currency. Estimates made
during growth of plants can then be compared to
conditions before planting to see if predicted
increases in wildlife value are being realized. A
variety of useful techniques are available for
measuring wildlife. Specifics will depend on the
exact nature of the site and the experience of the
people involved. The most important
considerations are an examination of the
assumptions upon which sampling techniques
are based and use of the same technique
throughout the monitoring period.
MONITORING DURATION
Monitoring the site during the first two or
three years appears to be critical, but some
monitoring should occur throughout the life of the
project. In cases where plantings are done for
mitigation, perceived values of planted trees are
based on the sizes of trees 10 to 20 years old. The
extent of actual mitigation provided will not be
known unless trees and wildlife are measured
during those years. Monitoring in interim years
may simply involve casual visits to look for
problems and need not necessarily be detailed.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Tree measurements are fairly easily
interpreted. We have found that total vegetation
volume is a fairly simple measurement that
correlates well with wildlife value as measured
by breeding bird density (Mills and Carothers
1986, Mills et al. 1989). If trees are similar in
size and shape (fairly likely in even-aged
stands), height and radius measurements may
provide a simple index of volume.
If a relatively simple currency, such as bird
density, is used for wildlife value,
interpretations are again straightforward. More
complex currencies involving more wildlife
types are more difficult to interpret. Interpre-
tation is made much simpler by clearly defining
goals at the beginning of the project.
MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS
The major corrections that may be required
in revegetation efforts are changes in watering
regimes, strengthening or erecting barriers to
wildlife around plantings, and weeding around
trees. Experience has shown that the amount of
water required, and especially the length of time
watering is required, cannot be accurately
predicted in advance. Though we do not know
what watering regimes are best, it is usually
obvious when plants are not getting enough
water.
Pole plantings should be monitored for
animal damage. Once in the ground, little can
be done to save poles from dying from lack of
water or flooding.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH
The creation and restoration of riparian
habitats in the Southwest is new and still mostly
experimental. Though much useful information
has been gained from some projects, others have
produced little due to a lack of any analysis or
monitoring. Because revegetation projects are so
recent, no data on their long-term success are
available.
More information is needed for virtually
every aspect of revegetation. We especially need
to know whether planted trees can survive for
more than a few years and if they will reach the
sizes expected. Secondarily, we need to know the
ranges of various parameters that will work and
which are most cost-effective. With careful
monitoring and project adaptability, it appears
that trees can be successfully grown under a
wide variety of conditions, but we do not know
whether half as much water would have worked
as well.
Specific information needs are listed below:
1. Watering regimes. What is the best watering
regime for one-gallon trees? Is it best to give
them an abundance of water or mildly stress
them to encourage root growth? Is it better to
water for several days with week intervals or
water every other day?
2. Soil conditions. What are the salinity
tolerances and limits for each plant species?
Will increases in salinity around irrigated
trees after irrigation stops prove fatal?
369
-------
3. What are the long-term survival rates and
growth rates of planted trees?
4. Are expected increases in wildlife value
ever realized?
5. How deep can rooted one-gallon cuttings and
dormant poles be planted? What is the best
time of year to plant?
7.
Which planting techniques (e.g., rooted one-
gallon tree cuttings, dormant poles, or
seeding) are most cost-effective and under
what conditions?
How much variation in water table level can
planted trees tolerate?
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1982. Revegetation
for Wildlife Enhancement Along the Lower
Colorado River. Report to the Bur. Reclamation,
Boulder City, Nevada.
Benson, L. and RA. Darrow. 1981. Trees and Shrubs of
the Southwestern Deserts. Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson.
Brown, DJ3. (Ed.). 1982. Biotic communities of the
American Southwest—United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants 4:1-342.
Brown, DJ3., CJL Lowe, and CJ>. Pase. 1979. A digitized
classification system for the biotic communities of
North America, with community (series) and
association examples for the Southwest. J. Ariz.-Nev.
Acad.Sci. 141-16.
Carothers, S.W., RJt. Johnson, and S.W. Aitchison. 1974.
Population structure and social organization in
southwestern riparian birds. Amer. Zool. 1457-108.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C.
James M. Montgomery Engineers. 1986. Mittry Lake
Revegetation Area 1 Final Master Plan and Design
Report. Report to Bur. of Reclamation, Boulder City,
Nevada.
Johnson, RJR. and S.W. Carothers. 1982. Riparian
Habitat and Recreation: Interrelationships and
Impacts in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain
Region. Eisenhower Consortium Bull. 12. Rocky
Mt. For. and Range Exper. Sta., U.S. Dept. Agric.
For. Serv., Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Johnson, RJt, S.W. Carothers, and JM. Simpson. 1984.
A riparian classification system, p. 375-382. In RJS.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
riparian systems. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, Cal.
Johnson, R.R. and DA. Jones, (Tech. Coords.). 1977.
Importance, Preservation and Management of
Riparian Habitat. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rept. RM-43, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp.
Sta., Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Johnson, R.R. and CM. Lowe. 1985. On the development
of riparian ecology, p. 112-116. In R.R. Johnson, CJ).
Ziebell, DH. Patton, P.F. Ffolloitt, and R.H. Hamre,
(Tech. Coords.). Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S.
Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. Ft.
Collins, Colorado.
Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick, (Tech. Coords.).
1979. Strategies for Protection and Management of
Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian
Ecosystems. Proc. of Symp. U.S. Dept. Agric. For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. WO-12, Washington, D.C.
Johnson, R.R., CJ). Ziebell, D.R. Patton, PJ*. Ffolloitt,
and RJ3. Hamre, (Tech. Coords.). 1985. Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-120. Ft. Collins, Colorado.
McNatt, R.M., RJ. Hallock, and A.W. Anderson. 1980.
RiparianHabitat and Instream Flow Studies.
Lower Verde River: Fort McDowell Reservation,
Arizona, June 1980. Riparian Habitat Analysis
Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Mills, G.S. and S.W. Carothers. 1986. Bird populations
in Arizona residential developments, p. 122-127. In
K. Stenberg and W.W. Shaw (Eds.), Wildlife
Conservation and New Residential Developments;
Proceedings of a National Symposium on Urban
Wildlife. School of Renewable Natural Resources,
Univ. of Ariz., Tucson.
Milk, G.S., JJ3. Dunning, and J.M. Bates. 1989. Effects
of urbanization on breeding bird community
structure in the Southwestern desert. Condor 91:416-
428.
Mills, G.S. and JA. Tress, Jr. 1988. Terrestrial
Ecology of Lower Colorado River Bankline
Modifications. Draft report to U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada.
Mitsch, WJ., C.L. Dorge, and J.R. Weimhoff. 1977.
Forested Wetlands for Water Resource
Management in Southern Illinois. Res. Rep. 132.
Illinois Water Res. Center, Univ. of 111., Urbana.
Murphy, S.K. 1988. Documentation of Revegetation
Efforts in the Lower Colorado Region. Draft report,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada.
Ohmart, R.D. and B.W. Anderson. 1982. North
American desert riparian ecosystems, p. 433-479.
In G.L. Bender (Ed.), Reference Handbook on the
Deserts of North America. Greenwood Press,
Westport, Connecticut.
370
-------
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and Sublette, W.J. and W.E. Martin. 1975. Outdoor
fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream Recreation in the Salt-Verde Basin of Central
improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil and Arizona: Demand and Value. Univ. of Ariz. Exp.
Water Conser. 40-.374-379. Sta. Tech. Bull. 218.
Platts, W.S. and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and stream Szaro, R.C. 1980. Factors influencing bird populations
enhancement management and research in the in southwestern riparian forests, p. 404-418. In
Rocky Mountains. North Amer. Jour, of Fiah. and R.M. DeGraf (Tech. Coord.), Workshop
Maaag, 2:115-125. Proceedings: Management of Western Forests and
Grasslands for Nongame Birds. U.S. For. Serv.
Stamp, N.E. 1978. Breeding birds of riparian woodland Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, Utah.
in south central Arizona. Condor 80:64-71.
Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.). 1984.
California Riparian Systems. Univ. of Calif. Press,
Berkeley, California.
371
-------
APPENDIX I: RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
ONE-GALLON TREES
Nursery-grown rooted cuttings of cottonwood and
willow twigs are planted in holes (preferably 15 inches
in diameter) angered to the water table. An irrigation
system is set up and holes are prewatered to leach salts
and wet the soil profile. Trees are planted in wells of
appropriate sizes and watered until roots reach the
water table. The amount and timing of watering
depends on the soil, weather, and depth to water table.
For most projects, watering has been required for 5 to
20 months. Trees should be protected with wire fences
and tree wells weeded if necessary.
DORMANT POLES
Cottonwood and willow poles 4 to 20 feet long are
cut from dormant living trees. Bases are scored with
an axe and dipped in a fungicide/hormone solution
(such as Dip-N-Grow). Poles are buried to the water
table or wet soil (an auger is best where the water table
is deep). Poles should be fenced in areas where beavers
are present. This technique also works with non-
dormant poles from which all leaves have been
removed.
Planting seeds has been tried in plots on flat and
sloping ground. Honey mesquite and screwbean
mesquite are the primary species used so far. No
results are yet available but rabbits have preyed
heavily on seedlings in some areas and success on
sloping ground appears to be minimal. Seedings of
saltbush, especially quailbush (Atripleg lentiformiat
have been very successful along the Lower Colorado
River. Growth rates are proportional to the amount of
irrigation.
MATURE PLANT SALVAGE
Mature trees of any size can be boxed and moved.
This technique has been used so far to salvage trees
from areas to be developed. No creation or restoration
projects have been tried but in some cases this
technique may be useful. Its main drawback is high
cost ($500 to $1000/tree). Before digging, plants are
pruned by more than half to reduce transpiration area.
Trenches are dug along the sides of the tree and a box
is constructed around the root balL Plants are watered
for about two weeks (45 gal/day), after which any
taproots are cut and a bottom is placed on the box.
Plants can then be moved to a nursery where they can
be kept indefinitely (at expense) until they can be
replanted at desired locations. Planted trees must be
watered for an indefinite period. If the water table is
close to the surface and not greatly fluctuating,
irrigation can be discontinued after some time period.
Success rate averages over 90 percent, regardless of
tree size. Species transplanted have included mesquite,
paloverde, ironwood, elderberry, ash, desert willow,
acacia, hack-berry, and various shrubs.
373
-------
APPENDIX IL PROJECT PROFILES
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently preparing
a summary of revegetation projects along the Lower
Colorado River that will include information on
project size, numbers of plants, success, costs, etc. For
a number of these projects, many details are not
available. This summary is currently in draft form
(Murphy 1988) and will not be available for general
release for several months.
DREDGE SPOILS-ANDERSON AND
OHMART1982
This project was the first major revegetation effort
in the Southwest, with trees planted in 1977-79. The
project includes two planting sites along the California
side of the Colorado River near Parker, Arizona.
Trees were planted on 30 ha of dredge spoil that
supported no existing vegetation and on a 20 ha area
that supported some saltcedara and willows.
These plantings were largely experimental and
designed to evaluate effects of soil angering, soil type
and irrigation regimes on survival and growth rates
of planted trees. Many trees established as controls
died. Two thousand trees were planted at each site at
an approximate cost per planted tree of $138 and $99 at
the two sites, respectively. Water table at the sites
ranged from 7 to 15 feet.
Important parameters for tree survival and growth
identified during the study included soil salinity and
type, effects of augering, and weeding and rodent
problems.
Many trees planted in angered holes on dredge
spoils are alive today, though most willows and many
cottonwoods are moribund. Some evidence suggests
that fluctuating water levels may be a problem. When
the water table is high for extended periods of time,
many roots may drown. When water tables drop roots
must regrow to remain in moist soil. Virtually all the
trees planted at the 20 ha site have died. Primary
cause of death appears to have been lack of water
caused by improper irrigation and heavy clay soils.
MTTTRYLAKE
A total of 5,594 one-gallon trees (3,376 cottoawood,
408 willow, 733 honey mesquitc, 366 screwbean
mesquite, 711 paloverdes) were planted on about 57
acres of desert scrub along Mittry Lake, near Yuma,
Arizona, in spring 1986. Planting was done in seven
areas where the water table ranged from 6 to 14 feet.
This project was a substitute for a portion of the
mitigation required for the Yuma desalinization plant,
which was expected to reduce riverine habitat and
riparian vegetation downstream. The cost of planting
and the first year of irrigation (March to September)
was about $450,000 (about $75 per tree - some shrubs
were also planted). This cost does not include project
research and design which was done under a separate
contract. At present, most trees are alive and appear to
be healthy, though some have been lost to rabbits,
beavers, and deer. Irrigation was terminated in
September of the first year, despite recommendations
by design consultants that it be extended through
October. Though it was anticipated that irrigation
would be required for only one growing season,
irrigation was required the next growing season as
well. A monitoring program for both tree growth and
wildlife use was begun in 1987.
BANKLINE
Three hundred and three one-gallon cottonwoods
and willows were planted on about two acres in March
1986 along riprapped banklines of the Lower Colorado
River near Parker, Arizona. The water table at this
site was 25 feet when trees were planted, but had
dropped to about 30 feet by the beginning of the second
year. The primary purpose of these plantings was to
experimentally develop a low-cost method to revegetate
riprapped bankline habitats with the condition that "at
least some trees should survive". As the project
continued, tree survival became a major goal. One-
third of the trees were planted in augered holes behind
riprap similar to those at Mittry Lake, one-third were
planted on the top edge of riprap, and one-third were
planted on the riprap face (half with no soil, half with
soil pushed over edge). At the end of the first growing
season, all trees behind riprap were alive, 97 of 101
trees on the top edge were alive, and 33 of 101 trees on
the riprap face were alive (29 with soil, 1 without).
Trees planted behind riprap and on the top edge
averaged over 2 m tall with some over 3 m.
Trees were watered through November 1986 and
then again from March through December 1987. Most
trees did not appear to have reached the water table by
the end of 1987, though some appeared to have become
independent of irrigation by the end of 1986. Beavers
climbed a 20 foot high steep, rocky bank and cut down
26 trees in late summer 1986. Four-foot high welded
wire baskets placed around each tree prevented further
losses, though beavers continued to prune branches that
extended beyond the fences. Most trees that had been
cut resprouted, and were only slightly smaller than
trees that had not been cut near the end of the second
growing season. Cost per tree was about $150.
One hundred 5-foot long willow pole cuttings were
placed in water at the base of the riprap in spring 1986.
Many leafed out but all died when the river level
dropped later in the year. Sixty 12 to 20 foot dormant
pole cuttings were planted in augered holes in spring
1987 at a nearby site where the water table was 8 to 14
feet. Almost every pole leafed out and more than 50'
percent were alive and appeared healthy in May 1988.
Almost all deaths occurred within the first two months
after planting. Cost per pole was about $30-40.
Though some honey mesquite seeds planted in
irrigated plots behind riprap in 1986 sprouted, all had
died by October. Honey and screwbean mesquite seeds
were also planted on riprap and in plots behind riprap
in the spring of 1987. No germination was observed on
375
-------
riprap and only a few of the plants that grew on
plots remained in May of 1988.
TREE SALVAGE
In one recent job 240 trees were salvaged from a 13
acre riparian woodland (ca. one-third of the total trees
present) in Tucson, Arizona. Success rate was greater
than 90 percent. Most of the trees were planted at other
development sites, a few were used for on-site
landscaping, and more than 100 trees are being
maintained in a nursery more than two years after
having been dug. Cost of salvaged trees ia high and
currently ranges from about $50 to $80 per basal
diameter inch to box and remove with an additional 40
percent of this cost required to replant and maintain in
a nursery. Salvage is limited by soil, which must hold
together when trees are boxed, and accessibility by
heavy equipment.
BLM SAFFORD DISTRICT
The Safford District of the Bureau of Land
Management has planted ca. 10,000 dormant
cottonwood and willow poles and "sprigs" and bareroot
walnut and sycamore trees in the last seven years.
These plantings have been used primarily for habitat
enhancement or as general mitigation for long-term
habitat losses. Results have varied but no detailed
records are available. BLM personnel indicate that
success rates are high (> 90 percent) if roots reach the
water table. Some trees have been established with drip
systems rather than by placing poles or barerooted trees
directly in contact with moist soil. Many trees have
been planted in cattle exclosures in groups of fewer
than 20. Major problems have included predation by
rabbits and beavers, salty soils, and floods, which
remove trees or drown them. No cost records have been
kept but much of the work has been done by volunteer
groups.
376
-------
RESTORATION OF DEGRADED RIVERINE/RIPARIAN
HABITAT IN THE GREAT BASIN AND SNAKE RIVER REGIONS
Sherman E. Jensen
White Horse Associates
and
WUliam S. Platts
Plaits Consulting
ABSTRACT. Riverine/riparian habitat (RRH) includes interdependent aquatic (riverine)
and streamside (riparian) resources that are valuable for fish and wildlife habitat, flood
storage and desynchronization, nutrient cycling and water quality, recreation, and heritage
values. RRH includes resources both wetter and drier than stipulated for wetlands. Whereas
the "natural or achievable state" of a riparian habitat may be wetland, the "existing state"
may be non-wetland because of natural or anthropogenically induced changes in the
hydrologic character of RRH.
There are many different types of RRH, each with distinctive structure, function and
values. Restoration commonly requires:
1. Planning to identify preliminary goals and a general approach.
2. Baseline assessments and inventories.
3. Designs from which the feasibility of accomplishing goals can be assessed.
4. Evaluation to assure compliance with designs.
5. Monitoring of variables important to goals and objectives.
The goals, approach and design of restoration projects must be tailored to each type of RRH.
Some general elements important to restoration of degraded RRH are:
1. Establishment of hydrologic conditions compatible with project goals.
2. Efficient handling of soil and substrates in construction.
3. Selection and propagation of plants suited to the site and project goals.
4. Evaluation of features to enhance habitat for target species.
5. Maintenance and control of impacts.
6. Scheduling construction to reflect site constraints and goals.
Perhaps the most universally applicable recommendation is "don't fight the river" but, rather,
encourage it to work for you.
INTRODUCTION - OVERVIEW
This chapter addresses restoration of Hydrographic Region. Degraded habitat is that
degraded riverine/ riparian habitat (RRH) in the for which the values and beneficial uses have
Great Basin Hydrographic Region and the Snake been impaired. The goal of restoration is a less
River Subregion of the Columbia River impaired state.
377
-------
WETLAND TYPES TO BE DISCUSSED
RIVERINE/RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Riverine/riparian ecosystems are associated
with rivers and streams of the western United
States. The riverine ecosystem includes
nonvegetated substrate and aquatic habitat
contained within a channel (Cowardin et al.
1979). The riparian ecosystem is transitional
between aquatic and upland habitat and is
commonly characterized by hydric vegetation
and soil. The riverine/riparian ecosystem (RRE)
is the union of these two components. A
watershed contains a single RRE that is
continuous from headwaters to oceanic or basin
sinks.
It is evident that a river is a continuum from
headwater to ocean or basin sink. Likewise, the
riparian ecosystem associated with a river is a
continuum. Changes in the flow of water and
sediments at any point along these continua,
whether through natural or man-caused impacts,
are communicated dynamically throughout the
ecosystem. As the ecosystem is contained within
a watershed, so must restoration be viewed from
a watershed perspective.
The values of riverine and riparian
ecosystems are interdependent. Both riverine
and riparian ecosystems are essential elements
of fish and wildlife habitat; the riparian
ecosystem serves to store and desynchronize
peak flow conveyed by the riverine ecosystem;
the food chain and nutrient cycling of both
ecosystems are intertwined; the cultural and
heritage values of riverine and riparian
ecosystems are intimately linked.
Riverine and riparian ecosystems also
function in an integrated fashion.
Impoundment, channelization, and diversion in
the riverine system can influence the hydrologic
qualities of the riparian ecosystem. Similarly,
impacts to the riparian ecosystem such as
livestock grazing can cause erosion of
streambanks and enlargement of channels, thus
influencing the functional qualities of the
riverine ecosystem. Since the values and
function are interdependent, the approach for
restoration of riverine and riparian ecosystems
must be integrated.
RIVERINE/RIPARIAN HABITAT (RRH)
Riverine/riparian habitat (RRH) is some
functional subset of a RRE that includes both
riverine and riparian components (see Fig. 1).
Given that most streams are less than 2 meters
deep, RRH is similar to wetlands as defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979) - including permanently
flooded aquatic habitat. In contrast to wetland,
RRH may include habitat that was historically
dominated by hydrophytes but, due to natural or
anthropogenically induced impacts, has become
colonized by upland vegetation. Upon incision of
stream channels, wetland habitat on floodplains
may revert to upland vegetation; hydrophytes
may recolonize the floodplain if channels
aggrade through deposition of sediment. RRH
includes not only existing wetland, but also
habitats for which the natural or attainable state
is wetland. The natural state is that existing
prior to or without the influence of man whereas
the attainable state is that which could be
achieved with best management of the resource.
Riverine habitat includes aquatic habitat
and streambars (Fig. 1). Most riparian habitat
occurs on floodplains, levees and swales within
the valley-bottom. Streambanks are the interface
between riverine and riparian habitats. Some
riparian habitat is wetland. Wetland can be
identified by the prevalence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soil, and the frequency and
duration of flooding or saturation of the substrate
(Sipple 1987). Upland vegetation, sometimes
complimented by facultative hydrophytes, is
prevalent in other riparian habitat that is not
wetland. RRH includes both more hydric and
more arid habitats than those defined for
wetlands.
Riparian habitat may change between
wetland and upland due to natural or
anthropogenic causes. For example, incision of
stream channels can cause drainage of shallow,
alluvial aquifers and subsequent encroachment
of upland vegetation onto floodplains that were
formerly wetland (Fig. 2). Upon elimination of
perturbations, the stream channel may aggrade,
causing recharge of shallow aquifers and
recolonization of hydrophytic plants. These
changes may occur over a few seasons or several
decades.
In the manual for identification and
delineation of wetlands, Sipple (1987) states that
jurisdictional determinations for wetlands
which, because of cyclic hydrologic changes, do
not have "fixed" boundaries, are an
administrative decision beyond the scope of his
manual. Similarly, jurisdictional determina-
tions for riparian habitat charac- terized by
cyclic hydrologic changes (whether naturally or
anthropogenically induced) are beyond the scope
of this chapter. We hope that agencies will be
influential in restoring not only RRH for which
the "existing state" is wetland but also for those
which the "natural or attainable" state is
wetland.
378
-------
CO
-1
SO
RIPARIAN
HABITAT
RIVERINE
HABITAT
RIPARIAN HABITAT
STREAM
CHANNEL
_ —High Flow
s- — — Avoraga Flow
*— — Low Flo w
SPRING SOURCE
Figure 1. Riverine/riparian habitat.
-------
RIVERINE/RIPARIAN HABITAT
Cround Water
Level
Figure 2. Progression of states in a riverineAiparian habitat and the corresponding changes in the extent of
wetland.
380
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF RRH
The diversity inherent in RRH precludes
any precise description of its characteristics. All
RRH functions to transport water and sediments
along the elevational gradients of watersheds;
however, the manner in which this occurs is
influenced by climatic, geologic, geomorphic,
soil, and biotic variables, which differ from one
location to another. Given that a purpose of
restoration is to enhance the functional values
and beneficial uses, it is important to recognize
the geographical variables that influence the
functional characteristics of RRH. As it would be
unwise to attempt repair of a car without a basic
understanding of how it works, it is unwise to
attempt restoration of a RRH without an
understanding of its functional characteristics.
The diversity inherent to RRH is apparent at
several levels of perspective, ranging from
regional to site-specific. A hierarchical format
can be used to stratify RRH into successively
more homogeneous classes', identified by causal
factors influencing their functional charac-
teristics. Bailey (1985, 1983) suggested that such
a hierarchical format can be used to recognize
several levels of nested ecosystems. At broad
levels, ecosystems are identified by regional
climatic and structural variables that provide the
impetus which drives smaller ecosystems that
are identified by geologic and geomorphic
variables, which influence still smaller
ecosystems identified by biotic attributes. Pro-
cesses become evident at successively more
refined scales that were not apparent at broader
levels. Differences in the functional
characteristics of RRH will affect the potential,
approach and time required for successful
restoration. A hierarchical approach can also be
used to identify RRH that will behave
more-or-less similarly to restoration efforts.
Some hierarchical classes that have been
used to identify RRH of more-or-less
homogeneous qualities at successively more
refined scales are:
1. Ecoregion
2. Geologic District
3. Landtype Association
4. Landtype
5. Valley-bottom Type
6. Landform
7. Riverine/Riparian Types
Broad classes (1-5) include RRH of
more-or-less homogeneous "natural or
attainable" state (i.e., of similar potential).
Refined classes (6-7) are RRH of more-or-less
homogeneous "existing state" that may change
in response to land and water management.
Ecoregions
Ecoregions are areas of similar land-surface
form, potential natural vegetation, land use and
soils that are identified at a very broad scale
(1:7,500,000) (Omernik 1987). Ecoregions have
proved useful in areas of relatively low relief for
identifying streams with similar potential to
facilitate impact assessments (Hughes and
Gammon 1986; Rohm et al. 1987). They have also
been used in Ohio for identifying relatively
homogeneous stream segments for which
attainable water quality can be prescribed
(Larsen et al. in review) and for explaining
ichthyogeographic, biotic and physiochemical
characteristics of streams in Oregon (Hughes et
al. 1987; Whittier et al. in review). The variance
within ecoregions is not consistent among
ecoregions. Functional attributes that influence
the manner in which water moves through the
terrestrial ecosystem can be used to identify
more refined classes of RRH.
Geplflgic Districts
Geologic districts are distinguished by
water-handling characteristics of the rock
matrix and weathering products (sediments).
Geologic districts can be identified at scales
ranging from 1:250,000 to 1:500,000. Differences
in the water-handling characteristics may be
attributed to the rock matrix, the degree of
weathering or the size and character of
weathering products. The size of geologic
districts varies with the complexity of the
geology. In central Idaho, a granitic district
covers about 20,000 square km. Extensive areas
of basalt cover most of southern Idaho. In
northern Nevada, geologic districts are more
fragmented and much smaller. Geologic
districts yielding an ample supply of relatively
fine-textured sediments generally can be
restored faster than districts yielding little fine
sediment. Differences in drainage density,
streamflow regime, morphological character,
and fishery values were attributed to geologic
districts in the North Fork Humboldt watershed
in northern Nevada (Platts et al. 1988b).
Geologic districts may also be useful for
identifying RRH of relatively homogenous
attainable water quality.
Associations
Landtype associations are areas formed by
similar geomorphic processes and can be
identified at 1:60,000 to 1:250,000 scale (Werzt and
Arnold 1972). Landtype associations have been
identified for most Forest Service lands. Some
381
-------
examples of landtype associations are: glaciated
lands; fluvial (stream) dissected lands;
piedmont (alluvial) valleys; and lacustrine
(lake) basins. Landtype associations include
RRH of more discrete functional character than
Ecoregions or geologic districts. Within a
landtype association, RRH is generally
restricted to the valley-bottom landtype, which
can be identified at 1:24,000 to 1:60,000 scale
(ibid.). Valley-bottom landtypes can be further
stratified as valley-bottom classes. Valley-bottom
classes can be distinguished at 1:12,000 to 1:24,000
scale based on apparent morphological attributes
that influence or reflect differences in the
manner that water and sediment move through
the system. Some examples of valley-bottom
classes follow along with discussions of
functional attributes influencing restoration.
Glacial Basins-
Glacial basins may include fens or bogs
(Fig. 3). The dispersed flow characteristic of
these systems favors proliferation of organic
material while organic matter decomposition is
limited by saturated, anaerobic conditions. The
time required for development of deep, organic
soils is on a scale of hundreds (or thousands) of
years. Organic soils have very high water
retention capacity and serve to regulate
discharge to streams. Impacts resulting in
drainage of organic soils can result in rapid
decomposition (mineralization) of organic
material and serious impairment of values and
functions. Given the length of time required for
development of organic soils, it is unlikely that
these habitats can be restored in a reasonable
timeframe. Plans to mitigate projected impacts
to this RRH should be viewed with skepticism.
Glacial (U-shaped) Valleys--
Glacial (U-shaped) valleys (Pig. 4) generally
extend considerable distances below cirque
basins. The substrate of glacial valleys is
commonly very permeable, which allows rapid
equilibration of alluvial ground water and
streamflow levels (Jensen 1985; Tuhy and
Jensen 1982; Jensen and Tuhy 1982). This RRH
is important for flood storage and
desynchronization, since storage of water high
in the basin is essential for reducing flood
hazards and for sustaining perennial flow.
Impacts tend to be expressed through erosion of
streambanks, widening of channels and
shallower streams. Extensive streambars and
eroding banks are indices of impairment. A
drop in stream level may cause a local
depression in alluvial groundwater level and
succession to more mesic riparian communities
on streambanks. The drier riparian
communities are less effective in stabilizing
streambanks, thus exacerbating erosion. Res-
toration of this RRH should address impacts to
streambanks and channel morphology prior to
addressing the condition of riparian habitat.
Features to facilitate sediment deposition upon
streambars can be used to promote channel
narrowing, increasing stream depth, and
succession of more hydric communities with
greater inherent stability on streambanks.
Erosional (V-shaped) Canyons-
Erosional (V-shaped) canyons (Fig. 5) are
associated with steep gradient streams that may
be downcutting through consolidated bedrock
and/or headcutting toward drainage divides. In
areas dominated by hard rocks (e.g., quartzite,
limestone, etc.) channel substrate is commonly a
jumbled assemblage of angular rock fragments,
ranging from gravel to boulder sizes. The lateral
extent of the alluvial aquifer is often limited by
residual (consolidated) rock forming canyon
slopes. Upland habitats may extend down to the
edge of stream channels and riparian vegetation
may be limited to a narrow band. This RRH
conveys surface discharge rapidly and probably
is of minimal value for flood control and
desynchronization, although it may be of high
value to fish and wildlife. Logging of steep
canyon slopes, commonly results in accelerated
erosion and sedimentation to streambeds.
Restoration of this RRH may entail slope
stabilization and strategies to enhance fish and
wildlife habitat.
Depositional (V-shaped) Stream Canyons-
Depositional (V-shaped) stream canyons
(Fig. 6) generally occur downstream from
erosional (V-shaped) canyons where stream
channels are aggrading. Floodplains develop as
streams drop their sediment loads and begin to
wander across the canyon floors. In depositional
stream canyons of northern Nevada, substrates
are interbedded layers of gravel and fine
(soil-sized) sediment (Platts et al. 1988a). Ad-
verse impacts to this RRH tend to cause incision
of streambeds, resulting in drainage of alluvial
aquifers and encroachment of upland vegetation
onto the floodplain. The higher-and-drier
streambanks are more prone to failure.
Restoration may entail features to encourage
aggradation of the streambed, thus raising
alluvial groundwater levels and facilitating
stabilization of streambanks by more hydric
vegetation. In some areas, streambed
aggradation cannot be accomplished unless the
impacts causing headcutting and/or reduced
flood storage and desynchronization are first
addressed.
The preceding examples of RRH are not
comprehensive. Preliminary valley-bottom
classes have also been identified in
intermontaine (piedmont) valleys and lacustrine
Qake) basins of the Northern Basin and Range
382
-------
w
oo
u
Figure 3. Riverine/riparian habitat in a glacial basin with organic substrate.
-------
-RIVERINE/RIPARIAN HABITAT— -—|
Ground Water Level
STREAM DEPOSITED
(Fluvial) SEDIMENTS
STREAM/GLACIER DEPOSITED
(Glociofluvial) SEDIMENTS
<37] GLACIAL DEPOSITED
1 (Morainal) SEDIMENTS
Figure 4. Riverine/riparian habitat in a glacial (U-shaped) valley.
-------
Figure 5. Riverine/riparian habitat in an erosional (V-shaped) stream canyon.
Figure 6. Riverine/riparian habitat in a depositional (V-shaped) stream canyon
385
-------
Ecoregion and notch-shaped stream canyons
characteristic of the Snake River/High Desert
Ecoregion. Harris (in review) found that the
distribution of riparian vegetation along the
eastern slope of the Sierra-Nevada was
associated with geomorphic settings similar to
those previously described. Additional landtype
associations and valley-bottom types can be
identified. RRH of still more discrete functional
character can be identified for landforms (e.g.,
floodplain and levee) that occur within
valley-bottom classes. Landforms can usually be
identified at 1:2,000 to 1:12,000 scale.
The most homogeneous components of RRH
are riverine and riparian types that can usually
be identified at scales of 1:2,000 or larger. Rosgen
(1985) identified stream types based on gradient,
sinuosity, width-depth ratio, substrate,
entrenchment, and landform feature. Attributes
for identification of stream types are important
for assessing fishery habitat. Riparian types can
be identified in terms of community
physiognomy (e.g., forest, shrub, herbaceous),
water regime and/or community types. Water
regimes, amended from those developed for
description of wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979),
are distinguished by the frequency or duration of
flooding and saturation of mineral substrate
(Fig. 7). Riparian community types are
distinguished by indicator plant species in the
overstory and understory strata.
Classifications of riparian community types
have been conducted for the Greys River
drainage (Norton et al. 1981), the upper
Salmon/Middle Fork Salmon Rivers, Idaho
(Tuhy and Jensen 1982), the Big Piney Ranger
District (Mutz and Graham 1982), the Centennial
Mountains and South Fork Salmon River (Mutz
and Queiroz 1983), eastern Idaho and western
Wyoming (Youngblood et al. 1985), southern
Utah (Padgett and Youngblood 1986), Nevada
(Padgett and Manning 1988). Similar studies
have identified riparian dominance types of
Montana (Hansen et al. 1987) and riparian zone
associations in southeastern Oregon (Kovalchick
1987). An integrated classification of RRH for
the North Fork Humboldt River basin is in
preparation (Platts et al. 1988b).
Given the diversity inherent to RRH, the
many values for which it is managed, and the
myriad of land and water uses that have
influenced it to varying degrees, the approach to
restoration must be flexible. An understanding
of the geographical variables, such as geology
and geomorphology, responsible for the
distribution of contrasting RRH can be useful for
formulating approaches to restoration. This
allows identification of RRH that will respond
similarly to the same approach and extrapolation
of research findings to areas of similar structure
and functional character.
GREAT BASINS HYDROGRAPfflC REGION
The Great Basin Hydrographic Region
includes most of Nevada, western Utah, and
southeastern Oregon, with smaller portions of
eastern California and western Wyoming. The
region can be further stratified into hydrographic
subregions including watersheds of similar
hydrographic character (Fig. 8). The
hydrographic region includes most of the
Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik
1987). The watershed also includes portions of
the Snake River/High Desert Ecoregion,
Wasatch and Uinta Mountains Ecoregion,
Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills
Ecoregion, and the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion.
Contrary to the singular connotation of the
term (Great Basin), the region includes over 75
watersheds, each draining to a terminal lake or
desert playa. The topography of the Great Basin
is characterized by numerous north-south
trending ranges separated by broad, nearly level
basins. Dutton (1880) likened the pattern of
discontinuous subparallel ranges to that of an
"army of caterpillars marching to Mexico".
These topographic features are important in
determining local climate, with higher
elevations and windward aspects receiving
greater precipitation from the prevailing Pacific
storm-tracks, while lee slopes and basins lie in
rain shadows. The high mountains of the
Sierra-Nevada on the west of the region also
produce a rain-shadow extending across the
interior of the Great Basin, which is generally
semi-arid to arid.
The Great Basin is among the most
geologically diverse areas in the United States.
The geologic structure was produced by
block-faulting of folded and thrust-faulted
overlapping geosynclines of Paleozoic and
Mesozoic ages (Hunt 1976). Intrusions of igneous
rocks and volcanism are also common.
Remnants of complex structures are apparent in
upthrust block surfaces forming mountain
ranges while downthrust block surfaces are
covered with alluvial sediments, often to a depth
of over 1000 meters. Springs and seeps tend to be
most common on the down-dipping flank of
mountain ranges.
Most of the major streams of the Great Basin
originate in the Sierra-Nevada in the west and
386
-------
u
DO
- I
RIVERINE
HABITAT
RIPARIAN
HABITAT
RIPARIAN HABITAT -
STREAM
CHANNEL
FIOMT
— —— Avorago Flow
Low Flow
Figure 7. Water regimes associated with riverine/riparian habitat.
-------
GREAT.BASIN
HYDROGRAPH1C REGION-
^jssm
BONNE VILLE
BASINS
NORTHERN BASIN AND
RANGE ECOREGION
• • ie«
100 HM(•
Figure 8. Subregions of the Great Basin Hydrographic Region and their relationship to the
Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik 1986).
388
-------
the Wasatch Mountains in the east. The
Humboldt River is the only major stream rising
within the interior of the Great Basin. A typical
major stream arises in glacial basins along
watershed divides, flow through glaciated
(U-shaped) valleys and stream-cut (V-shaped)
canyons along its course before emerging into
broad intermontaine valleys, and finally
terminates in a lake or playa. Most minor
streams draining the interior of the Great Basin
originate in stream-cut (V-shaped) canyons
draining isolated mountain ranges and are
ephemeral along their lower courses through
intermontaine basins. Streams are commonly
diverted for irrigation of hay meadows soon after
leaving the confines of canyons.
The distribution of wetlands generally
corresponds with drainage courses and their
sinks. Spring-fed wetlands are also prevalent,
especially along fault zones. Shaw and Fredine
(1956) identified 258,000 hectares of wetlands in
Utah and 78,000 hectares in Nevada that were
important to waterfowl, most of which were
associated with terminal lakes. A National
Wetlands Inventory under the direction of the
Fish and Wildlife Service is now in progress.
Much of the RRH in the Great Basin has been
degraded by livestock grazing to the extent that it
is no longer wetland (GAO 1988). Large storm
events have devastated RRH that were
overgrazed in comparison with ungrazed areas
(Platts et al. 1985).
Extensive inland seas covered much of the
Great Basin during the Pleistocene. With' the
retreat of the glaciers and erosion of lake outlets,
drainage basins became isolated. Further
desiccation of the lakes led to the isolation of
small, spring-fed pools and streams in which
disconnected populations of fishes evolved
distinctive genetic characteristics (Minshall et
al. in press). Fish species endemic to
hydrographically isolated locations of the Great
Basin have been reviewed by Sigler and Sigler
(1987). Fish populations were greatly reduced (or
eliminated) through extensive commercial
fishing late in the 19th century, water
withdrawal for irrigation and impacts of
livestock grazing. Well over half of the RRH in
the Great Basin is in only fair or poor condition
due to poorly managed livestock grazing (GAO
1988).
SNAKE RIVER SUBREGION
The Snake River Hydrographic Subregion
(Fig. 9) is 281,800 square kilometers including
most of Idaho and minor portions of Wyoming,
Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The
subregion includes most of the Snake River
Basin/High Desert Ecoregion and parts of the
Middle Rockies, Northern Rockies, Columbia
Basin, and Blue Mountain Ecoregions (Omernik
1986). Climate varies as a function of topography;
annual precipitation ranges from greater than
100 cm along the highest ridgelines to less than
25 cm on the Snake River Plain (Hunt 1976).
The geology of the Snake River Subregion is
less diverse than the Great Basin to the south.
Most of the Columbia Basin is covered with thick,
horizontal layers of extrusive igneous rock
(basalt) in which streams have cut notch-shaped
canyons. The Northern Rockies are dominated
by intrusive igneous rock (granite) cut by
glaciers to form U-shaped valleys and by
streams to form V-shaped canyons.
The Snake, Henry's Fork, and Blackfoot
rivers originate in glaciated lands in the
vicinity of Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and converge in the eastern
portion of the Snake River Plain. The Snake
flows through notch-shaped canyons cut in basalt
along much of its westwardly course across
southern Idaho. Salmon Falls and Owyhee rivers
drain to the Snake from the south. The Boise,
Payette, Salmon and Clearwater Rivers are
major tributaries of the Snake which originate in
the Northern Rocky Mountains of central Idaho.
The Snake merges with the Columbia River in
southeastern Washington. The Columbia, then,
flows into the Pacific Ocean.
RRH in the Snake River basin has been
impacted by hydroelectric dams and diversions,
irrigation withdrawals and return flows,
livestock grazing, logging, dredge and placer
mining, and industrial waste from widely
scattered urban centers. Historically,
anadromous fish migrated from the ocean to
spawn in the headwaters of Snake River
tributaries. But, hydroelectric dams along the
Columbia River depleted these runs to a fraction
of historical levels. Hell's Canyon Dam, located
upstream from the confluence of the Salmon
River, stopped salmon and steelhead from
passing to upper portions of the Snake River.
Only the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers sustain
wild anadromous fisheries, albeit impacted by
dams on the Columbia River, and by logging,
mining, irrigation withdrawal and livestock
grazing.
389
-------
to
o
COLUMBIA
REGION
SNAKE RIVER SUBREGION
13
KEY
COAST RANGE
PUOET LOWLAND
WILLAMETTE VALLEY
CASCADES
SIERRA NEVADA
SOUTHERN AND CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA PLAJNS AND Hlii
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA VALLEY
SOITTHERN CAUFOftNlA MOUNTAINS
EASTER CASCADES SLOPES AND
FOOTHILLS
COLUMBIA BASIN
BLUE MOUNTAINS
SNAKE RJVER BASIN/HIGH DESERT
NORTHERN BASIN AND RANGE
SOUTHERN BASIN AND RAWOE
NORTHERN ROCMES
MONTANA VALLEY AM) FOOTHILL FRAMES
MIDDLE ROCKIES
WYOMING BASIN
WASATCH AND UINTAH MOUNTAINS
COLORADO PLATCAUS
SOUTHERN ROCMES
ARIZONA/NEW MEXICO PLATEAU
ARIZONA/NEW MDOCO UOUNTAMS
SOUTHERN DESERTS
WESTERN HK3H PLAJNS
SOUTHWESTERN TABLELANDS
NORTHWESTERN GREAT PLAINS
NORTHERN MONTANA GLACIATED PLAINS
NORTHWESTERN GLACIATED PLAINS
Figure 9. The Snake River Subregion of the Columbia Hydrographic Region and its relationship to the ecoregions of the area (Omernik 1986).
-------
EXTENT TO WHICH RESTORATION HAS OCCURRED
Many projects to enhance and restore aquatic
habitat as fisheries have been conducted in the
Great Basin and Snake regions. Among the most
notable are projects to enhance anadromous
fisheries in the Salmon and Clearwater basins of
the Snake River subregion. Most of these projects
approach restoration only from a fishery
perspective. Projects administered by the
Bonneville Power Administration, Division of
Fish and Wildlife are listed in annual project
summaries (Bonneville Power Administration
Agency 1986) and documented in numerous
project reports.
Many projects to restore RRH are in
progress. Several projects to restore RRH
devastated by dredge mining in the Salmon and
Clearwater basins have been initiated
(Konopacky et al. 1985; Richards and Cernera
1987a, b; Hair and Stowell 1986; Platts et al. 1986).
A project to create RRH along a diversion
leading to a hydroelectric facility in southern
Idaho is ongoing (Jensen et al. 1987). Efforts to
restore RRH impacted by road construction along
the Teton River (Johnson 1987) and the Snake
River (Johnson 1986) are in progress. Wetland
habitat was created in Cedar Draw, a minor
tributary of the Snake River, and is being
monitored (Jensen, 1988a). Plans to enhance
wetlands at a nature center in Ogden, Utah have
been reported (Sempek and Johnson 1987).
Creation of RRH is underway in connection with
a housing development along the Boise River
(Gebhardt 1986). A hydraulic and geomorphic
approach to restoration was evaluated for a
segment of the Medicine Bow River in Wyoming
(Lidstone 1987). These projects are still in their
infancy and will require more time for
evaluation. A more mature restoration project
utilizing dredged material has been reported
along the Columbia River (Landin et al. 1987).
Some restoration projects are reviewed in
Appendix II.
The General Accounting Office (1988)
reviewed 22 riparian areas that had been restored
by the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service. Restoration was accomplished
primarily through improving the management of
livestock. Only a very small fraction of
degraded riparian areas has been restored. In
most areas, well over half of the existing RRH is
in fair to poor condition.
GOALS OF RESTORATION
The goals of restoration typically address the
values and functions attributed to the resource.
Enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats, is
probably the most common goal of restoration.
Other important values and functions are
aesthetics, recreation, flood storage and flood
desynchronization, streambank stabilization,
and water quality. Goals of restoration are
typically coincidental with maximizing the
potential beneficial uses of the resource. Goals
are commonly generic and related to regional
and local values and bias (Miller 1987).
SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS
Success in achieving the goal of enhancing
fish and wildlife is often difficult to assess
directly. The natural variability in fish
populations, removal by sportsmen, seasonal
differences in migration, food sources, etc. are
difficult to distinguish from changes due to
restoration. Similar problems are encountered
when monitoring terrestrial wildlife. As a
result, use of indirect assessment techniques
such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(1980), are common.
The success of projects must often be viewed
over a long term. Wetlands were created along
the eastern shore of the Great Salt Lake through
diking of the Bear and Weber Rivers. The Great
Salt Lake is terminal; the level of the lake
oscillates in response to climatic inputs over its
watershed. Most of the facilities were constructed
below 4,210 feet elevation, even though the saline
lake filled to above this elevation in the late
1800's. These extensive wetlands were managed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge), the Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources (Ogden Bay Waterfowl
Management Area) and by private owners who
catered to sportsmen. They constituted the most
391
-------
extensive waterfowl habitat in Utah and, for a
half-century, were extremely successful. About
85 percent of these wetlands and most of the
facilities for managing them were destroyed by a
rise of the Great Salt Lake to above 4,211 feet in
1983 and 1984 (Bureau of Land Management
1986). Were these projects successful?
Many wetland restoration projects have been
only recently conceived or initiated. The
success/failure of these projects cannot be
realistically assessed at this time.
FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS OR FAILURE
Due to the lack of mature restoration projects
in the Great Basin and Snake River regions,
factors affecting success or failure can only be
hypothetically addressed. Given the importance
of hydrologic variables to RRH, they are expected
to be the most important factor affecting
restoration. Other factors such as climate,
topography and soil may influence restoration
through their effects on hydrologic variables.
Some examples follow:
1. The plugging of a water pipe caused a
temporary setback in establishment of
wetland habitat in Cedar Draw (Jensen
1986). A pressurized water supply was
developed and has been serving well for 2
years.
2. The contour elevation and the size of
substrate was limiting to establishment of
riparian habitat on a bench constructed
primarily from basalt boulders (Johnson
1986). While it was anticipated that fine
sediment would be accumulated through
flooding of the bench during high flow
periods, streamflow levels in 1987 and 1988
remained well below the surface of the bench.
Irrigation supplied to the bench has been
partially successful in sustaining planted
vegetation.
3. The construction of riparian habitat to
facilitate establishment of an alluvial
aquifer proved successful for establishment
of riparian vegetation along a relocated
channel for Birch Creek (Jensen et al. 1987).
A meandering stream channel served to
diversify fishery habitat and to create
microsites for a more diverse riparian
habitat. Ice "plucked" about half of the
willow and birch planted in the riparian
zone. Inducement of natural colonization
through controlled flooding of the riparian
zones during periods when propagules are
transported in streamflow is being
evaluated.
Richards (Shoshone-Bannock Tribe pers.
comm.) suggested that specific procedures for
enhancing restoration of one site are usually not
applicable to other sites. In restoring two sites in
the same general vicinity, both damaged by
dredge mining, entirely different approaches
were required in order to accomplish different
goals. Restoration of a dredged segment of Bear
Valley Creek was conducted to reduce
sedimentation to streambeds, thus enhancing
spawning habitat. Restoration of a dredged
segment of the Yankee Fork was conducted to
provide sidechannel pools to serve for rearing
habitat for young fish. Richard's
recommendation for restoration was "don't fight
the river".
Improvement of management to restore RRH
on public lands may be limited by incomplete
inventories and assessments of the resource,
lack of commitment by management agencies
and conflicts with resource users, especially
livestock permittees (General Accounting Office
1988).
The diversity of RRH precludes a
"boilerplate" approach to restoration. Methods
effective for restoration in one ecological setting
may not be applicable to another. Different goals
may also require entirely different designs for
the same ecological setting. Some general steps
for design of restoration projects are:
1. Preliminary planning to establish the scope,
goals, preliminary objectives and general
approach for restoration.
2. Baseline assessments and inventories of
project locations to assess the feasibility of
preliminary objectives, to refine the approach
392
-------
to restoration, and to provide input for the
project design.
3. Design of restoration projects to reflect
objectives and limitations inherent to the
project location.
4. Evaluation of construction to identify,
correct, or accommodate for inconsistencies
with project design.
5. Monitoring of parameters important for
assessing goals and objectives of restoration.
Some elements to consider for each of these steps
are outlined in Figure 10 and subsequently
discussed.
PRECONSTRUCT1ON CONSIDERATIONS
Preliminary planning should involve
developers, contractors, engineers, environ-
mental scientists, and representatives of
regulatory agencies. The scope, goals,
preliminary objectives and general approach to
restoration should be established. Available
information pertinent to the project location
should be assembled and its relevance and
accuracy evaluated. While general information
used for area management or broad-scale
assessments may be useful for determining a
general approach for restoration, it is usually not
sufficient for design of restoration projects.
More accurate on-site inventories and
assessments are generally required.
On-site assessments and inventories
commonly require the work of engineers,
hydrologists, soil scientists, botanists and
wildlife specialists. Depending on the scope and
goals of the project, products of on-site
investigations might include:
1. Assessment of impacts influencing the
existing state and the achievable state of the
site.
2. A topographic survey and measurement
and/or projection of hydrologic variables.
3. A soil survey.
4. A botanical survey.
5. Fish and wildlife surveys.
6. A baseline report.
Additional or alternative products may be
required for projects of more specific nature;
priorities must be specific to the project.
Inventories and assessments are used to
determine the feasibility of restoration, to revise
preliminary objectives, and to refine the
approach to restoration. Products of on-site
studies are inputs to the project design.
ASSESSMENT AND DOCUMENTATION
OF SITES
Documentation of the existing state of the site
can be used to evaluate the potential for
restoration and can serve as a baseline for
evaluating the success of restoration. Factors
that are limiting to the beneficial uses and
values of the site should be identified. These
might include measures of stream and channel
morphology (e.g., width, depth, substrate,
condition of streambanks), fish and wildlife
populations, and condition of riparian habitats.
Methods for description and evaluation of RRH
were assembled by Platts and others (1987).
Given that it requires restoration, the existing
state is probably different from the "natural or
achievable" state for the site.
It is often the case that the "natural" state of
RRH is coincidental with maximum beneficial
uses and thus may be the ultimate (though
probably optimistic) goal of restoration. Given
the extent of man's influence upon the
environment, it is questionable whether natural
states can be identified other than as a theoretical
beginning. The achievable state for a site is
what can be expected as the end-point of
restoration. To project achievable states, it may
be necessary to locate minimally impacted
reference sites of ecological character similar to
the project location. Selection of reference sites
should entail evaluation of climatic, geologic,
geomorphic, topographic, hydrologic, soil and
biotic attributes of both the project-site and
potential reference sites.
Restoration usually cannot be accomplished
if impacts to the site are not controlled or
eliminated. On-site impacts may be attributed to
livestock, wildlife, or recreational activities.
Fencing and/or closure may be necessary to
control on-site impacts. Off-site impacts may
influence the site through upstream irrigation
withdrawals, regulation of streamflow by
upstream reservoirs, headcutting of stream
393
-------
Restoration: The Administrative Process
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
SCOPE
GOALS
OBJECTIVES
APPROACH
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
BASELINE INVENTORY
Documentation of States
Topographic/Hydrologic Survey
Soil Survey
Plant Survey
Fish & Wildlife Surveys
Baseline Report '
INPUTS TO
> FINAL
PROJECT PLAN
^
PROJECT DESIGN
1. Topographic & Hydrologic
2. Soils Design
3. Restoration. Design
4. Habitat Features
GENERAL
PROJECT
SCHEDULES
5. Maintenance
CONSTRUCT! ON
INSPECTION
Quality Control
Compliance
Execution, of
Project Plans
Corrections
Schedules
MONITORING
objectives
parameters
frequency
Figure 10. Elements of a restoration plan.
394
-------
channels, deposition of sediment from upstream
sources, and alteration of runoff/retention
relationships of contiguous uplands. Methods for
dealing with off-site impacts must be addressed
in the project design.
TOPOGRAPfflC/HYDROLOGIC SURVEY
A detailed topographic survey is usually
needed to determine existing gradients. Miller
(1987) suggests a scale of 1:240 to 1:600 and a
contour interval of 1 -foot for design of freshwater
wetlands although 1:1,200 to 1:2,400 surveys with
5-foot contours are used more commonly. The
scale and contour interval should be such that
hydrologic variables can be accurately assessed.
A reliable source of water is crucial to
successful restoration. Water sources might
include streamflow, groundwater, spring
discharge, and run-on of incident precipitation.
Accurate projections of the dynamics of
discharge, gradient, velocity, and stage are
necessary for sizing stream channels and
floodplains, for assessing risk to structures (e.g.,
check-dams), and for predicting erosion and
streambank stability. The effects of anchor ice
must also be anticipated. Stream gauging
stations monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey
are usually the only source of long-term
streamflow measurements. The use of computer
models developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (HEC1 and HEC2) was suggested for
evaluation of basin hydrology, channel
hydraulics and equilibrium analysis for stream
channel and wetland construction (Lidstone
1987). Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IPIM) developed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Bartholow and Waddle 1986) can be
used to evaluate the effects of basin-wide water
allocations upon restoration potential.
The relationship between the stream level
and alluvial groundwater level is important for
designing grades to achieve the proper
hydrologic conditions for riparian vegetation.
This relationship is influenced by the depth and
permeability of substrates and by valley-form.
Monitoring wells (perforated plastic pipe inserted
in bore-holes to a depth below the minimum
groundwater level) can be used to measure
spatial and temporal variations in alluvial
groundwater level and its relationship to stream
levels (Bohn, U.S. Forest Service Intel-mountain
Research Station pers. comm.)-
SOIL SURVEY
A soil survey to determine the volume of
materials available for use in restoration is
needed when contouring is envisioned. The
intensity of the survey must be commensurate
with the scope and approach to restoration. Where
extensive earthwork is envisioned, an order 1
(very detailed) soil survey should be conducted.
Soil types (polypedons) are delineated on aerial
photos. Representative profiles of each soil type
are described (Soil Conservation Service 1982)
and classified (Soil Conservation Service 1975).
Samples of each soil horizon are obtained for
physical and chemical analyses to identify
limiting characteristics for use in restoration.
Soil properties important for use in restoration
are summarized in a document prepared by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental
Laboratory 1986). More general (order 3-5) soil
survey reports published by the Soil Conservation
Service may be adequate for projects not
requiring earthwork.
PLANT SURVEY
Botanical surveys can be conducted in
conjunction with soil surveys. Plant
communities are delineated on aerial
photographs. Species composition and cover are
described for representative communities of each
type. Environmental attributes (e.g., landform,
soils, frequency and duration of flooding) are
also described. Threatened, endangered and
sensitive plant species must be identified.
Botanical information can be used to formulate
vegetation designs and to determine what plant
materials useful for restoration are available at
the project location. Brunsfield and Johnson
(1985) prepared a guide for identification of
willows that has been very useful in the Snake
River Basin and the northern portion of the Great
Basin. Previously cited classifications of
riparian community types should be used where
applicable.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SURVEYS
The goals of restoration are often to enhance
fish and wildlife resources. Surveys can be used
for two purposes:
1. To identify species of concern.
2. To provide baseline information against
which restoration can be compared.
Inventories can also be used to estimate the
potential of the site and to identify factors
limiting to the carrying capacity.
Surveys may entail population estimates
and/or assessment of habitat.
Populations can be estimated directly or
indirectly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980).
Direct methods entail counting of individuals
and are best suited to populations that are
sedentary or concentrated in limited areas (e.g.,
395
-------
fish in small streams). Indirect estimation of
populations involve the use of indices (e.g., pellet
count) from which population size is estimated.
Population estimates at any point in time may be
influenced by sampling errors, cyclic
fluctuations, removal by sportsman, migration,
etc. Reliable estimates of population potential or
carrying capacity may require several years of
monitoring and changes attributable to
restoration may be difficult to distinguish from
variability inherent in population dynamics.
Habitat is that which supplies the space, food,
cover, and other requirements for survival of a
particular species. Much of the long-term
variability in populations can be attributed to
changes in the quality and quantity of their
habitat (Black and Thomas 1978). Assessment
commonly entails measurement of habitat
indices (e.g., pool quality, canopy cover, plant
composition and density, etc.) thought to be
important to fish and wildlife species. Measures
of habitat indices are compared with those of
optimum habitat to assess condition for a
particular species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980)
has developed habitat evaluation procedures
(HEP) that have been used in baseline
assessments of RRH (Johnson 1986). HEP entails
measurement of key habitat indices for a
particular species or group of similar species.
Measurements are used to calculate a Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) that is linear compared to
carrying capacity for optimum habitat
conditions. The HSI for a species is calculated
using a documented habitat suitability model.
The HSI ranges from 0.0 to 1.0; higher scores are
closer to optimum habitat. The HSI is multiplied
by area of available habitat to obtain Habitat
Units (HUs) for individual species. HEP can be
used to compare two areas at one point in time or
to compare changes in a site over several
monitoring periods. Limitations to HEP are:
1. HSI and HUs for different species cannot be
aggregated.
2. HEP evaluations are no more reliable than
the models used to generate the HSI.
3. Interpretations are specific to the species
evaluated and do not relate to other
ecosystem components and functions.
4. Habitat suitability models have not been
developed for many species.
Given that enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources is a prevalent goal of restoration, the
application of procedures similar to HEP seems
probable. Consequently, selection of species that
reflect the goals of restoration is imperative.
Other procedures have been developed for
evaluating fishery values. The Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) was formulated to assess fisheries
from measures of species composition, trophic
composition, fish abundance, and condition
(Karr et al. 1986). This approach has limited
application for streams with low species
diversity. The General Aquatic Wildlife System
(GAWS), developed by the U.S. Forest Service
(1985), entails measurement of both fish
populations and important habitat parameters.
Similar to HEP, GAWS compares existing
habitat variables with optimum criteria for fish,
not the achievable state of the RRH.
BASELINE REPORT
Baseline information should be assembled
as maps and reports. The format for information
should allow sorting, summary, and evaluation.
The baseline' report is used to refine goals,
objectives, and the approach to restoration.
Information generated may serve in design of
restoration.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
computer software can assemble spatial
information in a readily accessible format.
Layers of inventory data (e.g., soil, vegetation
and hydrology) can be combined and analyzed
in terms of ecological relationships. Inventory
data can be sorted by attributes (e.g., soil porosity
or coarse-fragment composition) for
material-summaries. GIS- can also be used to
prepare maps, rectify scales, measure the
dimensions (area, length, and perimeter) of map
delineations, and to compile survey information.
The U.S. Forest Service has developed MOSS GIS
programs that run on Data General computers.
The U.S. Corps of Army Engineers has developed
GRASS GIS programs to run on most
minicomputers. Both MOSS and GRASS are
public domain. Commercial GIS software (e.g.,
ARC-INFO) that can be operated on
microcomputers is also available. GIS software
is being evaluated as a tool for identifying RRH
of similar natural or achievable state in
northern Nevada (Platts et al. 1988b).
396
-------
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT PLAN
The restoration plan should include all
information needed to evaluate the feasibility of
successful restoration. Some critical aspects of
the project plan are subsequently discussed. Some
projects may not require consideration of all of
the aspects discussed; other projects may require
consideration of additional aspects. Critical
aspects are determined by the scope, goals,
objectives, and approach, as stipulated in the
preliminary planning phase.
TOPOGRAPHIC/HYDRAULIC DESIGN
A topographic design should be provided if
restoration entails alteration of the stream course
or contouring. Contour maps and cross-section
drawings can be used to illustrate layout and
relief. The scale and contour interval should
enable accurate projection of hydrologic
variables such as water depth, extent of flooding
and depth to perched aquifers. Successful
restoration often hinges on the design and
construction of the stream channel. Important
perspectives are stream pattern, cross-section,
and grade.
Stream pattern is the configuration of the
stream as seen from the air. Meanders usually
occur in valleys with gentle slope and with soils
sufficiently cohesive to provide firm banks
(Leopold and Langbein 1966). In these situations,
the distance a river is straight is generally less
than 10 times its width. Stream pattern is
commonly expressed in terms of the sinuosity
ratio, defined as the length of the stream divided
by the down-valley distance it traverses. A
meandering stream pattern was probably the
single most beneficial feature for creation of
RRH for a relocated channel (Jensen et al. 1987;
Vinson 1988). Construction costs are directly
proportional to the sinuosity ratio.
The form of meanders is important in
determining the rate at which banks are
undercut and eroded. In general, bank erosion is
proportional to the degree to which the stream
channel is bent; erosion tends to be greatest
where the stream makes sharp bends. A
sine-generated curve tends to minimize sharp
bends and total bank erosion (Leopold et al.
1960). Since the upstream and downstream
elevations of a valley segment are fixed, the
sinuosity of a stream determines its grade, the
single most important factor influencing water
velocity. Consideration of both stream pattern
and grade is necessary to achieve acceptable
stream velocities relative to erosional restraints
and optimal habitat parameters.
Materials and cross-sectional dimensions
for construction of stream channels must take
into consideration both channel capacity and the
stability of streambeds and banks (Jackson and
Van Haveren 1984). Cross-sections should
conform to the dimensions of natural channels
with similar hydrology. Computer models
developed by the Army Corps of Engineers (HEC1
and HEC2) can be used to predict the recurrence
interval of flow and the effect of flows upon bed
and bank stability.
The design gradient for stream channels
should be consistent with that upstream and
downstream from the site (Rundquist et al.
1986). Too shallow a gradient may promote
headcutting of the downstream segments and
aggradation of upstream segments while too high
a gradient tends toward the reverse. Where
design gradients do not conform to those in the
vicinity, grade control structures such as check-
dams may be required.
Restoration designed to cause existing
stream channels to evolve to a more stable
productive state will be appropriate for many
situations. All incised channels follow
essentially the same evolutionary trend toward
more stable conditions (Harvey et al. 1985).
Stages of evolution include incision, headward
migration, channel widening, channel slope
reduction, reduction of bank angles, deposition of
sediment, and establishment of vegetation.
Restoration should be designed to enhance the
evolution of more stable conditions, not to
short-cut those evolutionary stages. Restoration
of incised channels generally involves control of
grade, control of discharge, or a combination of
both (Harvey and Watson 1986).
Off-site impacts may affect restoration
through influences upon water sources. Methods
for control of off-site impacts should be addressed
for worst case scenarios. Impacts resulting from
high and low flows should be considered.
Off-site impacts may also affect restoration
through influences upon sediment dynamics
(e.g., headcutting of stream channels or
deposition of sediment). Grade control structures
may be required for these situations.
SOIL DESIGN
Soil resources are identified and evaluated
as part of the baseline inventory. When
restoration requires contouring, a plan for
handling soil/substrate materials should be
required. The plan should specify methods for
397
-------
stripping, stockpiling, and redistributing of
soil-materials.
A project entailing construction of a channel
in coarse alluvium to mitigate for loss of fishery
and riparian habitats (Jensen et al. 1987) will be
used to illustrate material-handling procedures.
The site is characterized by dark-colored, silt
loam topsoil about 0.3 m thick subtended by about
100 m of very gravelly glacial outwash (Pig.
11 A). Topsoil was stripped and stockpiled along
both flanks of the construction area (Fig. 11B).
Gravelly substrate was excavated for the stream
channel and riparian zones (Pig. 11C). Gravelly
substrate was backfilled over a plastic liner that
served to eliminate bedloss and to create
artificial aquifers in riparian zones (Fig. 11D).
Topsoil was used to construct levees and
backwashes along straight channel segments
(Fig. 12) and to construct concave and convex
banks along channel bends (Fig. 13). In this
example, the volume of materials needed for
construction was equivalent to that available
on-site (considering 8% deflation of topsoil).
Where materials do not balance, sources or
disposal areas should be identified.
In the previous example, two types of
soil-materials were identified. In other projects,
several types of soil-material may be
distinguished by qualities influencing their
value for use in restoration. Topsoil can be used
for establishment of herbaceous vegetation on
floodplains; gravelly-loam substrates are
suitable for establishment of willows on channel
levees; clean gravel can be used as channel
substrate for spawning; sand can be placed along
the edge of channels to allow a stream partial
freedom to choose its own course; boulders can
serve as instream cover for fishes. The mixing
of these materials renders each one useless.
Segregation and stockpiling of contrasting
soil-materials with different values for use in
restoration should be carefully evaluated in the
light of project goals and cost restraints.
REVEGETATION DESIGN
Revegetation designs must conform with
topographic, hydrologic, and soil designs. Plans
should identify the types of riparian
communities to be established, the area and
distribution of each type, the composition of each
type, methods for propagation, and sources of
propagules. Existing RRH representatives of the
achievable state for the site may serve as
templates for revegetation design. Cross-
sectional designs (Fig. 14) can be useful for
illustrating the general layout of vegetation in
relation to engineering designs.
Agencies often specify the types and size of
RRH to be created as some multiple (e.g., 1.25) of
the area impacted. The beneficial use of restored
RRH is affected not only by the area of riparian
habitats, but also by their location. Tall shrubs
and trees can be placed to shade the stream
channel for fish. Wetlands can serve as "moats"
to restrict access to critical wildlife areas or to
enhance the quality of wastewater effluents.
Selection of species for revegetation should
consider project goals, location, climate,
microclimate, tolerance, soil, plant growth
habits, availability of propagules, maintenance
requirements and costs (Army Corps of
Engineers 1987). If a project goal is to establish
habitat for target wildlife species, any plant
known to be of value for cover, food, resting, or
nesting of those species should be considered. If
streambank stabilization is a goal, other species
may be considered. Lists of wetland plants, their
regional distribution and wetland status (e.g.,
obligate hydrophyte, facultative hydrophyte, etc.)
have been assembled for the Northwest Region
(Reed 1986a) and the Intermountain Region
(Reed 1986b). Whitlow and Harris (1979) and
Allen and Klimas (1986) review flood tolerance,
values, and habitat requirements of plant species
for different regions of the United States. Kadlec
and Wentz (1979) and the Environmental
Laboratory (1978) tabulate soil and moisture
conditions, geographic regions, morphological
characteristics, potential uses, and propagation
techniques for numerous plant species. Several
other references pertinent to hydrologic
requirements of vegetation have been
recommended (Walters et al. 1980; Teskey and
Hinkley 1977; Stephenson 1980).
Alan and Klimas (1986) suggest that the
adaptations of pest plants (e.g., rapid dispersal,
fast growth, and hardiness) such as canary
grass are the very characteristics that favor their
growth on new or bare substrates;
advantages/disadvantages to their use merit
consideration, especially where they are
dominant in surrounding RRH. Baseline
descriptions of reference RRH in the vicinity of
the site can also be useful for selection of plant
species for revegetation.
Techniques for propagation must be selected
based on site constraints, scheduling, species,
and costs. Methods for establishing herbaceous
vegetation include seeding (broadcast, drill,
hydroseeding and aerial seeding) and
transplanting (springs, rootstocks, rhizomes and
tubers). Trees and shrubs are propagated from
cuttings, bare-root, or containerized stock. Alan
and Klimas (1986) discuss methods, costs and
relative advantages of these techniques and
suggest some special techniques applicable to
unstable situations. Doer and Landin (1983)
generally suggest 180 to 270 pure live seeds per
square meter for drill seeding and double this
rate for broadcast seeding. Jensen (1988a) found
398
-------
UP8LOPE
STORAQE AREA
25' *
CONSTRUCTION AREA
• 0' ±
HORIZONTAL SCALE )'»• JO
GROUND SURFACE
II.»' AIOVE PROJECTED ELEVATION
OF THE CHANNEL SOTTOUI
A. ORIGINAL PROFILE
|^%^P^®tSifi^f^S
B. STRIP TOPSOIL
WORK IINCH o .•
C. EXCAVATE SUBSOIL
1.0'
D. SPREAD LINER o.«
AND BACKFILL SUBSOIL
General Construction Diagram
(Material Handling)
Noli: HORIZONTAL SCALE IS 2.Si VERTICAL SCALE
Figure 11. Material handling for creation offish and riparian habitats, Birch Creek hydroelectric facility, Idaho (Jensen et al. 1987).
-------
o
o
RIPARIAN
UPLAND TRANSITION BACKWASH
i t 3 4 • F**I
Topaoll Distribution-
Straight Channel Sagmants (B-ET)
SCALE
Figure 12. Distribution of topsoil on straight channel segments, Birch Creek hydroelectric facility, Idaho (Jensen et al. 1987).
-------
V "
V
m
c
LEGEND
• 1 -KICK VtTM llttl
(•.»• Mliw ••««•• itttil
•I-QHOUHO kl*ll
XŁr
XXT
Topaoll Dlstrlbutlon-
Upalopo Channel Bands (A-A*)
01 2 J 4 I F..I
I I I I I I
Figure 13. Distribution of topsoil on channel bends, Birch Creek hydroelectric facility, Idaho (Jensen et al. 1987)
-------
EMBANKMENT
i0-(+)—J
Existing Surface
(2.738±)
Projected
Woter Level
(2.732 ±)
Ecological Design
Engineering Design
A. Upstream Segment
I il I FLOODPLAIN I STREAM I aOODPLAIN
L -L 1Q-( + ) »U 6\+ )m\. TO'C1")—.
* * — f \— I " * — *
Existing Surface
(2.731±)-
Projected
Water Level
(2.728 ±)
-Engineering Design
Ecological Design
B. Downstream Segment
Figure 14. General vegetation layout relative to engineering design, River Run development, Boise,
Idaho (Jensen 1988c).
402
-------
that natural colonization from surrounding
wetlands far outpaced his transplanting efforts.
Preliminary evaluations of controlled flooding
during critical periods when streams are
transporting catkins of willow and birch are
encouraging (Jensen 1988b). Controlled flooding
can also be effective for diversifying the
composition of the herbaceous stratum, but should
be timed to preclude dissemination of weedy
species.
Sources of propagules for revegetation may
be identified in baseline inventories of the
project site and vicinity. Doer and Landin (1983)
list seed and nursery stock sources in the
western United States. Propagules from
commercial sources should be acquired from
areas environmentally similar to the project site.
The percent pure live seed (weight), germination
percentage, origin, percent impurities (weight)
and seed class influence application rates for
commercial seeds (Army Corps of Engineers
1987).
HABITAT FEATURES
Designs may include features to enhance
specific values of restored RRH. Artificial bank
covers and instream boulder placements were
used to enhance fish habitat in a relocated
segment of Birch Creek (Vinson 1988). Fish
screens may be needed to prevent fertilization of
agricultural fields. Perches and nesting
platforms may be used to enhance habitat for
birds. Instream structures can be beneficial for
enhancing fish habitat (Binns 1986). Rosgen
and Fittante (1986) discuss selection of fish
habitat structures suitable for specific stream
types. Hubert (1986) assessed longevity and costs
for maintenance of stream improvement
structures.
Successful restoration is often dependent
upon the control of on-site and off-site impacts.
On-site impacts may include livestock grazing
and recreation. Fences and/or signed closures
may be required to facilitate or maintain
restoration.
MAINTENANCE
Responsibility for maintenance should be
clearly specified in the design plan. Maint-
enance may include weeding, irrigation, fixing
fences, and repair of habitat features. The
period and frequency for maintenance should
also be specified.
SCHEDULE
A schedule for completion of critical aspects
of the design plan is usually required. The
schedule should generally conform to seasonal
variations inherent to the site. Construction and
stabilization of sites must often be completed
within a single growing season to preclude
serious impacts from spring runoff.
INSPECTION/MONITORING
The purpose of inspection is to verify
compliance with restoration designs and to
evaluate construction according to project goals.
Mid-course corrections may also be suggested. It
is recommended that inspection personnel be
identified before starting construction. In-
spection personnel should have the authority to
stop work when it is out of compliance. In-
spection personnel, usually from regulatory
agencies, are especially important in projects
requiring workers who are responding to orders
from a contractor who may not be constantly
available on-site. Education of workers in the
purpose and goals of the project may contribute to
the success of restoration. Frequent inspections
should be conducted during critical aspects of
construction and less frequently once it is clear
that construction is proceeding correctly.
Monitoring is used to evaluate the success or
failure of restoration. Parameters monitored
derive from project goals and objectives, often
addressing both habitat and population
measurements. Habitat parameters may include:
frequency and duration of flooding; groundwater
dynamics; channel morphology; streambank
stability; streamflow characteristics; water
quality; vegetative composition, cover and
production; stream shading; etc. Population
measurements may include fish and wildlife
counts. Monitoring may entail periodic
remeasurement of variables identified in the
baseline inventory (e.g., HEP, IBI, GAWS) in
addition to other variables important for
assessing objectives of restoration.
The frequency of monitoring is determined
by project goals and deadlines. Monitoring
should be conducted frequently early in the
project. Frequent monitoring can be used to
identify variables that limit restoration and to
support mid-course corrections. Once it is clear
that restoration is proceeding at an acceptable
rate, monitoring may be conducted less
frequently. Projects are commonly monitored
monthly during the initial period of vegetation
403
-------
establishment and biannually thereafter.
Observations should also be conducted during
winter months. The period that a project is
monitored must be based on that required for
accomplishment of objectives, commonly 3 to 5
years. Results of monitoring must be
documented.
INFORMATION GAPS AND RESEARCH
Differences in the structure and dynamics of
RRH require correspondingly different
approaches to restoration. Differences may be
attributed to geologic, geomorphic, hydrologic,
and biotic characteristics that vary at different
scales. A procedure for identifying more-or-less
homogeneous classes of RRH could be useful for
assessing methods for restoration. Participants
in a workshop on the enhancement of stream
habitat concluded that stratification of the
resource into hierarchical classes of similar
function and values was the only acceptable way
to extrapolate results from one project to another
with some rational basis (Buel 1986). A
hierarchical structure is also needed to facilitate
integration of restoration results.
Inventories of the amount and condition of
RRH on BLM and Forest Service lands are
incomplete (GAO 1988). Given that the values of
a RRH may be related to its area (quantified in
terms of either spatial distribution or
uniqueness) and its condition, inventories are
needed to prioritize restoration projects to
maximize the beneficial uses of the resource.
The values of a RRE are an integrated
expression of the many different types of RRH it
contains. The restoration of a RRH may be
limited by the condition of other RRH contained
in the same watershed or by land and water uses
in distal portions of the same watershed.
Information pertinent to restoration in a
watershed context is lacking (Platts and Rinne
1985). Such an approach could be useful for
assessing the potential for restoration and for
prioritizing restoration projects.
Methods for assessing the functional
attributes of RRH and the functional
relationships between RRH of a watershed have
not been developed; these could be useful for
evaluating restoration. Methods have been
developed for functional assessment of wetlands
(Adamus 1983).
Reference sites representing the natural or
attainable state of RRH are scarce throughout
much of the region. Several demonstration and
research sites established by management
agencies have been valuable for illustrating that
restoration can be achieved through proper
management (GAO 1988). Lands owned and
protected by the Nature Conservancy and
Research Natural Areas may also serve as
reference sites. Identification and description of
reference sites could help to determine the
endpoints of successful restoration. Estab-
lishment of additional reference sites will
probably be necessary to represent the diversity of
RRH in the region.
A critical aspect of restoration projects is
cost. Fiscal evaluations are complicated by the
difficulty in placing monetary values on
resources and by the uncertainty of restoration
success. Methods for evaluating cost/benefit of
restoration projects should be developed. Given
that most RRH is impaired to some degree, fiscal
evaluations could be used to prioritize restoration
to achieve maximum beneficial use of the
resource with available funds.
Cynthia K. Johnson gathered information about
restoration projects. M. Christy Donaldson
assisted in the literature review and C.L.
Rawlins edited this chapter.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, PJR. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment: Volume I and II. Federal Highway
Administration Report FHWA-IP-82-23. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
Allen, H.H. and C.V. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir
Shoreline Revegetation Guidelines. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material-Engineer Manual.
EM1110-2-5026. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
404
-------
Bailey, R.G. 1985. The factor of scale in ecosystem
mapping. Environmental Management 9(4):271-276.
Bailey, R.G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.
Environmental Management 7(4):365-373.
Bartholow, J.M. and TJ. Waddle. 1986. Introduction to
Stream Network Habitat Analysis, Instream Flow
Information Paper 22. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group,
National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Binns, N.A. 1986. Habitat, macroinvertebrate and
fishery response to stream improvement efforts in
the Thomas Fork Bear River drainage, Wyoming,
p. 105-116. In J.G. Miller, J.A. Arway and R.F.
Carline (Eds.), Fifth Trout Stream Improvement
Workshop. Pennsylvania Fish Commission,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Black, H., Jr., and J.W. Thomas. 1978. Forest and
range wildlife habitat management: ecological
principals and management systems, p. 47-55. In
R.M. DeGraaf (Tech. Coord.), Proceedings of the
Workshop on Nongame Bird Habitat Management
in the Coniferous Forests of the Western United
States. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-64.
Portland, Oregon.
Bonneville Power Administration. 1986. Fish and
Wildlife Annual Project Summary. Dept. of
Energy, Bonneville Power Administration,
Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.
Brunsfield, S J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field Guide to
the Willows of East-Central Idaho. Forest, Wildlife
and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho.
Buel, J.W. 1986. Stream Habitat Enhancement
Evaluation Workshop: a Synthesis of Views.
Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management. 1986. West Desert
Pumping Project, Final EIS. Salt Lake District
Office, Salt Lake City Utah.
Cowardin, LJM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. Laroe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS 79/31. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Doer, T.B. and M.C. Landin. 1983. Vegetation
Stabilization of Training Areas of Selected Western
United States Military Reservations. U.S. Army
Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Dutton, C.E. 1880. Geology of the High Plateaus of Utah.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington,
D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1986. Field Guide for
Low-Maintenance Vegetation Establishment and
Management. Instruction Report R-86-2. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 1978. Wetland Habitat
Development with Dredged Material: Engineering
and Plant Propagation. Technical Report DS-78-16.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gebardt, K. 1986. Environmental Assessment for the
River Run South Development. Resource Systems,
Boise, Idaho.
General Accounting Office. 1988. Public Hangelands-
Some Riparian Areas Restored but Widespread
Improvement will be Slow. GAO/RCED-88-105.
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Hair, D. and R. Stowell. 1986. South Fork Clearwater
River Habitat Enhancement—Annual Report. In
Natural Propagation and Habitat Improvement,
Vol. II. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Hansen, P.L., S.W. Chadde, and R.D. Pfister. 1987.
Riparian Dominance Types in Montana. Montana
Riparian Association, School of Forestry,
University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Harris, R.R. In review. Associations between Stream
Valley Geomorphology and Riparian Vegetation as
a Basis for Landscape Analysis in the Eastern
Sierra Nevada, California. Dept. of Forest Science,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Harvey, M.D. and C.C. Watson. 1986. Fluvial
processes and morphological thresholds in incised
channel restoration. Water Resources Bulletin
22(3):359-368.
Harvey, M.D., C.C. Watson, and S.A. Schumm. 1985.
Gully Erosion. Bureau of Land Management Tech.
Note 366. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Hubert, P.J. 1986. Longevity and maintenance
requirements of stream improvement structures in
New York waters, p. 199-207. In J.G. Miller, J.A.
Arway, and R.F. Carline (Eds.), Fifth Trout Stream
Improvement Workshop. Pennsylvania Fish
Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1986. Longitudinal
changes in fish assemblages and water quality in
the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans, of the Amer.
Fish. Soc. 116(2)196-209.
Hughes, R.M., E. Rextad, and C.E. Bond. 1987. The
relationship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins and
physiographic provinces to the ichthyogeographic
regions of Oregon. Coperia 1987 (2):423-432.
Hunt, C.B. 1976. Natural Regions of the United States
and Canada. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, California.
Jackson, W.L. and B.P. Van Haveren. 1984. Design
for stable channel in coarse alluvium for riparian
zone restoration. Water Resources Bulletin
20(5)^95-703.
Jensen, S.E. 1988a. Monitoring Report-Establishment
of Wetland Habitat, Cedar Draw. White Horse
Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1988b. Establishment of Riparian Habitat,
Birch Creek, Monitoring Report. White Horse
Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
405
-------
Jensen, SJE. 1988c. Preliminary Planning, River Run
Project, Boise, Idaho. White Horse Associates,
Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1987. Progress Report, Wetland
Establishment, Cedar Draw Creek, Idaho. White
Horse Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1986. Wetland Establishment, Cedar
Draw Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho. White
Horse Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1985. Effects of Altered Bear River
Streamflow upon associated Palustrine Wetlands.
In Environmental Evaluation of Smiths Fork
Reservoir Project. Ecosystems Research Institute,
Logan, Utah.
Jensen, SE. and J.S. Tuhy. 1982. Soils Investigation of
Riparian Communities of East Smiths Fork and
Henrys Fork Drainages, North Slope Uinta
Mountains, Utah. White Horse Associates,
Smithfield, Utah.
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 KM. Mutz and L.C. Lee (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Society of Wetland Scientists
Eighth Annual Meeting. Seattle, Washington.
Johnson, CJC. 1987. Final Mitigation Plan for the Felt
Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 5089. Ecosystems
Research Institute, Logan, Utah.
Johnson, C.K. 1986. Final Off-Site Mitigation Plan for
LQ/LS Drain (Pigeon Cove) Hydroelectric Project.
Ecosystems Research Institute, Logan, Utah.
Kadlec, J.A. and W.A. Wentz. 1979. State-of-the-Art
Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural;
Vol. I: Report of Research. D-74-9. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant,
and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Waters-A Method and Its
Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special
Publication 5.
Konopacky, R.C., E.G. Bowles, and P.J. Cernera. 1985.
Salmon River Habitat Enhancement. U.S.
Department of Energy Bonneville Power
Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife,
83-359. Corvallis, Oregon.
Kovalchick, B.L. 1987. Riparian Zone Associations,
Deschutes, Ochoco, Freemont, and Winema
National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87. U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Landin, M.C., CJ. Newling, and EJ. Clarion Jr. 1987.
Miller Sands Island: a dredged material wetland
in the Columbia River, Oregon, p. 150-155. In KM.
Mutz and L.C. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society
of Wetland Scientists Eighth Annual Meeting.
Seattle,Washington.
Larsen, D.P., DJR. Dudley, and R.M. Hughes. In
Review. A regional approach for assessing
attainable surface water quality: Ohio as a case
study. Jour, of Soil and Water Cons.
Leopold, L.B., R.A. Bangold, M.G. Wolman, and L.M.
Brush. 1960. Flow Resistance in Sinuous or
Irregular Channels. Geological Survey Profession-
al Paper 282-D. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Leopold, L.B. and W.B. Langbein. 1966. River
meanders. Scientific American. 214(6)^0-70.
Lidstone, C.D. 1987. Stream channel and wetland
reconstruction, p. 131-135. In K.M. Mutz and L.C.
Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society of Wetland
Scientists Eighth Annual Meeting. Seattle,
Washington.
May, B.E. and R.W. Rose. 1986. Camas Creek (Meyers
Cove) Anadromous Species Habitat Improvement
Plant Final Report. In Natural Propagation and
Habitat Improvement; Vol It—Idaho. Annual and
Final Reports. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Miller, R. and JP. Olivarez. 1986. Joseph Creek
Drainage Off-Site Enhancement Project. Annual
Report FY 1985. In K.M. Mutz and C.L. Lee (Eds.),
Natural Propagation and Habitat Enhancement;
Vol. I—Oregon. Annual and Final Reports 1985.
Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Admin-
istration, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Miller, T.S. 1987. Techniques used to enhance, restore,
or create freshwater wetlands in the Pacific
Northwest, p. 116-121. In KM. Mutz and L.C. Lee
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Society of Wetland
Scientists Eighth Annual Meeting. Seattle,
Washington.
Minshall, G.W., S.E. Jensen, and W.S. Platts. In press.
The Ecology of Great Basin Streams and Riparian
Habitats: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Report.
Murphy, W. and A. Espinosa, Jr. 1985. Eldorado Creek
Fish Passage Final Report, Modification M001 to
Agreement DE-A179-54BP16535. In Natural
Propagation and Habitat Improvement; Volume n
Idaho. Annual and Final Reports. Dept. of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish
and Wildlife.
Mutz, KM. and R. Graham. 1982. Riparian Community
Type Classification - Big Piney Ranger District,
Wyoming. Unpublished U.S. Forest Service
document. Ogden, Utah.
Mutz, K.M. and J. Queiroz. 1983. Riparian Community
Classification for the Centennial Mountains and
South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Unpublished U.S.
Forest Service Document. Ogden, Utah.
Noll, W.T. 1986. Grande Ronde Habitat Improvement
Project: Joseph Creek and Upper Grande Ronde
River Drainages. Annual Report. In Natural
Propagation and Habitat Enhancement; Vol. I
Oregon. Annual and Final Reports 1985. Dept. of
Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Div-
ision of Fish and Wildlife.
Norton, B.E., J.S. Tuhy, and S.E. Jensen. 1981.
406
-------
Riparian Community Classification for the Greys
River, Wyoming. Unpublished U.S. Forest Service
document. Ogden, Utah.
Omernik, JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous
United States. Annals Aasoc. of Amer. Geog.
77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. 1986. Ecoregions of the United States
(1:7,500,000 scale map). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Padgett, W.G. and M.E. Manning. 1988. Preliminary
Riparian Community Type Classification for
Nevada. Draft Report. U.S. Forest Service,
Inter mountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
Padgett, W.G. and A.P Youngblood. 1986. Riparian
Community Type Classification of Southern Utah.
U.S. Forest Service. Ogden, Utah.
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,
Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-221. Boise, Idaho.
Platts, W.S., K.A. Gebhardt, and W.L. Jackson. 1985.
The effects of large storm events on Basin-Range
riparian stream habitats, p. 30-34. In Riparian
Ecosystems and their Management. U.S. Dept.
Agric., Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Tuscon, Arizona.
Platts, W.S., S.E. Jensen, and F. Smith. 1988a.
Preliminary Classification and Inventory of
Riparian Communities, Livestock/Fisheries Study
Areas, Nevada. Unpublished report. U.S. Forest
Service Intermountain Research Station, Boise,
Idaho.
Platts, W.S., S.E. Jensen, and R. Ryel. 1988b.
Classification of Riverine/Riparian Habitat and
Assessment of Nonpoint Source Impacts, North
Fork Humboldt River, Nevada. Draft report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado.
Platts, W.S., M. McHenry, and R. Torquemada. 1986.
Evaluation of fish habitat enhancement projects in
Crooked River, Red River, and Bear Valley Creek;
Progress Report II. In: Idaho Habitat Evaluation
for Off-Site Mitigation Record. U.S. Department of
Energy, BonnevUle Power Administration, Div. of
Fish and Wildlife.
Platts, W.S. and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and
stream enhancement management and research in
the Rocky Mountains. Nftrth American Journal of
Fisheries Management 5(2A): 115-125.
Reed, P.B. 1986a. Wetland Plant List-Northwest
Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
WELUT-86/W13.09. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Reed, P.B. 1986b. Wetland Plant List-Intermountain
Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
WELUT-86/W13.09. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Richards, C. and P.J. Cernera. 1987a. Salmon River
Enhancement. U.S. Department of Energy
Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish
and Wildlife, 83-359. Corvallis, Oregon.
Richards, C. and P.J. Cernera. 1987b. Yankee Fork of
the Salmon River: Inventory, Problem
Identification and Enhancement Feasibility. U.S.
Department of Energy Bonneville Power
Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife,
83-359. Corvallis, Oregon.
Rohm, C.M., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennet. 1987.
Evaluation of an aquatic ecoregion classification of
streams in Arkansas. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology 4(1):127-140.
Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system, p.
91-95. In Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Report RM-120.
Rosgen, D.L. and B.L. Fittante. 1986. Fish habitat
structures—a selection guide using stream
classification, p. 163-179. In J.G. Miller, J.A.
Arway, and R J. Carline (Eds.), Fifth Trout Stream
Improvement Workshop. Pennsylvania Fish
Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Rundquist, L.A., N.E. Bradley, and T.R. Jennings.
1986. Planning and design of fish stream
rehabilitation, p. 119-132. In J.G. Miller, J.A.
Arway, and R F. Carline (Eds.), Fifth Trout Stream
Habitat Improvement Workshop. Pennsylvania
Fish Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Sempek, J.E. and C.W. Johnson. 1987. Wetlands
enhancement at the Ogden Nature Center in
Ogden, Utah, p. 161-165. In KM. Mutz and L.C. Lee
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Society of Wetland
Scientists Eighth Annual Meeting. Seattle,
Washington.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circ.
39.
Sigler, W. and J. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great
Basin-A Natural History. University of Nevada
Press, Reno, Nevada.
Sipple, W.S. 1987. Wetland Identification and
Delineation Manual. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Soil Survey Manual.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Classification-
Handbook No. 436. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Stevenson, M. 1980. The Environmental Requirements
of Aquatic Plants. Appendix A to Publication No.
65. The California State Water Resources Control
Board, Sacramento, California.
Tesky, R.O. and T.M. Hinkley. 1977. Impact of Water
Level Changes on Woody Riparian and Wetland
Plant Communities; Vol. I: Plant and Soil
Responses to Flooding. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
407
-------
Service FWS/OBS-77-58.
Thomas, T. and M. Collette. 1986. BPA Project 84-9:
Grande Ronde River Habitat Enhancement Project.
Annual Report FY 1985. In Natural Propagation
and Habitat Enhancement. Vol. I-Oregon. Annual
and Final Reports 1985. Dept. of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish
and Wildlife.
Tuhy, J.S. and S.E. Jensen. 1982. Riparian
Classification for the Upper Salmon/Middle Fork
Salmon Rivers, Idaho. Unpublished U.S. Forest
Service Report, Ogden, Utah.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat
Evaluation Procedures. Division of Ecological
Services, Washington D.C.
U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Fisheries Habitat Surveys
Handbook. Region 4, FSH 2609.23.
Vinson, M.R. 1988. An ecological and
sedimentological evaluation of a relocated cold
desert stream. M.S. Thesis. Idaho State
University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Walters, A.M., R.O. Tesky, and T.M. Hinkley. 1980.
Impact of Water Level Changes on Woody
Riparian and Wetland Communities; Volume VIII:
Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 78/94.
Welling, K. 1986. Final On-Site Revegetation Plan.
LQ/LS Drain (Pigeon Cove). FERC No. 5767.
Hosey and Associates.
Wertz, W.A. and J.F. Arnold. 1972. Land Systems
Inventory. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
Whitlow, T.H. and R.W. Harris. 1979. Flood
Tolerance in Plants: A State-of-the-Art Review.
Technical Report E-79-2, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and DP. Larsen. 1988.
The correspondence between ecoregions and spatial
patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon. Can.
Jour. Fish. Aquat. ScL 45:1-15.
Youngblood, AJ>., W.G. Padgett, and AS. Winward.
1985. Riparian Community Type Classification of
Eastern Idaho-Western Wyoming. U.S. Forest
Service, R4-Ecol-85-01.
408
-------
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READING
Adamus, P. R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for
Wetland Functional Assessment; Volume 1:
Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts. FHWA,
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Report No.
FHWA-D7-82-23.
This manual reviews wetland functions and the
potential impacts of highways on these functions.
Harvey, M.D., C.C. Watson, and S.A. Schumm. 1985.
Gully Erosion. Bureau of Land Management Tech.
Note 366. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Reviews literature on incised channels, discusses
their causes and evolution, and provides resource
specialists a conceptual framework for dealing with
them.
Heede, B. H. 1980. Stream Dynamics: An Overview
for Land Managers. U.S. Depart. Agric., A Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
General Technical Report RM-72, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Covers the general concepts of fluvial dynamics
and how management actions affect streams and
vegetative bank cover.
Jackson, W. L. and B. P. Van Haveren. 1984. Design
for a stable channel in coarse alluvium for
riparian zone restoration. Water Resources
Bulletin 2(KS>:695-703.
Geomorphic, hydraulic, and hydrologic principles
are applied to the design of a stable stream channel
and riparian habitat.
Mutz, KM. and L.C. Lee (Eds.). 1987. Wetland and
Riparian Ecosystems of the American West.
Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland
Scientists. Seattle, Washington.
A compendium of articles relating to wetland/
riparian habitats including several papers on creation
and restoration.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L.
Bufiord, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper,
G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monaen, 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,
Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-221. Boise, Idaho.
A compilation of methods for managing,
evaluating, and monitoring riverine/riparian habitat.
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)-J.15-125.
Reviews stream enhancement research in the
Rocky Mountains, its adequacy, and research needs to
improve the effectiveness of stream enhancement
projects.
United States General Accounting Office. 1988. Public
Rangelands—Some Riparian Areas Restored But
Widespread Improvement Will Be Slow.
GAO/RCED-88-105. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Evaluates the condition of riparian habitats in the
western United States, gives examples of some restored
riparian areas, discusses barriers to restoration and
makes recommendations to the Committee of Interior
and Insular Affairs. This document doesn't cut the
Forest Service and BLM any slack!
Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.). 1984.
California Riparian Systems-Ecology, Conserva-
tion, and Productive Management. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
A compendium of papers addressing a wide range
of riparian topics.
409
-------
APPENDIX n
BIRCH I
, IDAHO
Riparian and fish habitats were created in
association with a feeder canal leading to a
hydroelectric generating facility in southeastern
Idaho. The goal of the project was to mitigate for losses
of fish and riparian habitat downstream from the
diversion. Due to extremely permeable substrate, an
innovative design was necessary.
The 2 km channel was constructed to include 12
meanders (sinuosity ratio = 1.25) and a 6 m wide
riparian zone on each side. Substrate was excavated
and a plastic liner was installed to eliminate bedloss
from the channel and riparian zones. Gravelly
substrate was backfilled over the liner to facilitate
establishment of an artificial aquifer for sustenance of
riparian habitat. The substrate was judged suitable for
creation of fish habitat in the constructed channel.
Topsoil was used to create topographic features on the
riparian zones (e.g., levees and backwashes). A
structure for controlling stream stage and a fish
screen were placed at the downstream end of the project
area. Artificial bank overhangs and boulder
placements were used to enhance fish habitat.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that the
meandering pattern of the constructed channel is
probably the most important factor in the success of the
project. Fine sediments are accumulating on convex
banks (point bars), creating favorable conditions for
vegetation. A pool-riffle sequence similar to that of a
natural stream is developing. Fish populations about
200 percent of the stipulated goal were measured only
18 months after construction.
An experimental approach was used to establish
riparian vegetation. The stream reach was divided
into 24 experimental units, each consisting of a convex
bank, concave bank, and adjacent straight channel
segments. Variables tested for establishment of
riparian vegetation were:
1. Controlled flooding during periods when
propagules of desirable species were being
transported in the stream.
2. Cuttings versus rooted propagules for several shrub
species.
3, Transplanting versus seeding of sedges. The
entire riparian zone was broadcast with native
grass seeds.
Survival of unrooted willow cuttings was about
the same as for rooted stock after one season. Site
conditions (i.e. available moisture) appeared to be more
important to survival than method of propagation. Ten
to twenty unrooted cuttings could be planted with the
same effort (and expense) of one rooted cutting.
Unrooted cuttings of red-osier dogwood were less
successful; cuttings of choke cherry all died.
Controlled flooding of the riparian zone was very
successful for diversifying the composition of riparian
habitat and resulted in numbers of shrub seedlings
many times greater than were planted. Seeding of
sedges was not successful; transplanted sedges are
spreading rapidly; natural colonization of sedges is
also occurring. Native grasses cover the most riparian
zone (80 to 90 percent cover) and have stabilized
streambanks, which are evolving to enhance cover for
fish. Monitoring of revegetation is continuing.
Some factors limiting the success of this project were:
1. Failure of the contractor to follow procedures for
stripping and stockpiling of topsoil. Mixing of
topsoil with substrates resulted in shortage for
construction of design features.
2. Failure of the contractor to adhere to the design
plan. Some mid-course design changes were
required to compensate for errors in construction.
a Failure to anticipate the effects of ice, which
covered the riparian zone to depths of several feet
during winter months. Many young shrubs were
"plucked" out of the ground by ice.
Cost to enhance fish and riparian habitats was
about $100,000.
Jensen, S.E., J. Griffith, and M. Vinson. 1987. Creation
of riparian and fish habitat, Birch Creek
hydroelectric facility, Clark County, Idaho, p.
144-149. In Mutz, K.M. and C.L. Lee (Eds.) Wetland
and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West.
Proceedings of the Eight Annual Meeting of the
Society of Wetland Scientists, May 26-29, 1987,
Seattle, Washington.
Vinson, M.R. 1988. An ecological and sedimentological
evaluation of a relocated cold desert stream. M.S.
Thesis, Department of Biology, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, Idaho.
CEDAR DRAW, SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO
Wetland habitat was created as mitigation for that
destroyed by construction of a road and penstock along
a minor tributary of the Snake River, near Twin
Falls. The goal of the project was to create about 0.3
hectares of emergent wetland habitat to compensate for
that filled by construction.
A series of 12 hydrologically linked basins were
411
-------
constructed and flooded to a maximum depth of about
1.03 meters. Wetland vegetation was planted around
the periphery of each pond. Soon after completion, the
inlet pipe to the ponds clogged, the ponds drained and
emergent vegetation went dormant or died. A more
reliable water source was constructed and the basins
re-flooded. In September, 1987, Less than 4 weeks
following reflooding, about 11 percent of the pond
surfaces were vegetated with emergent plants.
Propagules are thought to have originated from an
existing wetland in the immediate vicinity. Emergent
plant cover varied as a function of distance from the
existing wetland. In June, 1988 emergent vegetation
covered about 19 percent of the ponded area. The rate of
emergent vegetation establishment in a pond varied
directly with the ratio of its circumference and surface
area. Vegetation establishment proceeded from the
edges of the ponds towards the centers. The smaller the
pond, the more rapidly it was vegetated.
Cost for construction of about 0.3 hectares of wetland
habitat was about $30,000.
Jensen, S.E. 1986. Wetland Establishment, Cedar
Draw Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho. White
Horse Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1987. Progress Report, Wetland
Establishment, Cedar Draw Creek, Idaho. White
Horse Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
Jensen, S.E. 1988a. Monitoring Report, Wetland
Establishment, Cedar Draw Creek, Idaho. White
Horse Associates, Smithfield, Utah.
BEAR VALLEY CREEK, IDAHO
Bear Valley Creek is located in a glaciated portion
of a granite batholith in central Idaho. It joins Marsh
Creek to form the Middle Fork of the Salmon River.
Historically, Bear Valley Creek provided spawning
and rearing habitat for chinook salmon, but these
habitats were seriously degraded by dredge mining in
the 1950s.
A project to restore about 3.2 km of Bear Valley
Creek was implemented in 1985 and 1986. Objectives
of restoration were:
1. To reduce sediment recruitment from
dredge-mined areas and sediment transport to
lower stream segments.
2. To stabilize the channel and streambanks.
3. To improve water quality through minimizing
turbidity.
4. To improve the aesthetic qualities of the mined
areas.
5. To create or improve habitats for spawning and
rearing of chinook salmon.
The approach to restoration entailed realignment of
the channel, construction of a floodplain about 100 m
wide, stabilization, and revegetation.
Contouring was conducted to create surfaces
similar to those existing prior to mining activity. A
combination of geotextile fabric, erosion control
blankets, vegetation, and riprap was used to stabilize
recontoured surfaces. The realigned segment of Bear
Valley Creek was designed to allow the river freedom
to form meanders in the constructed floodplain.
Design criteria approximated the natural stream
pattern and grade. Shallow sinks for collection of
sediment were also created. Construction of this
project was a major engineering endeavor.
Seeding and rooted willow cuttings were used to
facilitate revegetation. Willow cuttings obtained from
the vicinity of the site were propagated in a greenhouse
and treated with an anti-transpirant to reduce
dehydration before transplanting to the site. The
success of one, two, and three year-old willow
plantings was 97%, 88% and 82%, respectively. Redd
counts have increased from 80 prior to restoration to
230 in October, 1988. The increase in redds may be
attributed to factors other than restoration of the site.
Cost of the project was about $2.5 million.
Konopacky, R.C., E.C. Bowles, and P.J. Cernera. 1985.
Salmon River habitat enhancement. Annual
Report FY 1984, Part 1. In Natural Propagation and
Habitat Improvement. Idaho: Salmon River
Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report 1984. U.S.
Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration,
Div. of Fish and Wildlife.
Richards, C. and PJ. Cernera. 1987. Salmon River
Enhancement. U.S. Department of Energy
Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish
and Wildlife, 83-359. Corvallis, Oregon.
FELT, TETON RIVER, IDAHO
The site is located in a notch-shaped canyon
incised in basalt. During construction of a road into
the Teton River Canyon, fill that was side-cast down
steep slopes blocked fish passage to upstream spawning
habitat and covered about 0.15 hectares of riparian
habitat. The purpose of the project was to mitigate for
lost wetland values and functions.
The objectives were to restore fish passage, to
re-establish riparian vegetation similar to that existing
prior to disturbance, and to stabilize the site. Fish
passage was restored by removal of rock from the
412
-------
stream channel. The goal of revegetation was to
establish communities similar to those existing prior to
disturbance. The percent shrub canopy cover and
species composition were stipulated by the regulatory
agency. Riparian shrubs were planted on 0.15 hectares.
Preliminary results indicate that fish passage has
been restored. Permanent vegetation quadrants have
been established in each community type and
monitoring will take place every June and September.
Revegetation has been largely unsuccessful in the
riparian zone due to lack of adequate moisture and
porous substrates. The incomplete status of riparian
restoration precludes any judgement of success/failure
at this time.
To provide compensation for temporary and
permanent losses of wildlife habitat a plot of land
encompassing 730 meters of Teton Creek that was
impacted by livestock grazing was purchased and will
be donated to The Nature Conservancy. Plans to
restore this section of Teton Creek were prepared.
Restoration plans call for planting of riparian shrubs
and sedges, tree revetments to enhance streambank
stability, and fencing to eliminate livestock grazing.
The restored habitat will compensate for that damaged
by road construction.
Johnson, C.K. 1987. Final Mitigation Plan for the Felt
Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 5089. Ecosystems
Research Institute, Logan, Utah.
PIGEON COVE/SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO
Several hundred feet of riparian vegetation were
destroyed during construction of a road into the Snake
River Canyon near Twin Falls. A rock slide initiated
by construction activities blocked much of the river,
causing increased streamflow velocities that eroded
streambanks. Wetland habitat supported by seeps along
the canyon walls was also destroyed. A total of about
7.6 hectares of wetland/riparian habitat was impacted.
Baseline assessments indicated that about 3.8 hectares
could be restored.
Rock was removed from the river and used to create
a bench. Sediment dredged from the river was spread
over the rock to enhance vegetative establishment.
Specific revegetation goals were based on Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) conducted in the
vicinity. Vegetation was planted in 1987.
Plans called for the surface of the bench to be 2-3
feet below the high water line to ensure seasonal
flooding. Abnormally low runoff in 1987 and 1988
resulted in peak flow levels well below the elevation of
the bench, resulting in minimally successful
revegetation. The coarse nature of substrates used to
construct the bench limited its water retention and its
capacity for establishment and sustenance of
vegetation. Seeps from the canyon walls rapidly
percolated through the porous substrate and were thus
unavailable to plants. It is anticipated that future
flooding will deposit fine sediments on the bench and
improve conditions for revegetation.
Monitoring of revegetation indicated that shrub/tree
plantings were 80% successful in seep areas along the
canyon wall. Revegetation of riparian areas were
only 30 to 50 percent successful due to droughty
conditions. Irrigation will be required for revegetation
of the riparian areas. Transplanted xeric shrubs were
mostly unsuccessful due to drought.
Important lessons learned during restoration at Pigeon
Cove include:
1. Seasonal flooding of rivers that are heavily
committed for irrigation may not be counted on for
restoration.
2. A reliable source of water may make the difference
between nearly complete transplant survival
(>95%) and low transplant survival (<50%).
a Plant protectors intended to prevent wildlife
browsing may damage transplants by falling over
and bending or breaking the plants.
Revegetation efforts and monitoring of this site are
continuing.
To mitigate for the 3.8 hectares of habitat that were
permanently lost as well as for the temporary loss of
habitat, approximately 20 hectares of relatively pristine
habitat in Gooding County, Idaho, were purchased and
donated to The Nature Conservancy.
Construction costs for this project were about
$500,000.
Johnson, C.K. 1986. Final Off-Site Mitigation Plan for
LQ/LS Drain (Pigeon Cove) Hydroelectric Project.
Ecosystems Research Institute, Logan, Utah.
Welling, K. 1986. Final On-Site Revegetation Plan.
LQ/LS Drain (Pigeon Cove). FERC No. 5767.
Hosey and Associates.
RED RIVER AND CROOKED RIVER, IDAHO
The Red River project area consists of approximately
30 km of stream, including meandering meadow
reaches and timbered valley bottoms. The area has
been impacted by dredge mining and livestock
413
-------
grazing. The Crooked River project area consists of 16
km of stream devastated by dredge mining.
The project areas were divided into reaches where
problems and potential solutions were identified. In
1983-1985, habitat improvement was implemented,
including contouring, weirs, deflectors, bank
overhangs, bank stabilization structures, boulder
placements, fencing of riparian zones and planting of
riparian vegetation.
Monitoring of aquatic habitat condition for two
years revealed several significant differences in
habitat quality following stream enhancement at the
lower Red River study site. Stream depth, percent pool
width, bank water depth and pool quality improved in
the treatment site as compared to the control site.
Increases in fine sediments were evident in the
treatment section, and were probably associated with
the increased pool-riffle ratio. The riparian habitat
variables exhibited no significant changes.
Evaluation of Crooked River habitat enhancement
activities has been postponed until those activities are
completed. No data are available with which to judge
success.
Problems encountered included inability to obtain
easements from land owners to implement plans. Low
survival of vegetation was attributed to planting
during the hottest time of the year.
Hair, D. and R. Stowell. 1986. South Fork Clearwater
River Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report-1985.
In Natural Propagation and Habitat Improvement,
Volume IE-Idaho. Annual and Final Reports. Dept.
of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration,
Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Platts, W.S., M. McHenry, and R. Torquemada. 1986.
Evaluation of Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects
in Crooked River, Red River, and Bear Valley
Creek. Progress Report II. In Idaho Habitat
Evaluation for Off-Site Mitigation Record. Annual
Report 1985. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, Div. of Fish and Wildlife.
ELDORADO
.IDAHO
Eldorado Creek is a sixth order tributary of Lolo
Creek, an important anadromous fishery. Construc-
tion of a road which parallels Eldorado Creek
substantially altered the configuration of the channel
and blocked upstream migration of steelhead trout.
The goals of the project were to enhance
streambank stability, increase pool frequency and
quality, reduce substrate embeddedness, and to
increase in-stream and streambank cover for three
stream reaches. The approach included construction of
instream structures (Log and boulder weirs, boulder
placements, root wads, tree revetments), partial
removal of debris dams, and planting of riparian
vegetation.
Measures were implemented in 1984, 1985, and
1986. At this time, all physical stream enhancements
have been completed and fish have been stocked in the
improved reaches. No judgement of results in terms of
fisheries or revegetation success was given in the final
report.
Murphy, W. and A. Espinosa, Jr., 1985. Eldorado Creek
Fish Passage Final Report, Modification M001 to
Agreement DE-A179-54BP16535, In Natural Propaga-
tion and Habitat Improvement, Volume II Idaho.
Annual and Final Reports. Dept. of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration. Division of
Fish and Wildlife.
GRANDE RONDE RIVER, OREGON/WASHINGTON
The Joseph Creek and Upper Orande Ronde River
drainages were examined as part of a study to
identify, evaluate, prioritize, and recommend solutions
to problems influencing anadromous fisheries. These
two rivers have historically been excellent producers of
anadromous fish but recent censuses indicate a decline
in populations from those observed in the late 1960's
and early 1970's. Declines were attributed to passage
problems at mainstem Columbia and Snake River
dams, user demands for the fishery resource, and
impacts of logging, agriculture, roads, placer mining,
and stream channelization. The goal of this project
was to provide optimum spawning and rearing habitats
for summer steelhead and spring chinook in selected
portions of the Grande Ronde River Basin.
Summaries of work proposed and implemented on
these portions of streams follow.
New pools were excavated at numerous locations
on Elk Creek. A number of existing pools were
enlarged. Instream structures were installed to
stabilize pools and to improve instream spawning and
rearing habitat. Willow, alder, Siberian crabapple,
and dogwood were planted along unstable
streambanks. Planted areas were seeded with a grass
mixture and fenced to prevent grazing by livestock.
Trees and shrubs were planted along 3.9 km of
Swamp Creek. Species included white willow, Siberian
crabapple, Midwest crabapple, wavey-leaf alder, river
birch, and red-osier dogwood. Planted areas were
seeded with a grass mixture and fenced to exclude
livestock.
A habitat inventory was performed and instream
structures were installed to improve pools along Fly
414
-------
and Sheep Creeks. Structures include wing deflectors,
sills, weirs, revetments, and digger logs, rootwads,
boulder placements, and bank-covers. Planting of
riparian vegetation and fencing to protect plantings
were also anticipated.
Monitoring of stream and riparian enhancement
projects has been scheduled but little data is available
at this time. Observation of instream structures
indicates that creation of pool habitat has generally
accomplished project goals. Structures show little
damage since their installation. No judgment of
success in terms of revegetation success or fishery
enhancement is possible with the information
presently available.
Miller, R. and J.P. Olivarez. 1986. Joseph Creek
Drainage Off-Site Enhancement Project. Annual
Report FY1985. (July 1,1985 through June 30,1986).
In Natural Propagation and Habitat Volume I -
Oregon. Annual and Final Reports 1985. Dept. of
Energy, Bonneville Power Administration,
Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Noll, W.T. 1986. Grande Ronde Habitat Improvement
Project: Joseph Creek and Upper Grande Ronde
River Drainages, Annual Report. In Natural
Propagation and Habitat Enhancement. Volume I -
Oregon. Annual and Final Reports 1985. Dept. of
Energy, Bonneville Power Administration,
Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Thomas, T. and M. Collette. 1986. BPA Project 84-9:
Grande Ronde River Habitat Enhancement.
Effective Period: April 1,1985 to June 30,1986. In
Natural Propagation and Habitat Enhancement.
Volume I - Oregon. Annual and Final Reports
1985. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
MEYERS COVE/CAMAS'
.IDAHO
Meyers Cove is located on Camas Creek, a
tributary of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River,
which is a significant producer of wild anadromous
fish. The site was impacted by livestock grazing and
agricultural practices. The goal of restoration was to
improve habitat for spring chinook and steelhead trout
spawning and rearing.
An enhancement plan was developed based on
evaluations of streambank and channel morphology.
Livestock management was evaluated to determine
solutions to multiple use resource conflicts.
The riparian zone will be fenced and alternate
water sources will be developed for livestock. Upland
meadows will be reseeded with more productive
grasses to compensate for loss of forage in riparian
areas. The riparian zone will be contoured to eliminate
high streambanks and to reduce sediment recruitment.
Revegetation will consist of transplanting of willow,
cottonwood, and alder seedlings and seeding of
herbaceous plants. Unstable banks will be stabilized
using deflectors and revetments. Instream cover will
be enhanced with boulder placements. It is anticipated
that streambank cover will be enhanced as the
riparian zone recovers.
No data are available regarding success of
implementation of these plans.
May, BJ3. and R.W. Rose. 1986. Camas Creek (Meyers
Cove) Anadromous Species Habitat Improvement
Plant Final Report. In Natural Propagation and
Habitat Improvement. Volume H-Idaho. Annual
and Final Reports. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville
Power Administration, Division of Fish and
Wildlife.
415
-------
RIPARIAN WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION
IN THE FAR WEST: A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION
John T. Stanley1
The Habitat Restoration Group
ABSTRACT. This chapter presents a summary of published literature pertaining to riparian
habitat restoration in the far west. It is intended to assist 404 personnel in their review and
development of restoration plans for mitigation of impacts to riparian habitat. Numerous
references are cited dealing with the planning, design, installation, maintenance and
monitoring of riparian restoration sites with emphasis on revegetation projects in California.
Appendices include the following bibliographies and listings:
1. 13 proceedings and publications pertaining to riparian ecology,
2. 88 publications dealing with the selection, propagation, planting, care and growth
characteristics of plant materials suitable for use in the revegetation of riparian sites,
3. 95 papers, reports, and texts describing riparian restoration projects, programs, techniques
and standards (annotations have been prepared for 20 of these publications).
The author also presents suggested outlines for the preparation of conceptual and detailed
riparian revegetation plans which can be used as checklists during the review of mitigation
plans. Project profiles are presented for 37 riparian restoration projects in California and 3
projects in Oregon.
INTRODUCTION
The art/science of riparian habitat
restoration is still young and still experimental.
The short history of this field, its complexity, and
the variable environmental conditions of
different riparian communities make it difficult
to synthesize successful technologies into a guide
for riparian restoration project design,
installation, and maintenance. The material
presented in this chapter has been compiled to
assist EPA 404 personnel with the analysis and
review of restoration plans for mitigation of
impacted riparian habitat. These materials are
included to familiarize the restoration project
designer or reviewer with the various factors
which should be addressed. They present several
of the successful approaches to riparian
restoration which have been implemented in the
western United States. Emphasis has been placed
on identifying literature and existing projects
exemplifying state-of-the-art techniques for the
revegetation of riparian corridors with native
riparian plant species (hence the term riparian
revegetation will often be used interchangeably
with riparian restoration).
RIPARIAN ECOLOGY AND RIPARIAN
RESTORATION
An understanding of the ecology of riparian
systems is essential if restorationists (i.e., those
planning and implementing restoration projects)
are to achieve the re-creation of naturally
functioning riparian systems of value to fish
and wildlife. The literature on the ecology of
western riparian systems was limited merely a
decade ago. Since then, it has increased and
continues to grow rapidly. An excellent
introduction to the subject of riparian ecology can
be obtained by referring to some of the following
conference proceedings; Abell (In press),
Johnson et al., (1985), Johnson and Jones (1977),
Raedeke (1988), Sands (1977), Johnson and
McCormick (1978), Warner and Hendrix (1984).
A few recent summaries of the ecology of
riparian systems, their current status, and their
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Stanley's chapter differs from the other regional reviews because it was
commissioned late in the process of producing this document. There was not adequate time for him to complete a
synthesis, however, we felt the information he was able to compile would be useful to the readers.
417
-------
monitoring and management include: Brinson,
Swift, Plantico, and Barclay (1981), Knopf,
Johnson, Rich, Samson, and Szaro (1988),
Ohmart and Anderson (1986), Platts et al. (1987),
and Warner and Hendrix (1985).
Designers of riparian restoration projects
need to understand how riparian habitats are
exploited by wildlife. Knowing this will ensure
more reliable and effective designs which are
targeted at specific species or groups of species.
Many papers deal with the importance of
riparian habitat primarily for avifauna wildlife,
although other species are addressed. Also of
interest is an annotated bibliography on the
importance of riparian zones to terrestrial
wildlife compiled for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Sacramento District's Sacramento
River and Tributaries Investigation (Matroni
1980). A valuable bibliography of references
pertaining to the ecology and management of
Arizona riparian areas is Simcox and Zube
(1985).
PREPARING OR REVIEWING RIPARIAN
RESTORATION PLANS
A great deal of effort generally goes into the
planning of a riparian revegetation project. The
input of a variety of specialists (hydrologists,
plant and animal ecologists, horticulturists, etc.)
must be synthesized into one implementable
approach to riparian restoration. Frequently
there are specific permit requirements which
must be addressed in the design of the restoration
plan. The final restoration plan must be clear
and sufficiently detailed for bidding and
implementation by the various engineering,
construction, and landscape contractors
involved.
For the above reasons and because no two
project sites are exactly alike, riparian
restoration plans are best prepared in phases with
review by agency personnel periodically during
the process. The normal approach starts with site
selection and evaluation followed by the
preparation of a preliminary riparian
restoration/revegetation plan. An outline of the
contents of a typical preliminary riparian
revegetation plan is presented as Appendix I.
Agency review and approval of this conceptual
plan helps to ensure compliance with permit
conditions before considerable effort has been
expended by the permittee. Since revegetation
plans are frequently prepared by consultants,
permittee review and approval of conceptual
plans helps to eliminate conflicting
interpretations of mitigation requirements
between the consultant, agency personnel, and
the permittee. This review also presents an
opportunity for the various regulatory agencies to
reach a consensus on the key elements of the
restoration plan. Another benefit of the
permittee's obtaining tentative approval on a
concept plan is the ability to place an order from
a supplier for necessary plant species and
quantities while the final plan is under
preparation and review. The plant materials
will, thus, be available when plans are ready for
implementation, and substitution of other than
appropriate species will be avoided.
Following tentative approval of the
conceptual riparian revegetation plan, a final
riparian revegetation plan is prepared and
submitted for agency review and final approval.
A suggested format and contents for a final
(detailed) riparian revegetation plan is presented
as Appendix II. After receiving approval of the
final revegetation plan those who will be putting
the restoration work out to bid must prepare
contract specifications and bid documents.
Sample conceptual and final riparian
revegetation plan outlines are presented in this
chapter as an aid to 404 personnel responsible for
the review and approval of restoration plans.
They identify those considerations which
generally must be addressed to plan a successful
riparian restoration project. These outlines can
be used as checklists for determining that the
necessary steps have been taken by project
planners to ensure successful plan
implementation. The outlines may also prove
valuable as guidelines for persons who are
required to submit riparian revegetation plans
but are unfamiliar with the type and extent of
information which should be included.
RIPARIAN PLANT MATERIALS FOR
REVEGETATION
The distribution and ecology of riparian
plant species in the Western United States is
discussed in many of the professional papers
contained in the conference proceedings
previously cited. Another body of literature
which more directly addresses the concerns of
restoration ecologists and horticulturists deals
with the selection, propagation, installation, and
maintenance of riparian plant species at
revegetation sites. These references (Appendix
III) are useful in the preparation of riparian
revegetation plans and contract specifications.
Some of these citations address plant
distributions and habitat requirements and will
be useful in making decisions regarding
appropriate plant selection. Some papers focus on
propagation techniques in general or specific
propagation methods for certain riparian species.
Also included are references discussing
planting techniques and measures required for
the proper care of these riparian species through
the establishment period. Many of the references
included in Appendix III contain information on
418
-------
the growth characteristics of riparian species,
which can often be a deciding factor in plant
selection, and the avoidance of maintenance
problems, especially when designing urban
stream restoration projects. There are, of course,
many other fine field guides of native flora,
which have not been included in Appendix III,
which will also be valuable in making decisions
on the appropriate plant pallette. It should be
remembered that availability of the specified
plant materials is critical to the execution of the
restoration design.
Fortunately, many nurseries now include
several riparian tree and shrub species as part of
their regular stock. However, many riparian
plants still are not readily available or are
available only in very small quantities at
commercial nurseries. Depending upon the size
of the project and the species composition, the
quantities needed may often exceed quantity
levels normally stocked by nurseries. However,
many native plant nurseries are willing to
contract-grow most species. As a rule, a full year
or more lead time should be anticipated between
ordering plant materials and their availability
for installation. Another factor to consider when
deciding whether to contract grow or purchase
available plants is "ecological purity"; nursery
stock rarely is composed of local genetic
material. Information on seed collection and
propagation is also available from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Schopmeyer 1974)
and the Soil Conservation Service plant material
laboratories.
RIPARIAN
RESTORATION/REVEGETATION
LITERATURE
A wide variety of riparian restoration
projects have been reported in the literature. The
annotated bibliography (Appendix IV) included
with this chapter contains 20 references. They
have been included to give the reader an
awareness of the variety of goals, objectives, and
approaches to riparian restoration and the
complexity of expertise, planning, and analysis
required in the design and implementation of a
successful riparian restoration project.
Appendix V contains 75 additional
references which document the planning, design,
installation, and maintenance of riparian
restoration projects in the Western United States
(with emphasis on California). Selection of
helpful references can be based on similarities
with the region in which the documented
restoration project occurred, the type of stream,
the type of riparian community, the type of
associated upland habitat, target wildlife species,
environmental conditions (climate, groundwater
levels, frequency of flooding) and so forth.
Those who wish to stay abreast of current
developments and activities in the field of
restoration ecology may wish to read Restoration
and Management Notes (R&MN), the journal of
the Society for Ecological Restoration. R&MN is
prepared by the University of Wisconsin
Arboretum staff (editor, William R. Jordan, III)
and is published by the University of Wisconsin
Press. Summaries of riparian restoration
projects have been contained in many of the
semiannual issues since R&MN's inception in
1981.
RIPARIAN
RESTORATION/REVEGETATION
PROJECT PROFILES
The design and installation of riparian
restoration projects followed closely upon the
heels of our renewed concern over the magnitude
of loss of riparian habitat in the western United
States. During the past 10 years several hundred
riparian restoration projects have been
implemented in California (Stanley et al. in
press.) and southeastern Oregon. Some of these
projects have been experimental, with the goal of
perfecting effective and cost-efficient means of
re-establishing riparian plant species. Often the
project goal has been to restore or enhance habitat
values for riparian dependent bird species which
are either endangered or of concern. Numerous
stream restoration projects have included the
re-establishment of riparian vegetation to
stabilize streambanks, to provide shade and
cover for fish, and to reduce siltation for the
enhancement of fishery habitat. Some restoration
projects have focused on the re-establishment of
favorable environmental conditions for the
natural regrowth of riparian vegetation (such as
restoring higher ground water tables achieved
through the installation of grade stabilization
structures) while at the same time preventing
controllable habitat loss (such as the use of
temporary fencing for the exclusion of livestock).
Many riparian revegetation projects have been
designed as mitigation for project impacts;
especially for flood control and channel
improvement projects, transportation (highway
and bridge construction) projects, and industrial
and residential development. Many of the
riparian restoration projects in urban areas have
had the dual goals of habitat improvement and
enhancement of the aesthetic environment. The
Soil Conservation Service and other public
agencies have been planting riparian vegetation
for many years in connection with streambank
stabilization projects and now are promoting the
use of riparian vegetation in biotechnical bank
protection measures.
The project profiles presented in Appendix VI
represent a cross-section of riparian restoration
projects in California and southeastern Oregon.
419
-------
Only those projects which have been partially or
entirely installed are included although it
is recognized that there are many possibly more
significant projects which are presently in the
planning phase or which have been planned but
not yet implemented. The projects profiled
include a wide variety of geographic areas,
elevations, and habitat types. The 40 riparian
restoration projects described in these profiles
are located in 23 different counties in California
and 2 in Oregon. They range in elevation from
near sea level along the coast to over 7,500 feet in
the Sierra. Habitat types being restored include
many of the 34 different types of riparian and
bottomland communities described by the
California Department of Fish and Game
(Holland 1986). They are adjacent to many
different stream types (as per Rosgen 1985).
They include a wide range in project size from
0.3 acre to over 400 acres and from 300 linear feet
of streambank to over 10 miles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of John P. Rieger of the California
Department of Transportation, San Diego, for his
contributions to this chapter. Mr. Rieger drafted
a number of the annotations for the bibliography
and prepared the profiles for southern California
revegetation projects. A number of other
professionals assisted with the preparation of the
project profiles, including Bertin Anderson with
the Revegetation and Wildlife Center; Frank
Chan and Roland Risser with the Pacific Gas
and Electric Company; Wayne Elmore with the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management; Bruce Follansbee of LSA
Associates; Don Engler with the Marin County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Dr. Bernard Goldner of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District; John Key with the U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management; Jim King formerly with the
California Department of Water Resources and
presently with the California State Coastal
Conservancy; Nancy Reichard and Sungnome
Madrone with the Redwood Community Action
Agency; Skip Mills with the Sacramento District
Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Johnathan Oldham and Brad Valentine with the
Kings River Conservation District; Ron Schultze
and Ralph Blair with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; John
Sully with the California Department of
Transportation; Greg Sutter and Steve Chainey
with Jones and Stokes Associates; Ronald Tiller
and Tom Griggs with The Nature Conservancy;
Leah Wills and Mike Kossow with the Plumas
Corporation; and Fred Wollin and Rick Baker of
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. I especially wish to thank
my secretary, Marleah Scott, for typing the
project profiles and bibliographies and my staff,
Michael Marangio and William Lapaz, for
assisting with the development and editing of
these materials.
LITERATURE CITED
Abell, D. (Ed.). In press. California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990s. September 22-24,1988. U.S.
Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Brinson, M.M., B.L. Swift, R.C. Plantico, and J.S.
Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their Ecology
and Status. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/
OB&STJ17.
Holland, RJ1. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the
Terrestrial Communities of California. State of
California, The Resources Agency, Department of
Fish and Game.
Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, PJ. Ffolliott,
and RJS. Hamre (Eds.). 1985. Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, General
Technical Report RM-120.
Johnson, R.R. and D.A. Jones (Eds.). 1977. Importance,
Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat:
A Symposium. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-43.
Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick (Eds.). 1978.
Strategies for Protection and Management of
Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian
Ecosystems. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report WO-12. Washington,
D.C.
Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rich, F.B. Samson, and
R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian
ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bull.
100(2)272-284.
Motroni, R. 1980. The Importance of Riparian Zones to
Terrestrial Wildlife: An Annotated Bibliography.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Ecological Services, Sacramento, California.
420
-------
Ohmart, R.D. and B.W. Anderson. 1986. Riparian
Habitat, p. 169-199. In A.W. Cooperrider, RJ. Boyd,
and H.R. Stuart (Eds.), Inventory and Monitoring of
Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land
Management Service Center, Denver Colorado.
Platts, W.S., C. Maour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L.
Bufford, P. Cupin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper,
G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R.
Sedell, and J. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for Evaluating
Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, General Technical
Report INT-221.
Raedeke, K.J. (Ed.). 1988. Streamside Management:
Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions.
Proceedings of Symposium. Institute of Forest
Resources, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington.
Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system, p. 91-
95. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F.
Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-120.
Sands, A. (Ed.). 1977. Riparian Forests in California:
Their Ecology and Conservation. Institute of
Ecology Publication No. 15, University of California,
Davis, California.
Simcox, D.E. and E.H. Zube. 1985. Arizona Riparian
Areas: A Bibliography. School of Renewable Natural
Resources, College of Agriculture, University of
Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.
Stanley, J.T., J. Rieger, and A. Sands. In press. A
survey of riparian restoration projects in California.
In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24,1988. U.S.
Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.). 1984.
California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation
and Productive Management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Warner, R.E. and KM. Hendrix. 1985. Riparian
Resources of the Central Valley and California
Desert. State of California, The Resources Agency,
Department of Fish and Game.
421
-------
APPENDIX L INFORMATION NEEDED
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY
(CONCEPTUAL LEVEL) RIPARIAN REVEGETATION PLAN
Because of the effort involved in preparing a
detailed riparian revegetation plan, it is often
appropriate to first review a preliminary, conceptual
level, plan. A more detailed, final, riparian
revegetation plan can then be prepared following
approval of the guidelines presented in the preliminary
plan. A preliminary, or conceptual level, riparian
revegetation plan generally should contain the
following information:
1. A map of the area(s) which are to be re vegetated.
2. A brief statement of project goala and objectives.
3. A list of the acceptable plant species to be installed
(depending upon timing and availability) and a
preliminary estimate of the amount of each
required.
4 A schematic planting plan showing: a) planting
zones which will be revegetated with the
appropriate plant materials for use in each zone; b)
desired percent composition of plant species to be
planted in each area and guidelines for plant
spacing and planting density.
5. A discussion of major site improvements required
before installation and a preliminary grading
and drainage plan.
6. Identification of any major constraints.
7. A preliminary cost estimate for each of the major
project components (final plan preparation, site
preparation, purchase of plant materials, plant
installation, establishment period maintenance,
etc.).
423
-------
APPENDIX H: SUGGESTED FORMAT AND CONTENTS
FOR A FINAL (DETAILED) RIPARIAN REVEGETATION PLAN
A final re vegetation plan for riparian restoration
should contain the following information, as
appropriate. The depth of background analysis,
thoroughness of planning, and level of detail for pre-
sentation of each of the plan components will depend
upon a number of circumstances. For example,
riparian revegetation plans which will be accompanied
by specifications for competitive bid by contractors will
need to be presented iu much more detail than plans
which are intended for installation on private property
using volunteer labor under the direction of advisors.
Regardless of the level of detail of plan presentation
some consideration must be given to each of the
following topics in order to ensure that the plan is well
conceived, cost effective, and will result in the
successful establishment of riparian vegetation.
INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of goals and objectives.
2. Location map(s) showing project site.
3. Map or plan showing areas which will be
revegetated.
4. Discussion of any permit conditions or
requirements affecting revegetation design and
plant selection.
5. Rationale for design (i.e., database used to select
plant pallette, plant composition, planting
densities, pattern, etc.).
ANALYSIS OF SITE CONDITIONS
1. Laboratory analysis and evaluation of soil
samples.
2. Description of soils and soil moisture.
3. Discussion of soil problems and need for
correction.
4. Summary of available information on depth to
groundwater and/or the results of field tests
(piezometer monitoring).
5. Evaluation of rainfall data (as it may affect plant
selection, choice of propagule, irrigation
requirements, etc.).
6. Anticipated extent and duration of
flooding/inundation.
7. Analysis of the effect of slope and aspect of areas
to be planted on plant selection and planting plan.
8. Determination of availability of water for
irrigation.
9. Evaluation of the effect of the above site conditions
on plant selection, installation methods, etc.
PLANT MATERIALS
1. List of plant species which will be installed
(sometimes referred to as the plant palette).
2. Selected or preferred type of planting stock (i.e.,
propagules) to be utilized (i.e., seeds, cuttings,
rooted cuttings, liners, tublings, 1 gallon
containers, etc.).
3. Amount of each type of plant material required.
4 Available/recommended commercial source(s) of
plant materials.
5. Localities available for collection of plant
materials (seeds, cuttings, etc.).
6. Lead time required for the procurement of plant
materials.
7. Suitable (recommended) planting time period.
PLANTING DESIGN AND LAYOUT
This is sometimes called planting plan.
1. Recommended plant mixes/planting associations.
2. Zones to be planted (with appropriate mixes).
3. Desired percent composition for each plant species.
4 Plant spacing and planting density.
5. Design considerations (clustering of plants, etc.)
6. Recommended seed mix and application rate for
herbaceous ground cover (where appropriate for
erosion control, weed control, habitat
enhancement, etc.).
SITE PREPARATION
1. Grading and drainage plans.
2. Weed control.
3. Removal of invasive non-native plants.
4 Pest control.
& Tillage.
& Soil augmentation.
425
-------
IRRIGATION SYSTEM (where appropriate)
1. Type of irrigation (e.g., overhead sprinkler, flood
irrigation, drip emitter, hand watering, etc.).
2. System layout and specifications.
a Installation.
INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS
1. Purchasing, transportation, and storage of plant
materials on-site.
2. Collection and handling of on-site material.
a Lay-out (flagging of planting locations).
4. Methods of installation (e.g. water jet, augered
holes).
5. Schematic drawings of installation procedures.
& Application of fertilizer in planting holes.
7. Watering basins, etc.
& Timing and coordination.
PLANT PROTECTION
These should be implemented at the time of plant
installation and/or during the establishment period.
1. Browse protection.
2. Seed protection.
a Staking.
4 Sun protection.
5. Insect protection (e.g., grasshoppers).
6, Weed Control (e.g., fabric, mulch, etc.).
ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD
MAINTENANCE
1. Length of establishment period.
2. Control of weed competition.
3. Acceptable level of mortality and required
replacement of dead plants.
4 Supplemental planting of additional areas and/or
species not available in the first year.
5. Frequency and amount of irrigation (including
monitoring of necessity for irrigation).
6. Other maintenance (e.g., fertilization, thinning of
direct seed sites, etc.).
7. Maintenance schedule.
8. Potential for vandalism and strategy for control of
vandalism.
MONITORING PROCEDURE (where required)
1. Documentation procedures during installation.
2, Monitoring of plant survival, growth, and vigor.
a Monitoring of environmental conditions.
4 Photodocumentation of results.
fit Periodic sampling of composition and cover.
6. Monitoring of wildlife use.
COST ANALYSIS
1. Labor and equipment needed for site preparation
and installation.
2, Establishment period maintenance costs.
a Itemized budget.
426
-------
APPENDIX HI: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE
PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION, PROPAGATION, PLANTING, CARE
AND GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANT MATERIALS SUITABLE
FOR USE IN THE REVEGETATION OF RIPARIAN SITES
IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES WITH EMPHASIS ON CALIFORNIA,
Abrams, L. 1944. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States.
Stanford University Press. Stanford University,
California.
Bakker, E. 1984. An Island Called California.
University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Harbour, M.G. and J. Major (Eds.). 1977. Terrestrial
Vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, New York.
Barry, W.J. 1988. Some uses of riparian species in the
landscape and for revegetation, p. 164-168. In J.P.
Rieger and B JL Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium. San
Diego, California. Society for Ecology Restoration
and Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Barry, W.J. and R.M. Sachs. 1968. Vegetative
Propagation of Quaking Aspen. Cal. Ag. 22(1 ):14-16.
Butterfield, H.M. 1965. Shrubs for Coast Counties in
California. University of California, Agricultural
Extension Service.
Chan, FJ. 1974. Direct seeding—from experimentation
to application, p. 44-48. In W.C. Sharp and T.E.
Adams, Jr. (Eds.), Erosion Control Symposium
Proceedings, U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conservation
Service and Univ. of California, Cooperative
Extension, Sacramento, California.
Chan, F J., R.W. Harris, and AT. Leiser. 1977. Direct
Seeding Woody Plants in the Landscape. University
of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Leaflet 2577.
County of Los Angeles. 1974. Green Belts for Brush Fire
Protection and Soil Erosion Control in Hillside
Residential Areas. Department of Arboreta and
Botanic Gardens, Arcadia, California.
Crampton, B. 1974. Grasses in California. University
of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles,
California.
Cummings, M.W., M.H. Kimball, and W.M.
Longhurst. 1971. Deer-Resistant Plants for
Ornamental Use. Division of Agricultural Sciences,
University of California, Berkeley, California.
Daar, S., N. Hardesty, R. Hileman, D. Michaelson, and
W. Olkowski. 1979. Vegetation checklist of
potentially useful plant species for introduction into
Dept. of Water Resources level ecosystems, p. 42-59.
In Third Integrated Pest Management Report for
Division of Planning, Department of Water
Resources. Center for the Integration of Applied
Sciences, John Muir Institute, Berkeley, California.
nurseries, seeds, and sales. Fremontia 10(3)25-28.
Doran, W.L, 1957. Propagation of Woody Plants by
Cuttings. Experiment Station Bulletin 491.
University of Massachusetts, College of Agriculture,
Amhurst, Massachusetts.
Edmunds, L.L. 1943. Native Plants for Ground Cover.
Journal of the California Horticultural Society
4:5^63.
Emery, D. 1964. Seed propagation of native California
plants. Leaflets of the Santa Barbara Botanic
Garden. Santa Barbara, California. l(10):82-95.
Evans, M. 1984. Revegetation nursery stock availability
and supply problems-the propagator's perspective.
In J-P. Rieger and BA. Steele (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Native Plant Revegetation Symposium.
California Native Plant Society, San Diego,
California.
Everett, P.C. 1957. A Summary of the Culture of
California Plants. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, Claremont, California.
Ferguson, B. (Ed.) No date. All About Trees. Ortho
Books, Chevron Chemical Company, San Francisco,
California.
Ferris, R.S. 1968. Native Shrubs of the San Francisco
Bay Region. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Powells, H.A. 1965. Silvics of Forest Trees of the
United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 271.
Prepared by the Division of Timber Management
Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Washington, D.C.
Griffin, J.R. and W.B. Critchfield. 1972. The
Distribution of Forest Trees in California. U.S.
Dept. Agric., Forest Service Research Paper
PSW-82. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Hardesty, NJM. 1984. Oak Woodland Preservation and
Land Planning: Portola Valley Ranch. Hardesty
Associates. Menlo Park, California.
Harlacher, R.A. 1984. Production of native plant
materials for wildlife management programs, p.
62-69. In J.P. Rieger and B.A. Steele (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Native Plant Revegetation
Symposium, California Native Plant Society, San
Diego, California.
Harris, R.W. 1983. Arboriculture, Care of Trees,
Shrubs, and Vines in the Landscape. Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Danielsen, C. 1982. Sources of native plants: Hartman, H.T. and D.E. Keser. No date. Plant
427
-------
Propagation, Principles and Practices.
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Prentice
Heebner, CJ1. and MJ. Bergener. 1983. Red Alder: A
Bibliography with Abstracts. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report
PNW-161.
Henry, W.P., N.L. Sodman, A.R. Black, R. Clark, B.
Holton, S.L. Granholm, W.D. Kanemoto, and R.E.
Palmer. 1986. Riparian Planting Design Manual
for the Sacramento River—Chico Landing to
Collinsville. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, Sacramento, California.
Hepting, GM. 1971. Diseases of Forest and Shade
Trees of the United States. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook
No. 386. Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Heritage Oaks Committee. 1977. Native Oaks-Our
Valley Heritage. A Guide to the Botany, Care, and
Planting of Native Oaks in the Sacramento Valley.
Sacramento County Office of Education,
Sacramento, California.
Horton, J.S. 1949. Trees and Shrubs for Erosion
Control on Southern California Mountains.
California Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry, Sacramento, California.
Howell, J.T. 1970. Mar in Flora. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1964. The Vascular
Plants of Monterey County, California. University
of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Jepson, W.L. 1923-1925. A Manual of the Flowering
Plants of California. Associated Students Store,
University of California, Berkeley, California.
Jepson, W.L. 1923. The Trees of California.
Associated Students Store, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Labadie, E.L. 1978. Native Plants for Use in the
California Landscape. Sierra City Press. Sierra
City, California.
Landis, T.D. and E.J. Simonich. 1984. Producing
native plants as container seedlings, p. 16-25. In
Proc. Intermountain Nurseryman's Association
1983 Conference, August 8-11, 1983, Las Vegas,
Nevada. UJ3. Dept. Agric., Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-168.
Leiser, A.T. and JJ. Nussbaum. 1974. Trees and
shrubs for recreation areas, p. 49-66. In W.C. Sharp
and T.E. Adams, Jr. (Eds.), Erosion Control
Symposium Proceedings, U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil
Conservation Service and Univ. of California
Cooperative Extension, June 11-12, 1974,
Sacramento, California.
Lenz, L.W. 1977. Native Plants for California Gardens.
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. Claremont,
California.
Lenz, L.W. and J. Dourley. 1981. California Native
Trees and Shrubs for Garden and Environmental
Use in Southern California and Adjacent Areas.
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. Claremont,
California.
Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L Nelson. 1951.
American Wildlife & Plants-a Guide to Wildlife
Food Habits. Dover Publications, Inc. New York,
New York.
Mason, H.L. 1969. A Flora of the Marshes of
California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
Mathias, M.E., H. Lewis, and M.H. Kimball. 1974.
Native California Plants for Ornamental Use.
Cooperative Extension, University of California.
McClintock, E. and A.T. Leiser. 1979. An Annotated
Checklist of Woody Ornamental Plants of
California, Oregon and Washington. Division of
Agricultural Sciences, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
McMinn, H.E. 1939. An Illustrated Manual of
California Shrubs. University of California Press.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
McMinn, H.E. 1948. Sixteen Choice California Woody
Plants Used in Landscaping. Journal of the
California Horticultural Society 9tfO-74.
McMinn, H.E. and E. Maino. 1947. An Illustrated
Manual of Pacific Coast Trees. University of
California Press. Berkeley, California.
Metcalf, W. 1959. Native Trees of the San Francisco
Bay Region. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Mirov, N.T. and CJ. Kraebel. 1939. Collecting and
Handling Seeds of Wild Plants. Forestry Pub. No.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Mirov, N.T. and C J. Kraebel. 1945. Additional Data on
Collecting and Propagating Seeds of California
Wild Plants. California Forest and Range
Experiment Station. Berkeley, California.
Monsen, S.B. 1981. Plants for revegetation of riparian
sites within the Intermountain Region, p. 83-89. In
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service Technical Report
INT-152.
Munz, PA. and DJ). Keck. 1973. A California Flora
and Supplement. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Peattie, D.C. 1953. A Natural History of Western Trees.
The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Peterson, V. 1966. Native Trees of Southern California.
University of California Press.
Platts, W.S., C. Maour, GJ). Booth, M. Bryant, J.L.
Bufford, P. Cupin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper,
G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R.
Sedell, and J. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for Evaluating
Riparian Habitats with Applications to
Management. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report INT-221.
428
-------
Raven, P.H. 1966. Native Shrubs of Southern
California. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Robbins, W.W., M.K. Bellue, and W.S. Ball. 1970.
Weeds of California. State of California,
Sacramento, California.
Roof, J.B. 1959. Guide to the Plant Species of the
Regional Parks Botanic Garden. East Bay
Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Rowntree, L. 1936. Hardy Californians. The McMillan
Company, New York, New York.
Rowntree, L. 1939. Flowering Shrubs of California.
Stanford University Press.
Sampson, A.W. and B.S Jespersen. 1963. California
Range, Brushland and Browse Plants. University
of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
California Agriculture Experiment Station,
Extension Service.
Saratoga Horticultural Foundation. 1979. Selected
California Native Plants with Commercial Sources.
Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Saratoga,
California.
Saratoga Horticultural Foundation. 1980. Selected
California Native Plants in Color. Saratoga
Horticultural Foundation, Saratoga, California.
Saratoga Horticulture Foundation. 1982. • Success List of
Water Conserving Plants. Saratoga Horticultural
Foundation, Saratoga, California.
Sargent, C.S. 1961. Manual of the Trees of North
America (exclusive of Mexico), Volume One.
Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Sargent, C.S. 1961. Manual of the Trees of North
America (exclusive of Mexico), Volume Two.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
Schettler, S. and M. Smith. 1979. Nursery propagation
of California Oaks, p. 143-148. In T. Plumb (Ed.),
Ecology, Management, and Utilization of
California Oaks. Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station General Technical
Report. PSW-44.
Schmidt, M.G. 1980. Growing California Native
Plants. University of California Press. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California.
Schmidt, R.A., Sr. (Ed.) 1983. Management of
Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Associations in
Colorado. The Wildlife Society, Colorado Chapter.
Schopmeyer, C. S. 1974. Seeds of Woody Plants in the
United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.O.
Singer, S. 1981. Groundcover-A Planting Guide for
Erosion Control in Santa Cruz County. U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. Santa Cruz County Resource
Conservation District, Sequel, California.
State of California. 1979, 1981. Bulletin 209: Plants
of California Landscapes. State of California, The
Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources.
Sacramento, California.
Stiles, W.A. m. 1975. A Landscaping Guide to Native
and Naturalized Plants for Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
California.
Sudworth, G.B. 1908. Forest Trees of the Pacific Slope.
United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Sunset. 1979. New Western Garden Book.
Publishing Co., Menlo Park, California.
Lane
Thomas, J.H. 1975. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains
of California. Stanford University Press.
Stanford, California.
Thomas, JH. and DH. Parnell. 1974. Native Shrubs of
the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences. 1979. Landscape Trees for the Great
Central Valley of California. Leaflet 2580.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences. 1978. Native California Plants for
Ornamental Use. Leaflet 2831.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences. 1984. Oaks on Home Grounds. Leaflet
2783.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences. 1983. Plant Your Own Oak Tree. Leaflet
21334.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences. 1983. Ten Common Questions About
Forest Tree Planting. Leaflet 21368.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1972-1976. Management and Uses of California
Blackberry, California Rose, California Sycamore,
White Alder. U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Cons. Serv.,
Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1977. Wildlife Habitat
Leaflet No. 6-Willow, Cottonwood. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
California Dept. of Fish and Game.
U.S. National Park Service. 1980. Technical
Specifications for Erosion Control Measures and
Watershed Rehabilitation. Redwood National Park,
California.
Van Dersal, W.R. 1942. Ornamental American
Shrubs. Oxford University Press, New York,
London, Toronto.
Van Rensselaer, M. and H.E. McMinn. 1942.
Ceanothus. Gilleck Press, Berkeley, California.
Western Nature Study. 1930. Trees of valley and
foothill. San Jose State College, San Jose,
California.
429
-------
APPENDIX IV: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOME KEY
LITERATURE PERTAINING TO RIPARIAN
RESTORATION/REVEGETATION IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Riparian
revegetation as a mitigating process in stream and
river restoration, p. 41-79. In JA. Gore (Ed.). The
Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and
Experience. Butterworth Publishers. Boston,
Massachusetts.
This chapter describes some of the early
revegetation efforts performed by the authors on the
Lower Colorado River. Before discussing the
techniques of the revegetation, a discussion of avian
habitat analysis and rodent habitat relationships is
presented. This forms the data basis for decision in
the restoration design. General predictions are
concluded from the database. Species preference was
identified and species richness predicted upon species
composition of the riparian habitat. Specific discussion
concerning the actual installation of a project on the
Colorado River follows, including deep tillage (to 3 m.)
which is directly related to increased survivorship.
Shorter discussions are included which address the
impact of weeds, eliminating salt cedar, density of
food and irrigation requirements, growth and survival
of the vegetation, and avian uses of revegetation. A
discussion of itemized costs concludes the chapter. This
latter section is valuable from the standpoint of items
to consider or include in the development of a design.
The costs, while representative of the operations on the
Colorado River, do not reflect fair market wages,
union labor, or general contractor's overhead. The
costs can at least be used on a percentage level in
estimating costs using current costs. The needs of
monitoring and accurate data gathering are addressed
so that desired objectives can be met. An outline is
included describing the procedures involved in
planning for mitigation. This chapter covers a lot of
information that directly relates to the designing and
installation of a restoration site. The chapter is limited
in that some unique situations exist on the Colorado
River which do not occur everywhere (i.e., soil density,
need for deep tillage). Almost universal is the need for
control of weeds and exotics, especially salt cedar,
away from the Colorado River. In addition to the
installation and irrigation discussion, the itemization
forms a sound foundation from which most
revegetation projects can be developed.
Anderson, B.W., J. Disano, D.L. Brooks, and R.D.
Ohmart. 1984. Mortality and growth of cottonwood
on dredge-spoil, p. 438-444. In RJ3. Warner, and
KM. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive Manage-
ment. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Summarizes results of test plantings of Fremont
cottonwood rooted cuttings on a 30 ha dredge-spoil site
next to the Colorado River (southeast of Palo Verde,
Imperial County, California). Reports on the survival
and growth of trees planted in angered holes of various
depths and for controls planted without any deep
tillage. Also evaluates the effects of varying duration
of drip irrigation combined with various depths of
tillage on the survival and growth of cottonwood trees.
Makes recommendations regarding type and size of
plant material, soil conditions, size and depth of
augered holes, planting time period, fertilization, the
amount and length of irrigation and weed and
herbivore control.
Anderson, B.W., R.D. Ohmart, and J. Disano. 1978.
Revegetating the riparian floodplain for wildlife, p.
318-331. In Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Galloway Gardens,
Georgia.
Presents results of a two-phased study of riparian
vegetation-wildlife interactions begun in 1973 in the
lower reaches of the Colorado River. Summarizes data
concerning the vegetative parameters associated with
large avian densities and diversities along the
Colorado River. Presents a model for riparian
revegetation designed to enhance wildlife value by
maximizing foliage height diversity and horizontal
foliage diversity. Presents data on growth and
survival at the end of one year for Goodings willows,
cottonwoods, honey mesquite, palo verde, quail bush,
and salt bush. Summarizes faunal data collected after
monitoring the revegetation site for one year.
Apple, L.L. 1985. Riparian habitat restoration and
beavers, p. 489-490. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell,
D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Eds.),
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-120.
Reports on results of a study using relocated beavers
as a management tool for stabilizing and improving
degraded riparian habitats in southwestern Wyoming.
Evaluates effectiveness of providing relocated beavers
with aspen trees and artificial materials for dam
construction. Describes the process wherein stream
flow velocities and sediment transport are reduced and
the water table is elevated, resulting in re-
establishment of the riparian community.
Clay, D.H. 1984. High mountain meadow restoration,
p. 477-479. In R.E. Warner, and KM. Hendrix
(Eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Discusses techniques employed by the Soil
Conservation Service for stabilizing streams and
restoring riparian vegetation in high mountain wet
meadows damaged by livestock grazing. Outlines
procedure for the installation of rock sills in order to
cause sediment to fill in eroded channels, thereby
restoring a high water table necessary for the growth of
wet meadow vegetation and streambank willows.
Gives cost of a typical rock grade-stabilization
structure and shows before and after photos of a project
site on Willow Creek in Modoc County, California.
431
-------
Goldner, B.H. 1988. The Alamitos Creek revegetation
project: the lessons learned, p. 185-192. In J.P.
Rieger and BJL Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second.Native Plant Revegetation Symposium.
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Riparian revegetation on a levee system in an
urban environment is analyzed, including design
features, construction issues, and establishment.
Negative and positive results are discussed, including
the need for community support to reduce vandalism,
the major source of problems with this project.
Contractor selection procedures may insure a more
reliable planting effort. As many projects occur in
urban settings, the experiences discussed can help
eliminate problems and project constraints.
Goldner, BH. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts
associated with structurally modified flood control
channels, p. 445-451. In THE. Warner, and K.M.
Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Describes the history of Santa Clara Valley Water
District's program for revegetation along flood control
channels in Santa Clara County, California.
Discusses plant selection, design concepts, irrigation
systems and establishment period maintenance for
four "landscape projects" installed in 1976. Evaluates
plant survival, growth rates, and community
acceptance of two revegetation projects with buried drip
irrigation installed in 1979. Describes plant selection,
design and layout, site preparation, irrigation system
and maintenance for a revegetation project installed
along a gabion-lined excavated earth channel in 1981.
Evaluates plant survival and vigor at the end of the
first three months.
Granholm, S.L., WJ>. Henry, W.D. Kanemotp, and
RJ3. Palmer. 1988. Designing riparian planting^ to
mimic native forests within four hydrologic zones
along the Sacramento River, p. 198-212. In J.P.
Rieger and BJL Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium.
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
A detailed approach to designing a riparian system
within the constraints of a major river system levee
facility on the Sacramento River from Chico to
Collinsville. Discusses rationale for spacing, pattern
of spacing, and species selection in relation to the
seasonal river elevations. Incorporates historic
habitats present along the river as a model against
which designs can be established. Distinct species
compositions occur in the four identified hydrologic
zones. These include, from lowest elevation, Willow
Scrub, Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Mixed Riparian
Forest, and Valley Oak Riparian Forest. Lists of
species and appropriate zones for planting along with
graphics illustrating the elevations and pattern of
spacing complete this chapter. The design approach of
this chapter should be helpful in designing riparian
habitat in areas where severe fluctuations and/or
topography exist on the restoration site.
Gray, VS. and A.T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope
Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, Inc., New York.
A handbook for professionals involved in the
design of measures to stabilize slopes and prevent soil
loss. Explains how vegetation and structures can be
used together in attractive, environmentally
compatible, and cost-effective ways for slope protection
and bank stabilization. Describes the design and
installation of a wide variety of biotechnical slope
protection systems. Provides installation diagrams
illustrating the feasibility and techniques for
incorporating live vegetation into structural-
mechanical measures to stabilize streambanks.
Discusses site preparation and installation procedures
for quasi-vegetative methods (e.g., contour wattling,
brush layering, live staking, brush matting) involving
the use of live and/or dead plant material to stabilize
slopes and provide a favorable environment for the
establishment of permanent vegetative cover. Gives
numerous examples involving the use of riparian
plant species in bank stabilization and gully control
measures.
Hall, R.S. and A.R. Bammann. 1988. Riparian
restoration technique* on Arizona's public lands, p.
178-184. In JJ>. Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium. San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
This paper documents briefly the BLM's efforts in
riparian management in Arizona. Several techniques
and approaches in the southwest desert are discussed,
incorporating constraints such as grazing pressure,
flooding, limited size of project, and availability of
materials. A general background of riparian habitat
occurring in Arizona is followed by the philosophical
approach BLM has taken beginning in the 1970's.
Current techniques and specific projects illustrate the
program conducted by the BLM. Specific programs are
highlighted for Yuma, Safford, the Arizona Strip, and
Phoenix. BLM biologists consider livestock grazing as
the most significant influence in riparian habitats.
Henry, WJ>., N.L. Sodman, AJl. Black, R. Clark, B.
Holton, S.L. Granholm, W.D. Kanemoto, and RJS.
Palmer. 1986. Riparian Planting Design Manual
for the Sacramento River, Chico Landing to
Collinsville. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, Sacramento, Calif.
Provides guidelines for the development of plans
and specifications for the revegetation of riparian
corridors along the Sacramento River. Describes
natural vegetation within the project area and
identifies specific goals of the riparian planting
program. Recommends appropriate riparian trees,
shrubs and vines to be used in the planting of each of
four hydrological zones (terraces) at different heights
above the river. Outlines procedure for the
determination of the hydrological zone(s) at each
planting site based on the relationship of land
elevation with flood levels and duration. Recommends
appropriate planting densities and spacing patterns for
each plant species. Gives specific information on the
ecological characteristics, plant characteristics,
planting and propagation techniques for each of the 26
432
-------
woody species (12 trees, 11 shrubs, 3 vines)
recommended for riparian plantings at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' project sites along the Sacramento
River. Presents guidelines for the preparation of
revegetation plans and contract specifications.
Lines, I.L., Jr., JJt. Carlson, and RA. Corthell. 1978.
Repairing flood-damaged streams in the Pacific
Northwest. In Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Calloway Gardens,
Georgia.
An overview of vegetative streambank stabilization
treatments used by the Soil Conservation Service in
Oregon and Washington. Describes emergency
watershed protection work performed in 5 counties in
Oregon and 13 counties in Washington to treat damage
to streambanks in 1975 and 1977. Discusses SCS policy
and philosophy for revising specifications for
streambank protection with an emphasis on reducing
structural work and featuring vegetative measures
which also result in improved fish and wildlife
habitat. Outlines guidelines used for planning 216
bank stabilization projects in Oregon and
Washington. Evaluates success and limitations of the
use of woody revegetation for streambank stabilization.
Also describes combined structural-vegetative
measures. Describes current research evaluating
strains of native plant species to find those with
superior characteristics for streambank stabilization.
Patterson, D.W., C.U. Finch, and G.I. Wilcox. 1984.
Streambank stabilization techniques used by the
Soil Conservation Service in California, p. 452-458.
In R.E. Warner, and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.),
California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conserva-
tion and Productive Management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Provides an overview of combined structural and
vegetative measures used for streambank protection by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service in California. Discusses design and planning
considerations and the cooperative role of SCS
engineers, private landowners, SCS biologists, the
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Identifies opportunities for
the incorporation of vegetation into predominantly
physical protection techniques (grade stabilization
structures, rock riprap, post and wire revetment, rail
and cable revetment, rock and wire revetment, gabion
baskets). Provides guidelines on the use of vegetative
protection techniques including procedures for the
taking and planting of woody cuttings and rooted
woody plants. Gives costs per foot for various types of
revetments and cost per acre for vegetative measures.
Platts, W.S., C. Maour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L.
Bufford, P. Cupin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper,
and G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R.
Sedell, and J. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for Evaluating
Riparian Habitats with Applications to Manage-
ment. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Intel-mountain Research Station. General Tech-
nical Report INT-221.
A comprehensive explanation and evaluation of
state-of-the-art riparian area evaluation methods
available for use by resource specialists in managing,
evaluating, and monitoring riparian conditions
adjacent to streams, lake, ponds and reservoirs.
Includes 16 page section (p. 109-124) entitled "Planting
of Riparian Sites" in which the authors discuss factors
influencing revegetation, restoration by natural
means, site preparation and alterations, seeding
riparian communities, plant selection and uses, and
the planting of woody species. Contains tables
evaluating appropriate plant zones, suitable habitats,
establishment traits, methods of culture, tolerance to
soil salinity and flooding, plantability and
spreadability for 27 species of sedges and rushes, 27
grasses, 18 broadleaf herbs, and 49 woody species
(including 14 willow species) useful in riparian
revegetation.
Rieger, J.P. 1988. California Department of
Transportation riparian restoration projects in San
Diego County, p. 213-220. In JP. Rieger and B.K.
Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium. San Diego,
California. Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
This paper discusses in some detail 3 restoration
projects done on the Sweetwater River (1) and San
Diego River (2). The sites were selected for their
present upland conditions and graded to become part of
the existing riverbed system and therefore subject to
flooding as well as being closer to the groundwater
level. Growth rates for 2 sites indicate a difference of
up to one foot per year. No reasons were identified.
Contracting problems and the relationship of a
restoration project in concert with a construction job
are discussed. Delays in planting contributed to
mortality as well as improper installation. Several
recommendations and experiences are conveyed which
should be helpful in anticipating problems with other
projects. Specific items discussed include grading,
contract plans and specifications, site restrictions,
groundcover testing, growth rates, irrigation, exotics,
tree transplanting, and habitat structure.
Schiechtl, H. 1980. Bioengineering for Land
Reclamation and Conservation. University of
Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta.
World-wide overview of techniques utilizing plant
materials for the stabilization of eroding watershed
slopes. Chapter 3 - Waterway (hydro) Bioengineering
explains the history and methods of installation for a
wide variety of stabilization techniques using live
plant material (most often live brush) for bank and
shore protection and streambed stabilization. Well
illustrated and with numerous photographs.
Specifically addresses the appropriate time for
installation, effectiveness, advantages and
disadvantages, relative cost, application (usefulness)
and maintenance requirements of each technique.
Schultze, RJ. and G.I. Wilcox. 1985. Emergency
measures for streambank stabilization: an
evaluation, p. 59-61. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell,
D.R. Patton, PJ1. Ffolliott, and RJL Hamre (Eds.),
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-120.
433
-------
Reports on the results of 1983 evaluations made by
the U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conservation Service of 29
emergency streambank stabilization projects in
California's central coast area. The 20 projects which
included woody as well as herbaceous vegetation were
evaluated to determine if revegetation measures
accomplished their purpose and the reasons for success
or failure. Based on these observations,
recommendations are made regarding the use of
woody cuttings in future projects that combine
structural and vegetative measures for streambank
restoration.
Stanley, J.T. and WA. Stiles, HI. 1983. Revegetation
Manual for the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District. County of Alameda
Public Works Agency, Hayward, California.
Provides a list of 97 recommended plants (24 trees,
32 shrubs, 21 groundcovers and vines, 10 herbs and
grasses, 10 aquatic and marsh plants) for use in
revegetation of flood control project sites within
Alameda County. Outlines a step-by-step plant selection
process using a series of matrices identifying suitable
plant materials for the geographic area in which the
project site is located, the type of channel which is to be
revegetated, planting locations within the channel
cross-section which are to be revegetated and special
circumstances. Contains data sheets for each of the
ninety-seven (97) recommended plants with specific
information on the appearance, growth, ecological
relationships, wildlife habitat value, erosion control
value, design/landscaping value, adverse charac-
teristics, disease and pest susceptibility, suitable
planting locations, plant requirements, maintenance
requirements, propagation, planting options, planting
procedures, and nursery lead time. Presents
guidelines for the preparation of revegetation plans
and contract specifications.
Swenson, E.A. and C.L. Mullins. 1985. Revegetating
riparian trees in southwestern floodplains, p.
135-138. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton,
P.F. Ffolliott, and RJL Hamre (Eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-120.
Reports on the results of experiments studying the
feasibility of using native oottonwood and willow pole
cuttings to re-establish riparian stands within the
historic floodplain of the Rio Grande, south of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Tested the survival of large
pole cuttings (13-20 feet long) planted in holes drilled to
deep water tables (7-12 feet below ground surface)
versus dormant poles placed at shallower depths. Also
evaluated the relationships between tree survival and
the depth of cutting placement above constant water
tables using lysimeters.
York, J.C. 1985. Dormant stub planting techniques, p.
513-514. In RJt. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton,
P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. UJS. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-120.
Reports on the use of dormant log cuttings of willow
and cottonwood to establish habitat at the toe of a 2,000
foot long levee near Bylas, Arizona. Provides
guidelines for the planting of dormant logs 3-6" in
diameter. Explores potential for the use of dormant
logs for revegetation in difficult situations.
434
-------
APPENDIX V: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE DESCRIBING
RIPARIAN RESTORATION/REVEGETATION PROJECTS, PROGRAMS,
TECHNIQUES AND STANDARDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES
WITH EMPHASIS ON CALIFORNIA.
American Fisheries Society, Western Division. 1982.
The Beat Management Practices for the
Management and Protection of Western Riparian
Stream Ecosystems.
Anderson, B.W. In press. Creating habitat for the
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Cuccvzua americana^- In D.
Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Riparian
revegetation as a mitigating process in stream and
river restoration, p. 41-79. In J.A. Gore (Ed.), The
Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and
Experience. Butterworth Publishers. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Anderson, B.W., W.C. Hunter, and R.D. Ohmart. In
press. Changes from 1977 to 1983 in bird species
using riparian revegetation sites on the lower
Colorado River. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Anderson, B.W. In press. Need for experimentation
associated with desert riparian revegetation
projects. In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian
Systems Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
Davis, California. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Anderson, B.W., J. Disano, D.L. Brooks, and R.D.
Ohmart. 1984. Mortality and growth of cottonwood
on dredge spoil, p. 438-444. In RJS. Warner and
KM. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Anderson, B.W., R.D. Ohmart, and J. Disano. 1978.
Revegetating the riparian fioodplain for wildlife, p.
318-331. In Strategies for Protection and
Management of Fioodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service, General Technical Report WO-12.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1984. Avian Use of
Revegetated Riparian Zones, p. 626-631. In R.E.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and
Productive Management. University of California
Press. Berkeley.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1982. Revegetation
for Wildlife Enhancement Along the Lower
Colorado River. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. Boulder City, Nevada.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1981. Revegetation
Efforts Along the Lower Colorado River. Final
report to U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Boulder City, Nevada.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1979. Riparian
revegetation: an approach to mitigating for a
disappearing habitat in the Southwest, p. 481-487. In
The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop
on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife
Habitats. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-65.
Apple, L.L. 1985. Riparian habitat restoration and
beavers, p. 489-490. In R.R. Johnson, CD. Ziebell,
D.R. Paton, PJ*. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Eds.),
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-120.
Barry, W.J. 1984. Management and protection of
riparian ecosystems in the state park system, p.
758-766. In RE. Warner, and KM. Hendrix (Eds.),
California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Barry, W.J. 1988. Some uses of riparian species in the
landscape and for revegetation, p. 164-168. In JJ?.
Rieger and BJC. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium,
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological Resto-
ration and Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
California Department of Water Resources. 1987.
Origins and Objectives of the Urban Stream
Restoration Program. California Department of
Water Resources, Sacramento.
California Department of Water Resources. 1973.
Sacramento River Levee Revegetation Study, Final
Report, 1968-1973. District Report, Central District,
California Department of Water Resources,
Sacramento.
California Reclamation Board. 1967, revised 1981.
Guide for Vegetation on Project Levees.
California Reclamation Board. 1967, revised 1976.
Levee Encroachment, Guide for Vegetation on
Project Levees.
Capelli, M.H. 1984. San Simeon State Beach: riparian
restoration program, p. 74-81. In JJP. Riger and
B A. Steele (Eds.), Proceedings of the Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium, California Native Plant
Society, San Diego, California.
Carter, L.W. and G.L. Anderson. 1984. Riparian
vegetation on flood control project levees:
constraints and opportunities, p. 548-550. In R.E.
435
-------
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and
Productive Management. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Chaimson, J.F. 1984. Riparian Vegetation Planting for
Flood Control, p. 120-123. In RJE. Warner and KM.
Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive Manage-
ment. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Chainey, S. and S. Mills. In press. Revegetation of
riparian trees and shrubs on alluvial soils along
the upper Sacramento River, 1987-88. In D. Abell
(Ed.), California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988. Davis, California.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Chan, F. In press. Reestablishment of native riparian
species at a disturbed high elevation site. In D.
Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
Davis, California. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Chan, F. 1985. Vegetation Establishment (Pacific Gas
and Electric, San Francisco). Proc. of International
Erosion Control Association Conference XVI,
February 21-22,1986.
Clay, DJEL 1984. High mountain meadow restoration,
p. 477-479. In RJE. Warner and KJM. Hendrix
(Eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Crompacker, D.W. 1985. The Boulder Creek Corridor
projects: riparian ecosystem management in an
urban setting, p. 389-392. la RJR. Johnson, C.D.
Ziebell, DJR. Patton, PJF. Ffolliott, and RJH. Harare
(Eds.), Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S.
Dept. Agric., Forest Service, General Technical
Report RM-120.
Daar, S., W. KHtr, and W. Olkowski. 1984. The role of
vegetation in an integrated pest management
approach to levee management, p. 551-557. In RJE.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and
Productive Management. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Dawson, KJ. 1984. Planting design inventory
techniques for modeling the restoration of native
riparian landscapes, p. 465-470. In RJE. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian
Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Dawson, ELJ. and GJ!. Sutler. 1985. Research issues in
riparian landscape planning, p. 408-412. In RJft.
Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, PJF. Ffolliott,
and RJEL Hamre (Eds.), Riparian Ecosystems and
Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service, General
Technical Report RM-120.
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of
Engineers. 1984. Fish and Wildlife Program for
the Sacramento River Bank Project, California,
First Phase. House Document 98-264.
Department of Water Resources. 1973. Sacramento
River Levee Revegetation Study. Department of
Water Resources Central District, State of
California.
Disano, J., B.W. Anderson, and R.D. Ohmart. 1984.
Irrigation systems for riparian zone revegetation, p.
471-476. In RJE. Warner and KM. Hendrix (Eds.),
California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Elmore, Wayne. In press. Riparian management: ten
streams in ten years. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Elmore, W. In press. The fallacy of structures and the
fortitude of vegetation. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Frazier, J.W., T.W. Beck and SJfc, Robertson. In press.
Ground zero: An approach to recreating forested
riparian areas—the aftermath of the Stanislaus
Complex Fire of 1987. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Fulton, R. 1988. Los Coches mitigation area—a case
study in native plant revegetation, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Los Angeles District, p. 169-177. In
JJP. Reiger and BJK. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Second Native Plant Revegetation
Symposium. San Diego, California. Society for
Ecology Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Goldner, BJH. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts
associated with structurally modified flood control
channels, p. 445-451. In R.E. Warner and K.M.
Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Goldner, BJ3. 1988. The Alamitos Creek revegetation
project-the lessons learned, p. 185-192. In J.P.
Rieger and BJK. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium,
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Granholm, S.L., WJP. Henry, WJK. Kanemoto, and
RJE. Palmer. 1984. Designing riparian plantings to
mimic native forests within four hydrologic zones
along the Sacramento River, p. 198-212. In JJP.
Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium,
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
436
-------
Gray, D.H. and A.T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope
Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York.
Griggs, F.T. and R.B. Hansen. In press. Recovery of
riparian vegetation following the removal of
livestock on three sites in the San Joaquin Valley.
In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Hall, R.S. and A.R. Bammann. 1988. Riparian
restoration techniques on Arizona's public lands, p.
178-184. In JJ>. Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium, San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and Manage-
ment, Madison, Wisconsin.
Harlacher, R.A. 1988. Determination of planting
densities for revegetation projects, p. 22-27. In J.P.
Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium,
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Henry, W.P., N.L. Sodman, A.R. Black, R. Clark, B.
Holton, S.L. Granholm, W.D. Kanemoto, and R.E.
Palmer. 1986. Riparian Planting Design Manual
for the Sacramento River, Chico Landing to
Collinsville. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, Sacramento, California.
Hunter, W.C., B.W. Anderson, and R.E. Tollefson. In
press. Bird use of natural and recently revegetated
cottonwood-willow habitats on the Kern River. In D.
Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Key, J.W. 1987. Small instream structure construction
for meadow restoration in Clark Canyon,
California. In Proceedings of the California
Watershed Management Conference. November
18-28, 1986. West Sacramento, California. Univ-
ersity of California Wildlands Resource Center
Report No. 11161.
Key, J.W. and M.A. Gish. In press. The Clark Canyon
Demonstration Area, Mono County, California. In
D. Abell (Ed.). California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Kindel, F. 1977. Environmental applications in Corps
of Engineers work with reference to riparian
vegetation management, p. 99-100. In A. Sands
(Ed.), Riparian Forests in California: their ecology
and conservation. Institute of Ecology Publication
No. 15, University of California, Davis.
King, J.R. 1984. Revegetation banks and levees of the
Sacramento River System, p. 70-73. In J.P. Rieger
and B.A. Steele (Eds.), Proceedings of the Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium, California Native
Plant Society, San Diego, California.
River Basin streambank stabilization by natural
means. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland
District.
LaRosa, R. 1984. Environmental resource conservation:
riparian system enhancement through water
reclamation, p. 459-464. In R.E. Warner and K.M.
Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive Manage-
ment. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lindquist, D.S. and L.Y. Bowie. In press. Riparian
restoration in the northern Sierra Nevada: A
biotechnical approach. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. Davis, California. U.S. Dept.
Agric., Forest Service.
Lines, I.L. Jr., J.R. Carlson, and R.A. Corthell. 1978.
Repairing flood damaged streams in the Pacific
Northwest. In Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service, General Technical Report WO-12.
Marcus, L. In press. Riparian restoration and
watershed management: some examples from the
California coast. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
McCall, J.D. and R.F. Knox. 1978. Riparian habitat in
channelization projects. In Strategies for Protection
and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service, General Technical Report WO-12.
McCmskey, C.D., J. Brown, D. Bornholdt, D.A. Duff, and
A.H. Winward. 1983. Willow Planting for Riparian
Habitat Improvement. Technical Note 363. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Denver, Colorado.
Miller, C.R. and W.M. Borland. 1963. Stabilization of
Five-Mile and Muddy Creeks. Amer. Soc. of Civil
Engineers, Proc. ASCE, J. Hydrolics Div., paper
3392, 89 (HYI), p. 69-98.
Morris, R. 1976. Monument Bend plantings review.
Internal document, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, Sacramento, California.
Morris, R.H. 1984. Planning recreation development
and wildlife enhancement in a riparian
environment at Orestimba Creek, p. 767-772. In R.E.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and
Productive Management. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Nolan, M.F. 1984. Vegetation on U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers project levees in the Sacramento/San
Joaquin Valley, California, p. 738-747. In R.E.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California
Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and
Productive Management. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Klingeman, P.C. and J.B. Bradley. 1976. Willamette Oldham, J.A. and B.E. Valentine. In press. The Crescent
437
-------
Bypass: A riparian restoration project on the Kings
River, Fresno County. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection, Manage-
ment and Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24,
1988. Davis, California. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Parsons, DA. 1963. Vegetative control of streambank
erosion, p. 130-136. In Proc. of the Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference. U.S. Dept.
Agric.-Agric. Research Serv. (SEA) Misc. Publ. 970.
Patterson, D.W., C.U. Finch, and G.I. Wilcox. 1984.
Streambank stabilization techniques used by the
Soil Conservation Service in California, p. 452-458.
In R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.),
California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conserva-
tion and Productive Management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Platts, W.S., C. Maour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant,
J.L.Bufford, P. Cupin, S. Jensen, G.W.
Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L.
Nelson, J.R. Sedell, and J. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for
Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to
Management. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service
General Technical Report INT-221.
Reichard, N. In press. Restoring and maintaining
riparian habitat on private pastureland along North
Coast streams. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Rieger, J.P. 1988. California Department of
• Transportation riparian restoration projects in San
Diego County, p. 213-220. In J.P. Rieger and BJL
Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium, San Diego,
California. Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Rieger, JJ?. and K. Baird. In press. A restoration
design for least Bell's vireo habitat in San Diego
County, California. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian System Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24,1988. Davis, California. U.S. Dept.
Agric., Forest Service.
Rigney, M., L.R. Mewaldt, B.O. Wolf and R.R. Duke.
In press. Wildlife monitoring of a riparian
mitigation site. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Riley, A. and A. Sands. 1984. The design and planning
approach to flood damage reduction—a way to restore
the riparian environment, p. 82-86. In JJ?. Rieger
and B A. Steele- (Eds.), Proceedings of the Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium. California Native
Plant Society, San Diego, California.
Rosgen, D.L. In press. Conversion of a braided river
pattern to meandering-a landmark restoration
project. In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian
Systems Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Schiechtl, H. 1980. Bioengineering for Land
Reclamation and Conservation. University of
Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Schultze, RJ?. and G.I. Wilcox. 1985. Emergency
measures for streambank stabilization: an
evaluation, p. 59-61. In RJt. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell,
D.R. Patton, PJ. Ffolliott, and RH. Hamre (Eds.),
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-120.
Schultze, RJ. 1984. Riparian system restoration by
private landowners: an example of coordinated
interagency assistance, p. 965-967. In R.E. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian
Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Sheeter, G.R. and E.W. Claire. In press. Juniper for
streambank stabilization in Eastern Oregon. In D.
Abell (Ed.). California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
Davis, California. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Smith, J J. In press. Recovery of riparian vegetation on
an intermittent stream following removal of cattle.
In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Stanley, J.T., J. Rieger and A. Sands. In press. A
survey of riparian restoration projects in
California. In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian
Systems Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Stanley, J.T., L.R. Silva, H.C. Appleton, M.S. Marangio,
and B. Goldner. In press. 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. September 22-24, 1988.
Davis, California. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Stanley, J.T. and WA. Stiles, HI. 1983. Revegetation
Manual for the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District. County of Alameda
Public Works Agency, Hayward, California.
Stiles, WA. HI. 1975. A Landscaping Guide to Native
and Naturalized Plants for Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
California.
Swenson, EA. and C.L. Mullins. 1985. Revegetating
riparian trees in southwestern floodplains, p.
135-138. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton,
PJ1. Ffolliott, and RJL Hamre (Eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-120.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972 (rev. 1975).
Landscape Planting at Floodwalls, Levees and
438
-------
Embankment Dams. Engineering Manual
1110-2-301. Department of the Army, Office of the
Chief Engineer, Publications Depot, Alexandria,
Virginia.
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. 1986.
Review of "Riparian Planting Design Manual for
the Sacramento River, Chico Landing to
Collinsville". Memorandum for Record, March 13,
1986.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1985. Llagas Creek Watershed, Riparian
Restoration Project, Santa Clara County,
California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1983. Dormant Stock Planting for Channel
Stabilization. Biology Note No. 22 - Arizona. June,
1983.
Van Cleve, D.H., H.A. Wier, and L.A. Comrack. In
press. Coyote Creek management and restoration
project, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, California.
In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Vorster, P. and G.M. Kondolf. In press. Restoration of
riparian and aquatic habitats in the Mono Lake
Watershed. In D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian
Systems Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Wheeler, G.P. and JJM Fancher. 1984. San Diego County
riparian systems: current threats and statutory
protection efforts, p. 838-843. In R.E. Warner and
K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive Manage-
ment. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Whitlow, T.H., R.W. Harris, and A.T. Leiser. 1984.
Experimenting with levee vegetation: some
unexpected findings, p. 558-565. In R.E. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Sys-
tems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Whitlow, T.H., R.W. Harris, and A.T. Leiser. 1979.
Use of Vegetation to Reduce Levee Erosion in the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Annual progress
report. California Department of Water Resources,
Sacramento.
Whitlow, T.H., R.W. Harris and A.T. Leiser. 1980.
Use of Vegetation to Reduce Levee Erosion in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Annual progress
report. California Department of Water Resources,
Sacramento.
Wolfe, D. 1988. Recreating a "natural" riparian
environment, or getting the creek out of the culvert,
p. 193-197. In J.P. Rieger and B K. Williams (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium, San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and Manage-
ment, Madison, Wisconsin.
York, J.C. 1985. Dormant stub planting techniques, p.
513-514. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton,
P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre (Eds.), Riparian
Ecosystems ' and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service,
General Technical Report RM-120.
439
-------
APPENDIX VI: PROJECT PROI
GLEN ECHO CREEK, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Urban riparian. Dominant tree
species used in revegetation: White Alder, Redwood,
Bay. Native shrubs Ribes viburnifolium. Ribes
sangiuneum. Prunus ilicifolia. Arctoataphvlos
densiflora. ferns (Sword fern), and • hydroseed mix
(Clyde Bobbins "Oakland Creek Mix" - a mix of
grasses and annual wildflowers).
Date Planted and Type of Propagate: Project
implemented in 1986. Planted with container stock.
On-going monitoring in progress. Bubbler irrigation
system.
Location: On Glen Echo Creek between Glen Ave. and
Monte Vista in Oakland, Alameda County, California.
Size: Approximately 300 linear feet, both banks. Ap-
proximately 187 plants.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for habitat loss (i.e., riparian and
ornamental trees lost due to construction).
and vines, trees planted on top of banks, other trees on
banks where no gabions were used.
Judgement of Success
Banks and channel stabilized. Plantings growing
well. Irrigation system with bubbler at each plant.
Larger sized trees (15 gallon) were used because they
are more vandal resistant and less prone to
vandalism.
Significance:
The Urban Creeks Council and a neighborhood
group proposed the use of gabions and native plants as
an alternative to the proposed plan of vertical concrete
walls. The District, in conjunction with the
neighborhood group, developed a compromise
alternative and implemented a project acceptable to the
neighborhood and satisfactory for flood control
purposes.
Contacts:
Rick Baker
Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
(415)670-5545
Soil layer atop gabion walls planted with shrubs
FJH. Wolin
Alameda County Flood Control
Conservation District
(415)670-6510
& Water
STRAWBERRY CREEK PARK, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type:
Urban creek restoration, coastal riparian. Red
and arroyo willows, coast redwood, coast live oak,
Fremont cottonwood, white alder, California buckeye,
California bay laurel, western sycamore, plus 19
species of shrubs and 10 groundcovers.
Date Planted and Type of Propagate Planted in 1983.
Container stock.
Location: City of Berkeley, Alameda County,
California.
Size: 4 acre site (1,200' long reach). 130 trees, 173
shrubs, 791 ground cover.
Lead Agency or Organization:
City of Berkeley
Department of Public Works
Parks/Marina Division
201 University Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94710
(415)644-6371
Goals of Project:
To transform abandoned California Santa Fe
Railroad Freight yard into a city park with extensive
riparian habitat.
ted Structural Improvements:
Used chunks of concrete recycled from removal of
cross- street to stabilize streambanks.
tTudgement of Success:
Tremendous community support for restoration
project. Overall survival rate for all trees taken
together 86% (as of 1987). Plant growth is transforming
the formerly barren site into a riparian oasis.
Significance:
A highly successful urban creek restoration
project. Involved taking a section of Strawberry Creek
441
-------
out of 200 foot long underground (20 feet down) concrete
culvert where it had been since 1904. A prototype for
future reclaiming of urban creeks. Learned a number
of techniques to minimize vandalism in urban area.
Irrigated planting beds for first dry season only.
Reports
City of Berkeley Parks and Recreation Department.
1983. Final Design Plan: Strawberry Creek Park.
Wolfe, D. 1988. Recreating a "natural" riparian
environment, or getting the creek out of the culvert.
In J.P. Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium. San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management. Madison, Wisconsin.
Contacts
Douglas Wolfe
Wolfe Mason Associates
2119 West Street
Berkeley, CA 94702
(415)841-8455
Bill Montgomery
City of Berkeley
Department of Public Works
Parks/Marina Division
M&T RANCH ELDERBERRY MITIGATION, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Upland Elderberry Savannah.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in November 1987. Planted rooted
cuttings (1 year old in 1 galloncontainers). Blue
Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea).
Location: Sacramento River (east bank), River Mile
190, 5 miles north of Ord Ferry Bridge, Butte County,
California.
Size: Scattered plantings in a 167 acre parcel. 400
elderberries.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Water Resources
Northern District
P.O. Box 607
Red Bluff, CA 96080
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for endangered species habitat loss,
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB), associated
with Sacramento River Bank Protection Project.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
tJudgement of Success:
Too early to judge, but the project is looking
favorable. Monitoring in progress.
Significance;
Monitoring program includes a broader 10 year
study on 167 acre upland fallow field to determine the
rate of natural regeneration of riparian vegetation.
Adjacent parcels contain some of the finest riparian
oak woodland in California.
Contacts:
Stacey Capello
California Department of Water Resources
Northern District
(916)527-2352
Joyce Lacey
California Department of Water Resources
Northern District
(916)527-2233
Jim King
(formerly with Dept. of Water Resources)
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
(415)4644167
SACRAMENTO RIVER MILE 154.6 RIGHT, COLUSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: High terrace riparian. Key species:
Blue Elderberry, Cotton wood, Sycamore, and Valley
Oak.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in January 1988. On-going monitoring
in progress. Elderberry grown in state CCC nursery
from cuttings. Tublings and acorns purchased from
nurseries. Also outplanted material from containers
(1 and 5 gallon), leach tubes, tree bands, styrofoam
caps, half-gallon cartons, and bare root cuttings, and
used some live cuttings.
Location: City of Princeton (5 miles north of Colusa),
Colusa County, California.
Size: 2 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
650 Capital Mall, Room 5000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4794
442
-------
Goals of Project:
Reports
Mitigation for loss of Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle (VELB) habitat due to installation of rock slope
protection. Demonstration of Sacramento River high
terrace revegetation techniques.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
Excellent survival to date. Monitoring
experimental treatments (container type, preplanting
hole depth, soil amendment/soil texture, depth to
seasonal water table) for analysis with respect to plant
species survival, growth rate and vigor.
Significance:
In addition to satisfying mitigation requirement,
the project is serving as a test of COE Riparian
Planting Design Manual for the Sacramento River.
Design Manual may be modified based upon results of
trial plantings.
Chainey, S. and S. Mills. In press. Revegetation of
riparian trees and shrubs on alluvial terrace soils
along the Upper Sacramento River. In D. Abell.
1988. California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service.
Sutler, GJS., Dr. J. Singleton, J. King and A. Fisher. In
press. Practical techniques for Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle mitigation. In D. Abell. 1988.
California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service.
Contacts:
Skip Mills
Army Corps of Engineers
(916)551-2069
Steve Chainey
Greg Sutler
Jones & Stokes Associates
1725-23rd Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916)444-5638
TRYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Dominant trees: Willow, Alder, other
deciduous trees including Maple and Ash. Also
conifers - Sitka Spruce, Bishop Pine, Douglas Fir,
Grand Fir.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented 1984-1987 (mostly completed in 1987).
On-going monitoring and maintenance in progress by
landowner. Willow cuttings, Alder transplants,
Conifer bareroot.
Location: Tryon Creek (tributary to the Smith River),
10 miles north of Crescent City, Del Norte County,
California.
Size: 15 acres (along approximately 1 mile reach).
Lead Agency or Organization:
Redwood Community Action Agency
904 "G" Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Goals of Project:
Riparian restoration. Also open water habitat
enhancement for waterfowl, cutthroat trout, and
steelhead.
Associated Structural Improvements: Fencing to
exclude livestock.
Judgement of Success:
Planting 50% successful due to livestock and
beaver damage. Overall project excellent; fencing and
dredging and landowner commitment.
Significance:
Diverse trees were installed, some non-native as
landowner wanted increased use by birds. Native
species are established more easily. This is a
landowner conceived project. Long term success and
quality is enhanced by cooperative and energetic
landowner.
Repeats
Madrone, S.S. 1988. Final report for Tryon Creek
project. Redwood Community Action Agency.
Reichard, N. In prep. North coast riparian habitat
restoration via livestock exclusion fencing on
private land. In D. Abell (Ed.). California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Contacts:
Sungnome Madrone
Redwood Community Action Agency
(707)445-0881
443
-------
LOST CANYON REHABILITATION, FRESNO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Wetland Typet Montane riparian; Quaking Aspen,
Willow, White Alder, Sambucus, Black Cottonwood,
etc. Also adjacent Montane forest; Jeffrey and
Lodgepole Pine, Red and White Fir, etc.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented 1983-1985 (aerial seeding 1982; test
planting 1983; operational plantings 1984 & 1985).
On-going monitoring in progress. Willow cuttings
and others-liners.
Location: Helms Pumped Storage Project, Wishon
Reservoir (east of Fresno), Fresno County, California.
Planting occurred in Lost Canyon between Courtright
Reservoir and Wishon Reservoir. Elevation in this
portion of the Central Sierra Nevada ranges between
6,300 and 7,700 feet.
Size: 90 acres. 3 miles of streamside (100+ feet each
side of stream). 46,000-48,000 plants estimated living
as of 7/87.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94106
Goals of Project:
Rehabilitation of erosion and habitat loss caused
by pipeline rupture. Key objectives: 1) reestablishment
of native vegetation, with regard to species
diversification; 2) establishment of herbaceous
vegetation where feasible to control sedimentation; 3)
development of wildlife and fish habitat, including
food and cover; and 4) reforestation of selected areas.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
To date, survival of plantings is above the
required level and growth in general is normal
throughout the area. In favorable sites growth is
outstanding. Diversity is good. Biomass is developing.
And plantings are being weaned to perpetuate
themselves without further maintenance.
Significance:
Recovery by planting was extremely enhanced
after this catastrophic event. Large numbers of plants
and good diversity of species were installed. Soil at
time of planting was sterile and consisted of granite
sand in most places. Supplemental watering was done,
as needed. Aerial seeding of grasses and Lodgepole
Pine were only successful where pines were present in
the soil.
Reports:
Chan, F.J. In press. Re-establishment of native
riparian species at a disturbed high elevation site.
In D. Abell (Ed.). California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Forest Service.
Contacts:
Frank Chan
Pacific Gas and Electric
(415)974-3832
BAYSHORE MALL, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian; Red and Yellow Willow,
Red Alder. Saltwater Marsh; Cordgrass, Pickleweed.
Freshwater Marsh; Bullrush.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in October 1986.
Location: Bayshore Mall, Eureka, Humboldt County,
California.
Size: Riparian - 7.9 acres. Saltwater Marsh - 3.5 acres.
Freshwater Marsh • 3.7 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
General Growth of California
15821 Ventura Blvd., Suite 525
Encino, CA 91436
Goals of Project:
To establish riparian forest and enhance
freshwater marshes associated with the riparian stand.
To establish saltmarsh. Integrate hydrologic function
of three wetland types. On-site mitigation for mall
construction impacts.
.Tmigaman
Required replanting because of drought. Expected
to meet permit conditions and agencies sign-off at end
of two-year period.
Significance:
Integrated hydrologic system of adjacent wetland
types. Also designed to absorb storm flows from
adjacent impervious surfaces of mall.
444
-------
Reports
Contacts:
LSA Associates. 1987. First Annual Monitoring
Report. Submitted to General Growth of California.
Jim Kass
General Growth of California
(818)907-3400
Bruce Follansbee
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
(415)236-6801
MCDONALD CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Dominant tree species: Alder, Willow.
Also conifers: Spruce, Bishop Pine, Redwood.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1983 (follow-up planting done in 1986).
Five-year monitoring program in progress. Alder
transplants, Willow cuttings, Conifers-bare root 1-0 &
Location: McDonald Creek (tributary to Stone Lagoon),
8 miles south of Orick, Humboldt County, California.
Size: 9 acres (both sides of 2 creeks, 1 mile along main
fork and 1/2 mile along north fork). Approximately
4,000 trees.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Redwood Community Action Agency
904 "G" Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Goals of Project:
Restore streambank degradation resulting from
grazing impacts and reduce sedimentation of Stone
Lagoon. Improve in-stream habitat values for cutthroat
trout, and steelhead.
Associated Structural Improvements Rock riprap at
erosion points.
Judgement of Success:
Excellent success. Follow-up planting was done in
1986 due to elk damage to fences, which allowed cattle
into planting sites.
Significance:
Exclusionary fencing was installed with no
streambank stabilization. Consequently, banks failed
and took out some fence. Subsequent projects of this
type included streambank work at onset of project.
Reports
Murray, A. and B. Wunner. 1983. Improvement of
Biological Productivity on McDonald Creek and
Stone Lagoon. Redwood Community Action Agency.
Reichard, N. In press. North Coast riparian habitat
restoration via livestock exclusion fencing on
private land. In D. Abell (Ed.). California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Contacts
Sungnome Madrone
Redwood Community Action Agency
(707)445-0881
PRAIRIE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Streamside deciduous forest and
adjacent conifer forest. Dominant tree species—Willow
& Alder. Also planted Sitka spruce and redwood.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1986. On-going monitoring in
progress by landowner. Willow cuttings, Alder
transplants, Conifer bare root.
Location: On Prairie Creek (a tributary of Redwood
Creek), 5 miles north of Orick (south of Prairie Creek
State Park), Humboldt County, California.
Size: 8 acres, sporadic planting, total of approximately
2 miles of river frontage.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Redwood Community Action Agency
904 "G" Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Goals of Project:
Restore riparian zone through bank protection/
restoration and the exclusion of cattle. Improve
in-stream habitat values for coho salmon, steelhead,
and cutthroat trout.
445
-------
Associated Structural Improvements:
Bank protection at erosion points (rock riprap, post
& wire, tree deflectors, willow mattress).
Judgement of Success;
Excellent—biggest problem was elk damage to
fence, which allowed cattle into planted areas.
Significance;
Planted along cut banks. Terraces harder to
establish than stream channel. Volunteer growth
significant in channel. Exclusionary fencing needs
long term maintenance.
Reichard, N. In press. North Coast riparian habitat
restoration via livestock exclusion fencing on
private land. In D, Abell (Ed.). California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Schwabe, J. 1988. Final report for Prairie Creek
project. Redwood Community Action Agency.
Contacts
Sungnome Madrone
Redwood Community Action Agency
(707)445-0881
CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RIPARIAN REVEGETATION,
IMPERIAL COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Fremont Cottonwood, Honey Mesquite,
Atriplex lentiformis (Quailbush), and Sueada
terrevana (Inkweed).
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Plants installed
winter 1979/80.
Location: Colorado River, on the Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge, approximately 40 km south of Blythe,
Imperial County, California.
Size: 20 ha. 750 Honey Mesquite.
Lead Agency or Organization:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Yuma Projects Office
Boulder City, Nevada
Associated Structural Improvements:
None. Site cleared of salt cedar trees. Area was
then root-ripped about 30 cm below the surface.
Judgement of Success
Excellent for salt tolerant species (Atriplex
lentiformiB. Sueada terravana).
Significance:
Provided good habitat for rodents, rabbits,
wintering birds, quail, and some other breeding bird
permanent residents. Provided early data concerning
salt tolerance of Cottonwood, Willow, Honey Mesquite,
Palo Verde, Atriplex, Inkweed, and effects of a variety
of tillage techniques.
Reports:
Anderson, B.W. In press. Experimentation as an
integral part of revegetation projects. In D. Abell
(Ed.), California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24,1988. U.S. Dept. of Agric.,
U.S. Forest Service.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Riparian
revegetation as a mitigating process in stream and
river restoration, p. 41-79. In J.A. Gore (Ed.). The
Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and
Experience. Butterworth Publishers. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Contacts:
Berlin W. Anderson
Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center
201 S. Palm
Blythe, CA 92225
(619)922-2541
COLORADO RIVER DREDGE-SPOIL SITE RIPARIAN REVEGETATION,
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CAUFORNIA
Wetland Type: Fremont Cottonwood, Black Willow,
Honey Mesquite, Palo Verde.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Planted in
January and February 1979 with rooted cuttings
(approx. 0.6 m tall).
Location: Adjacent to Colorado River, 8 km southeast
of Palo Verde, Imperial County, California.
Size: 30 ha. 3000 trees of species listed above.
446
-------
Lead Agency or Organization;
Reports
U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Yuma Projects Office
Boulder City, Nevada
Goals of Project:
To learn as much as possible about the growth of
cottonwoods and other species under as wide a variety
of environmental conditions as logistically possible.
To determine the economic feasibility of reintroducing
riparian vegetation along the Colorado River.
Associated Structural Improvements None.
Judgement of Success:
Trees grew 3-5 m annually and survival
approached 100% when rooted cuttings were planted in
augered holes 3 m deep. Irrigation for five months was
adequate for maximum growth and survival.
Significance:
First major attempt to scientifically investigate
planting and irrigation techniques suitable to
restoring avian habitat along the Colorado River.
Brought to the attention of other riparian revegetation
project designers the value of deep tillage (augered
holes) for greatly increasing plant growth and
survival.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1981. Revegetation
Efforts Along the Lower Colorado River. Final
report to U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada.
Anderson, B.W., J. Disano, D.L. Brooks, and R.D.
Ohmart. 1984. Mortality and growth of cottonwood
on dredge-spoil, p. 438-444. In R.E. Warner and
K.M. Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian
Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press.
Berkeley, California.
Anderson, B.W., W.L. Hunter, and R.D. Ohmart. In
press. Changes in the types of bird species using
riparian revegetation sites from 1977 to 1983 on the
Lower Colorado River. In D. Abell (Ed.),
California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service.
Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Riparian
revegetation as a mitigating process in stream
and river restoration, p. 41-79. In J.A. Gore (Ed.),
the Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories
and Experience. Butterworth Publishers. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Contacts
Berlin W. Anderson
Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center
201 S. Palm
Blythe, CA 92225
(619)922-2541
KERN RIVER PRESERVE YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO HABITAT ENHANCEMENT,
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Cottonwood ( Populus fremonti) and
Willow (Salix laevigata) Riparian Woodland.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1986 when 25 acres were planted. In
1987 an additional 60 acres were planted. On-going
monitoring in progress. Planted rooted and unrooted
cuttings in augered holes.
Location: Kern River Preserve, South Fork Kern
River, near Weldon, Kern County, California.
Size: 85 acres planted to date. 50 acres planned for
installation in winter of 1988/89.
Lead Agency or Organization:
The Nature Conservancy
Kern River Preserve
P.O. Box 1662
Weldon, CA 93283
Goals of Project:
This project is being undertaken primarily to
create more suitable habitat for the Yellow-billed
Cuckoo and to restore the riparian forest along the
South Fork Kern River. The eventual goal is the
restoration of 414 acres of cottonwood-willow habitat.
Also conducting well documented research to
refine revegetation techniques.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
Project highly successful overall. Lost some plant
growth because of cattle trespass. It was found that
when height of saplings at planting is less than about
15 inches or greater than 32 inches there was a loss in
productivity. Productivity was negatively affected
when trees were planted with tillage short of the water
table. Revegetation directly with long, unrooted
cuttings ("poles") showed poor promise as a
revegetation technique because mortality was too high.
Natural germination occurred in low places where
moist soil had been exposed after clearing the extant
vegetation, however, these "wild" trees were
significantly less productive than the planted trees.
447
-------
Significance:
Conducting research on ways in which the
physical characteristics of the site (soil salinity, depth
to groundwater) and the type and height of saplings
affect plant survival and growth. Also studying ways
to effect cost savings through promoting natural
germination of riparian species and evaluating the
length of the irrigation period required for plant
establishment. Overall project will result in a
significant widening of the riparian corridor, a habitat
requirement of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo.
Reports
Anderson, B.W. 1986. Revegetation of a 25 Acre Plot
on the Kern River Preserve: Final Report.
Prepared for The Native Conservancy and
California Department of Fish and Game.
1988 Appendix to above.
Anderson, B.W. 1987. Report on Revegetation of 2
Sites. Prepared for the Nature Conservancy and
California Department of Fish and Game.
Anderson, B.W. and S. Layman. In press. Creating
habitat for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccvz
americana). In D. Abell. 1988. California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection,
Management and Restoration for the 1990's.
September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest
Service.
Contacts
Ronald L. Tiller
The Nature Conservancy
(619)378-2531
Berlin W. Anderson
Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center
201 South Palm Drive
Blythe, CA 92225
(619)922-2541
CRESCENT BYPASS RESTORATION PROJECT, KING COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Cottonwood/Willow forest: Fremont
Cottonwood, Sali» sp., Valley Oak, Elderberry,
California Rose, Buttonbush, Black Walnut.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1986/7. On-going planting and
monitoring in progress. Planted contained stock (1
gallon, some 5 gallon) and cuttings of willow,
cottonwood, buttonbush).
Location: Crescent Bypass, between the South and
North Forks of the Kings River, 35 miles south of
Fresno (5 miles west of Hwy. 41), Kings County,
California.
Size: 6 miles of levee bank, both sides (average width
10 feet), plus a 0.75 acre parcel. 1986-87: 144 trees and
641 shrubs (phis 218 shrub and tree cuttings). 1987-88:
85 trees and 200 shrubs (plus 495 shrub and tree
cuttings).
Lead Agency or Organization:
Kings River Conservation District
4886 E. Jensen Ave.
Fresno, CA 93725
Goals of Project:
Revegetation of flood control channelization
project.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
.Tiifjp.TT.on
62% survival of trees (container stock) and 57%
survival of shrubs (container stock) after one growing
season. Poor success with alders, ash trees, and black
walnuts; wild grape and golden currants.
Significance;
Only riparian revegetation project known to have
been undertaken on the southern Central Valley floor.
Soil conditions are extremely poor with hard clays and
very high salt concentrations in the soil profile. Kings
River Conservation District staff has learned a great
deal from project on how to plant for growth and
survival under such conditions (especially with respect
to irrigation and the quality of irrigation and ground
water; also control of damage from beaver, and
prevention of vandalism).
Report:
Oldham, J.A. and BJS. Valentine. In press. The
Crescent Bypass: A Riparian Restoration Project
on the Kings River. In D. Abell (Ed.), California
Riparian Systems Conference: Protection, Manage-
ment and Restoration for the 1990's. September
22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric., U.S. Forest Service.
Contact
Jonathan A. Oldham and Brad Valentine
Kings River Conservation District
(209)237-5567
448
-------
BIG TUJUNGA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Willow woodland (Salix lasiolepis ,&
gooddiTigii) and 2 ponds.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in September 1977. Unofficial on-going
monitoring in progress. Planted cuttings.
Location: Big Tujunga Wash (south of 1-210),
Sunland/Lakeview Terrace, Los Angeles County,
California.
Size: 14 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Transportation
District 7
120 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for Highway 1-210 construction impacts
(404 & 1601).
Judgement of Success:
Very successful. Thick growth of mature willows.
Closed canopy. May have been planted too densely,
resulting in less than optimum avian use.
Significance:
Oldest known riparian revegetation site in
southern California.
Contact:
John Sully
District Biologist
(213)620-2607
BASS LAKE SHORELINE REVEGETATION, MADERA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Willow, Cottonwood, Blackberries,
California Grape. Also Conifers, Oak, Ceanothus.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1987, and is on-going. 1 gallon and
liners, Blackberry transplants.
Location: Bass Lake, Sierra National Forest, Madera
County, California.
Size: 4 acres with 4 acres to be planted each year for 4
to 5 years.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94106
Goals of Project:
He-establishment of vegetation after riprap
installation, reduce visibility of riprap, erosion
control, wildlife enhancement.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Small sized riprap combined with gravel.
Judgement of Success:
Generally good so far. Most favorable planting
zone is +/- 2 feet from high water mark. Compared
use of wattling vs. cuttings (16" placed 8-10" into the
ground) planted in a line. Cuttings were more
successful. Recreationists have damaged some areas.
Blackberry plantings have been an effective barrier in
a selected area.
Significance:
No native vines at this elevation, experimenting
with California grape. The plantings below the riprap
are exposed to wave action and periodic flooding. Test
plantings of 12 woody and 15 herbaceous species. Alta
fcacue will tolerate brief flooding and dry periods.
Contact:
Frank Chan
Pacific Gas & Electric
(415) 974-3832
NOVATO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian habitat (6.9 acres), in
association with approximately 350 acres of seasonal
wetland and a 7 acre detention pond. Riparian and
upland plant species; Oaks, Baccharis, Buckeye, Bay,
Walnut, Sambucus.
449
-------
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1987. Additional installation in
progress. Liners, direct seeds (acorns), 1 gallon,
limited use of. 5 gallon.
Location: Novato Creek (along constructed levee),
Arroyo Avichi, Warner Creek, and Baccaglio Pond,
City of Novato, Marin County, California.
Size: 6.9 acres total planned. About 900 plants installed
to date.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Marin County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
P.O. Box 4186
San Rafael, CA 94913
Goals of Project:
Streambank stabilization and mitigation for
impacts from flood control channel improvements.
Wildlife enhancement.
Associated Structural Improvements; Riprap concrete
bank protection associated with channel widening.
Flood control detention pond (Baccaglio Pond).
Very good thus far. Initial losses were due to late
planting (January) of plants, especially direct seeded
acorns, and an unusually dry winter and spring of
1987.
Significance:
Plants were installed on the face of a levee and the
perimeter of a flood water detention pond. Soil was
extremely compacted and some areas were very high
in sodium salts.
Report:
Sands, A., et al. 1986. Novato Creek Flood Control
Project Enhancement Plan Workbook. California
State Coastal Conservancy and the Marin County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Contacts;
Don Engler
Marin County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
(415)499-6528
Ann Sands
Riparian Systems
120 Evergreen Ave.
Mill Valley, CA 94941
(415)381-2629
Steve Chatham (contractor)
Prunuske Chatham
P.O. Box 828
Occidental, CA 95492
(707)874-2464
CLARK CANYON RIPARIAN DEMONSTRATION AREA,
MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Moist meadow riparian; Nebraska
sedge and bluegrass. Deciduous woodland;
narrow-leaved and arroyo willows. Planted willows
in sediment deposited behind check dams.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project initiated
1984-87. Cuttings.
Location: Clark Canyon Creek (tributary to Aurora
Creek), East Walker River sub-basin, 4 miles
southeast of Bridgeport, Mono County, California.
Elevation 7,000' to 7,300'.
Size: 1 mile. Stream is approximately 3 feet wide and
4 miles long.
Lead Agency or Organization:
U.S. Dept. Interior,, Bureau of Land Management
800 Truxtun Ave., Room 311
Bakersfield, CA 93301-4782
Goals of Project:
Several different treatments have been
implemented to:
1. Stabilize active erosion and gully development
(headcutting);
2. Restore wet meadow riparian areas to high levels
of productivity;
3. Improve aquatic habitat from poor to good
condition; and
4 Improve wildlife cover and downstream fish
habitat (rainbow trout).
These treatments include changes in grazing
management practices and the construction of several
types of small instream structures.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Placed approximately 13 check dams across
stream to trap sediment and raise water table. Tried
several different types of structures; gabion baskets
with and without double fence (with erosion fabric),
single fence with erosion control fabric. Managed
fencing to control stock use (reduced stockage and
season of use). Controlled gully headcutting.
Judgement of Success:
Monitoring stream profiles for past 4 years. Some
of the grade stabilization structures have worked
extremely well, trapping sediment behind them; others
not so well. It is important to check on and maintain
check dams. Stream has changed from ephemeral
450
-------
towards perennial. Riparian vegetation (sedge and
bluegrass) coming back very well (sage had previously
been invading meadow).
Significance:
Developed cooperation with ranches and
sheepherders. Required 2 CRM's because canyon is
boundary between 2 grazing allotments. Project
sponsored in part by California Department of Fish
and Game. Demonstrates what can be done to restore a
small stream with a minimum amount of labor and
money, with cooperation of ranchers.
Reports
Key, J.W. and MA. Gish. In press. Clark Canyon
riparian demonstration area. In D. Abell (Ed.),
California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection, Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Forest Service.
Key, J.W. 1987. Small instream structure construction
for meadow restoration in Clark Canyon,
California. In Proceedings of the California
Watershed Management Conference. November
18-28, 1986. West Sacramento, California.
University of California Wildlands Resource
Center Report No. 11:161.
Contacts:
John W. Key
Soil Scientist (Bakersfield)
(805)861-4191
Mark A. Gish
Range Conservationist (Bishop)
(619)872-i881
CARMEL, RIVER RIPARIAN REVEGETATTON, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Willow rows planted at toe of bank,
channel slope, and terraces. Red Willow (Salix
laevigata) and Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepsia). and
Pacific (Yellow) Willow (Salix lasiandra). Some
Cottonwood and alder also in small numbers.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented 1984-1988, and is on-going (1 fall project,
1 spring project each year). Bare stems planted on 24
inch centers in 3-4 feet deep trenches excavated by
backhoe.
Location: Carmel River, Carmel, Monterey County,
California.
Size: 75,000 linear feet.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
P.O. Box 85
Monterey, CA 93942-0085
Goals of Project:
To reduce erosion losses along the Carmel River.
Revegetation efforts have centered on reestablishing a
series of willow rows at the toe of eroding banks and
using willow groins to narrow excessively wide
sections of channel.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Some riprap to protect bridges, water supply wells,
etc. Some post and wire fencing. Also channel
restoration (1987 project) to optimal width/depth,
reestablish pool-riffle sequence, re-armor river bed.
Judgement of Success:
Success is primarily dependent on an adequate
water supply, either a high water table or a properly
designed and operated drip irrigation system. Success
rates as high as 90% have been obtained under optimal
conditions and as low as 10% where insufficient water
was available or irrigation systems were improperly
designed, operated, or maintained. Growth rates of
5-10 feet/year with proper irrigation.
Significance:
Attempt to control serious streambank erosion by
planting willow at the toe of the bank without any
accompanying structural improvements. In many
places, no structural improvements, in others
approximately 2000 feet biotechnical revegetated riprap,
approximately 1500 feet post and wire revetment with
revegetation.
Reports:
Matthews, W.V.G. and J.G. Williams. In press.
Progress report on riparian revegetation efforts,
Carmel River, Monterey County, California. In
D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Contacts:
W.V. Graham Matthews, Hydrologist
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(408)6494866
John G. Williams, Senior Associate
Philip Williams and Associates
Pier 33 North, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA
(415)981-8363
451
-------
SPANISH BAY RESORT, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Arroyo Willow, adjacent emergent
vegetation. Also Coastal Strand (Eschscholtzia,
Abronia. Eriophvllum. Artemisia. Lotus. Convolvulus.
Lupinua, etc.).
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented 1984-1987.
Location: Pebble Beach, Monterey County, California. in:
Size: 5 acres of riparian. Also 65 acres of Coastal
Strand.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Pebble Beach Company
101 Dewey Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for hotel and golf course construction.
Establish riparian woodland and coastal strand
species/communities on restored sand mine. Integrate
mitigation, dune stabilization, and landscaping for
resort golf course (multiple use).
Judgement of Success:
Good success in establishment of
riparian-functioning communities. Varied success in
coastal strand communities. Where prescribed
conditions were created (primarily a pure sand
substrate), restoration was a success. Where poor
quality imported sandy loam was utilized for dunes,
native plants could not always compete with invasive
exotics and nurse crop.
Significance:
Largest coastal strand restoration project in
California.
Reports
Revegetation of coastal strand at site is discussed
Allen, D. and M. Guinon. 1988. The Restoration of
dune habitats at Spanish Bay I, Implementation, p.
116-127. In J.P. Rieger and B JL Williams (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium. San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Guinon, M. and D. Allen. 1988. The Restoration of
dune habitat at Spanish Bay—preliminary results,
p. 128-133. In J.P. Rieger and B.K. Williams
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Native Plant
Revegetation Symposium. San Diego, California.
Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Contacts
Marylee Guinon
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
(415)236-8610
Larry Seeman
(408)649-8500
SAN JOAQUIN MARSH MITIGATION BANE, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Nine species: Red, Yellow, Black,
Arroyo Willows, Fremont Cottonwood, Sycamore.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Implemented-5
acres in June 1987. 3.5 acres in March 1988. Planned:
22 additional acres.
Location: Adjacent to San Diego Creek, Irvine,
Orange County, California.
Size: 8.5 acres installed (out of ultimate total of
approximately 30 acres).
Lead Agency or Organization:
The Irvine Company
500 Newport Center Drive, 5th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Goals of Project:
To create a large, contiguous riparian woodland
adjacent to freshwater marshes. Serves as off-site
mitigation for numerous industrial/commercial
developments.
tJudgement of Success
Initial 8.5 acres are establishing.
Significance;
Large contiguous habitat area adjacent to existing
wildlife refuge will provide approximately 250-300
acres of contiguous habitat. Mitigation bank is
establishing prior to some of the construction impacts.
Contacts
Mr. Sat Tamarabuchi
The Irvine Company
(714)720-2371
Bruce Follansbee and Rob Schonholtz
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
(415)236^810
452
-------
RED CLOVER CREEK EROSION CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT,
PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Revegetation of streambanks with
willow, black cottonwood, aspen, and mountain alder.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented 1986/87. Planted 3,770 hardwood willow
stakes (18-24 inches long) and 440 cottonwood, aspen,
and alder rooted liners.
Location: Red Clover Creek, tributary of East Branch of
the North Fork of the Feather River, 22 miles NW of
Reno, Nevada, and 30 miles SE of Quincy, Plumas
County, California. Elevation 5,500 feet.
Size: 1 mile.
Lead Agency or Organization;
Plumas Corporation
522 Lawrence Street
P.O. Box 3880
Quincy, CA 95971
Goals of Project:
A cooperative, interagency watershed restoration
project designed to demonstrate and monitor methods
to restore riparian vegetation, stabilize streambanks,
reduce downstream sedimentation (especially in Rock
Creek Reservoir, 40 miles to the west) and enhance
fish, wildlife, and livestock resources.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Four loose rock check dams to reduce channel
downcutting, raise the streambed, and trap sediment.
Three miles of enclosure fencing to control cattle
access. Cut tree (pine) revetment to stabilize
streambanks (in conjunction with revegetation).
Judgement of Success:
A three year monitoring program is in progress to
monitor recovery of streambank and upland
vegetation, fish populations, ground water levels, and
stream cross-sectional changes. The Department of
Water .Resources plans on monitoring wildlife
use/benefits. Each check dam raises the water
elevation in the creek approximately 3 feet. Success
rates of unrooted willow plantings probably would have
been greater if longer (3 foot long) stakes had been
used.
Significance:
Red Clover Creek is a demonstration project
involving cooperative input from 14 federal, state, and
local agencies under a CRM (Coordinated Resource
Management and Planning) Memorandum of
Agreement. The project is being used to test restoration
techniques which will be used to control watershed and
streambank erosion throughout the watershed of the
East Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River,
and to develop a planning process that coordinates
multi-agency support. Related projects for which 205(j)
funding has recently been granted are in the Spanish
Creek and Last Chance Creek Drainages.
Reports
Plumas Corporation. A Regional Erosion Control Plan
for the East Branch North Fork Feather River
Watershed. California Watershed Management
Council. 1989. Demonstration Area Committee.
Draft Inventory Form: Red Clover Creek.
Lindquist, D.S. and L.Y Bowie. In press. Riparian
restoration in the Northern Sierra Nevada: A
biotechnical approach. In D. Abell (Ed.),
California Riparian Systems Conference:
Protection Management and Restoration for the
1990's. September 22-24, 1988, Davis, California.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Lindquist, D.S. and C.L. Filmer. 1988. Revegetation to
control erosion on a degraded Sierra Nevada
Stream, p. 273-283. In Proceedings of Conference
XIX International Erosion Control Association:
Erosion Control - Stay in Tune. Feb. 25,1988, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Contacts
Leah Wills, Erosion Control Coordinator
Plumas Corporation
(916)283-3739
Donna S. Lindquist, Research Biologist
Linton Y. Bowie, Research Biologist
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
3400 Crow Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94526
(415)866-5506
COSUMNES RIVER PRESERVE RIPARIAN RESTORATION,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Valley Oak riparian forest, mixed
riparian forest, cottonwood-willow riparian forest and
buttonwillow-willow scrub forest. Dominant species:
Valley Oak, Cottonwood, Willow, also Live Oak,
Oregon Ash, Box Elder, and White Alder.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Site preparation
and installation in progress. Initial planting in
winter/spring 1988-10 acres. Seeds: Valley Oak,
Oregon Ash. Pole cuttings in augered holes:
cottonwood and willow. Acorns collected onsite.
Cottonwood and willowpole cuttings cut on-site.
Location: Cosumnes River (east of confluence of the
Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers), Sacramento
County, California.
Size: 10 acres planted in 1988 (2,000 plants on 15 x 15
feet centers). Plans call for re-creation of 71 acres of
riparian forest on 240 acre parcel. Remainder will be
453
-------
managed as seasonal, shallow water, wetlands for
waterfowl (42 acres Valley Oak riparian forest, 8 acres
mixed riparian forest, 20 acres cottonwood-willow
riparian forest, and 1 acre buttonwillow-willow scrub
forest).
Lead Agency or Organization:
The Nature Conservancy
785 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Goals of Project
Riparian and wetland habitat restoration.
Associate
None. Re-grading of "leveled" fields to re-create
natural slough contours.
Plants installed in wintei/spring 1988 appear to be
doing well. Outstanding response by volunteers to
assist with planting, watering and weeding.
Significance:
Major restoration of riparian and wetland habitat
values on 240 acres of abandoned farmland in the
Sacramento Valley adjacent to mature riparian forest
on the Cosumnes River. Riparian revegetation will
expand the width of riparian forest along the Cosumnes
River from 25 feet in average width to approximately
300 feet in width.
Contacte
Tom Griggs
The Nature Conservancy
(916)684-2816
Harold Appleton
Appleton Forestry
(707) 823-3776
John Stanley
The Habitat Restoration Group
(408)4384102
RIO AMERICANO ELDERBERRY MITIGATION,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Upland Elderberry Savannah.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in November 1986. Planted rooted
cuttings (1 year old in 1 gallon containers) Blue
Elderberry fSambueus caerulea).
Location: Adjacent to Rio Americano High School,
Carmichael, Sacramento County, California.
Size: 1,500 linear feet on right bank. 160 plants.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 388
Sacramento, CA 95802
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for loss of endangered species habitat
resulting from American River Parkway floodway
maintenance vegetation removal.
AflBorintftrl 8trnrtnrnl TmprnTfimftntflr None.
90% survival rate after one full year.
Significance:
First successful plantation of elderberry.
Report:
Sutter, G.E., Dr. J. Singleton, J. King, and A. Fisher.
In press. Practical techniques for Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetle mitigation. In D.
Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24,1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Contacts:
Al Romero
California Department of Water Resources
Sacramento Maintenance Yard
1450 Riverbank Road
Bryte, CA 95605
(916)4454868
Greg Sutter
Jones & Stokes Associates
1725-23rd Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916)444-5648
Jim King
(formerly with Dept. of Water Resources)
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
(415)464-4167
454
-------
SACRAMENTO RIVER MAINTENANCE AREA 9,
SACARAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: High terrace riparian habitat.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in December 1981. Limited monitoring
in progress.
Location: East Bank of Sacramento River, Greenhaven
(River Mile 48) to Road 755 (River Mile 37),
Sacramento County, California.
Size: 11 mile strip on upper levee slope (waterside).
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001
Goals of Project:
Agency initiative.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Levee with rock riprap lining below planting area.
Judgement of Success:
Poor survival of planted material (approximately
10%) due to design conflicts and inadequate
maintenance. However, in association with the
project, levee maintenance practices have been altered
and volunteer saplings have come in, complementing
the project.
Significance:
Revegetation work was combined with a
vegetation management program. The combined result
has been a significant improvement in the riparian
habitat value for the area. Volunteer trees are
encouraged and pruned to meet state levee inspection
standards.
Reports
King, J. 1984. Revegetation banks and levees of the
Sacramento River System, p.70-73. In JP. Rieger
and B.A. Steele (Eds.), Proceedings of the Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium, San Diego,
California.
Contacts
George Qualley
California Department of Water Resources
(916)445-8984
Jim King
(formerly with Dept. of Water Resources)
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
(415)464-4167
18/115 MITIGATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Willow/Cottonwood Riparian
Woodland with Sycamore, i.e., Cottonwood (Populus
fremontii). Sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Willow
(Salix lasiolepis: S. gooddingii).
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in July 1982. On-going monitoring in
progress. Planted container stock (1 gallon and some
5 gallon) and seed mix.
Location: San Diego River, San Diego (nr. Grantville
in Mission Valley), San Diego County, California.
Size: 6.2 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92138-5406
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for riparian habitat loss due to
construction of freeway interchange. Create riparian
habitat values in general (i.e., no target wildlife
species).
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
Visual inspection by Jack Fancher of USPWS has
verified the successful replacement of habitat lost by
the restoration project 5+ years after installation in
1988.
Significance:
Demonstrates the interplay of hydrology and plant
establishment as well as the natural invasion of
willow in areas of concentration. Topography greatly
modified following two severe flooding seasons. Fine
detailed planning and design not recommended in
sites subject to this type of flooding.
455
-------
Reports
Contact
Rieger, J.P. 1988. California Department of
Transportation riparian restoration projects in San
Diego County, p.213-220. In JP. Rieger and B.K.
Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Native
Plant Revegetation Symposium. San Diego,
California. Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
John Rieger
CalTrans
(619)237-6754
MORENA STREET SITE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian scrub (Willow) woodland
with Cottonwood component. Cottonwood, Sycamore,
Baccharis ylutinogaT Salix laseolepis. Salix hudsiana.
Rosa California..
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in June 1985, replanting 1988. On-going
monitoring in progress. Planted container stock (1
gallon & 5 gallon) and herbaceous seed mix.
Location: San Diego (1 mile from Mission Bay), San
Diego County, California.
Size: 3.5 acres (also 0.8 acre freshwater marsh and 0.7
acre pond).
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92138-5406
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for riparian habitat loss per Section 404
permit requirement. Create riparian habitat of general
nature on San Diego River.
Judgement of Success
Partially successful, about 25%. Problems with
persistent flooding and extreme water elevation and
duration, probably retarding growth and development
of plants.
Significance:
Sites located near end of drainage system are
subject to higher flooding and more extreme
elevational changes than site upstream.
Report
Rieger, J.P. 1988. California Department of
Transportation riparian restoration projects in
San Diego County, p. 213-220. In JP. Rieger and
B.K. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second
Native Plant Revegetation Symposium. San Diego,
California. Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Contact:
John Rieger
CalTrans
(619)237-6754
SWEETWATER BRIDGE MITIGATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Willow scrub woodland, Salix
lasiolepis. S. laevigata. S.hindaiana. Baccharis
glutinosa. Roaa califomica. Artemisia douglasiana.
Populus fremontii.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in May 1987 with on-going monitoring in
progress until 1992. Planted cuttings, rooted cuttings,
liners, containers and mature tree transplants.
Location: Sweetwater River, South of El Cajon (west of
Jamal-Jamacha Junction), San Diego County,
California.
Size: 2 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92138-5406
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for loss of Least Bell's Vireo habitat per
Section 404 permit requirement.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
Largely failed in first year. Several problems
with installation and high mortality. Original design
done by USFWS with poor habitat description and
limited knowledge of restoration methods and
constraints. Following second design changes success
is moderate, higher survivorship, nearly 60% in most
species. Some species more sensitive than others.
Significance:
Sites can be replanted and retrofitted. Basic
requirement is timing of installation as evidenced by
this site. Irrigation was present. Problem was in delay
456
-------
of construction at an inappropriate time to use cuttings.
Contract constraints, increased costs, and plant
availability prevented change in timely manner.
Report:
Rieger, J.P. 1988. California Department of
Transportation riparian restoration projects in
San Diego County, p. 213-220. In J.P. Rieger and
B.K. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second
Native Plant Revegetation Symposium. San Diego,
California. Society for Ecological Restoration and
Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
Contact
John Rieger
CalTrans
(619)237-6754
ALAMITOS CREEK REVEGETATION PROJECT,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Mixed riparian trees, shrubs, and
groundcover. Dominant Species - Trees: Platanus
racemosa. Populus fremontii. Aescalus californica.
Shrubs: Baccharis pilularia ssp. consanguinea,
Ceanothus ssp., Rhamnus californica. Heteromeles
arbutifolia. Groundcover: Baccharis pilularis ("Twin
Peaks No. 2").
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1984with on-going monitoring in
progress. Container stock cuttings liners.
Location: Alamitos Creek, San Jose (Winfield Blvd. to
McKean Rd.), Santa Clara County, California.
Reach 1 -Winfield Blvd. to Mazzone Drive Bridge
(920 ft.).
Reach 2 -Greystone Lane Bridge to Camden Ave.
Bridge (5850 ft.).
Reach 3 -Camden Ave. Bridge to McKean Rd.
Bridge (4200 ft.).
Size: 21 acres. Planted 3500 trees and shrubs and
35,000 groundcover.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almadcn Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for loss of riparian habitat and visual
impacts from flood control and water pipeline projects.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Flood control levees, excavated earth channel.
Judgement of Success:
Over 75% survivors after 3 years. Self propagation
of some species is occurring. Most species growing
well. High community acceptance of project.
Significance:
Good example of project providing both visual
amenities and wildlife habitat in a suburban setting.
Vital to win acceptance and enthusiasm of community
to caretake project and reduce vandalism.
Report;
Goldner, B.H. 1988. The Alamitos Creek revegetation
project - the lessons learned, p. 185-192. In J.P.
Rieger and B.K. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Native Plant Revegetation Symposium.
San Diego, California. Society for Ecological
Restoration and Management, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Contacts:
Dr. Bernard Goldner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
(408)265-2600
GUADALUPE RIVER REVEGETATION PROJECT,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Mixed riparian trees/shrubs.
Dominant species - Trees: Aescalus California.
Quercus lobata. Sambucus mexicana. Shrubs:
Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea , Ceanothus ssp.,
Rosa californica.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1981 .Seeds, container stock, liners.
Location: South of Blossom Hill Road (adjacent to
Santa Clara Valley Water District office from drop
structure to Blossom Hill Rd.), San Jose, Santa Clara
County, California.
Size: 1 acre. Planted 576 trees & shrubs.
467
-------
Lead Agency or Organization:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Goals of Project;
Mitigation for riparian habitat loss and visual
impacts from flood control project.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Gabion-lined and excavated earth channel.
Judgement of Success
Most species have flourished, providing good
cover. Poor germination of walnuts and acorns.
Significance:
Successful planting of gabion-lined channel by
planting within voids on slopes of channel. Should not
use overhead spray irrigation to water plants located
on steep slopes of channel because shallow rooting will
occur; this prolongs establishment period.
Report:
Goldner, B.H. 1984. Riparian restoration efforts
associated with structurally modified flood control
channels, p. 445-451. In R.E. Warner and KM.
Hendrix (Eds.), California Riparian Systems:
Ecology, Conservation and Productive Manage-
ment. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Contact:
Dr. Bernard Goldner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
(408)265-2600
LLAGAS CREEK WATERSHED MITIGATION, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian trees and shrubs. Dominant
species-Trees: California Buckeye, White Alder,
Black Walnut, Fremont Cottonwood, California
Sycamore, Coast Live Oak, California Bay. Shrubs:
Quail Bush, Coyote Brush, Mulefat, California Rose,
Toyon, Coffeeberry, Ceanothus.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule:
1. Reach 1-Implemented 1985; on-going monitoring
in progress.
2. Reach 2—Implemented 1987; on-going monitoring
in progress.
3. Reach 9b-Implemented 1984; on-going monitoring
in progress.
4. Reach 14a—Implemented 1984; on-going monitor-
ing in progress.
5. Planted liners and container stock.
Location: Gilroy/San Martin, Santa Clara County,
California.
Size:
1. Reach 1-4 acres, 6,270 linear ft. (580 1 gallon and
850 liners).
2. Reach 2-9.5 acres.
a Reach 9b-6.4 acres, 9,994 linear feet (530 1 gallon,
50 5 gallon).
4. Reach 14a-2.1 acres, 4,500 linear feet (850 1 gallon,
60 5 gallon).
5. Overall (Watershed) Project-15 miles.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Reach 2: U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conservation
Service
8352-D Church Street
Gilroy.CA 95020
Reach 1, 9b, 14a: Santa Clara Valley Water
District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Watershed Project: Soil Conservation Service
2121 -C 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616
Maintenance to be taken over by Santa Clara
Valley Water District at end of 2 year establishment
period.
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for habitat loss from flood control
project.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Flood control channel levees.
Judgement of Sue
Reach 2 recently evaluated (3/88). 60% survival
(4,987 plants of 8,412 originally planted) results in a
cover of approximately 415 plants per acre. Considered
successful thus far.
Significance:
Largest flood control project revegetation program
undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service in
California.
458
-------
Report
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1982. Llagas Creek Watershed Environmental
Impact Statement/Report.
Contacts
Reach 1, 9b, 14a: Dr. Bernard Goldner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Reach 2: George Ross
U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conservation Service
Gilroy, CA
(408)847^161
Watershed Project: Ronald P. Schultze
U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Soil Conservation Service
2121-C 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616
(916)449-2853
LOWER COYOTE CREEK REVEGETATION PROJECT,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Mid and upper terrace floodplain
riparian forest. Fremont Cottonwood dominated portion
(adjacent to existing riparian bank vegetation) with
Red and Yellow Willows, Sycamore, White Alder,
Blue Elderberry, Box Elder, Black Walnut, California
Bay. Valley Oak/Sycamore dominated portion farther
away from creek with Coast Live Oak, Elderberry, Bay
and Black Walnut. Shrubs include California
Blackberry and California Rose.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Pilot
Revegetation Project-Implemented 1986/1987. On-
going monitoring in progress. Flood Control Project
Mitigation. Detailed planning in progress. Planted
pole cuttings, seed, tublings and container stock for
each plant species as available.
Location: Coyote Creek (downstream of Montague
Expressway to City of San Jose Water Pollution Control
Plant), North San Jose (1 mile west of Milpitas), Santa
Clara County, California.
Size: Pilot Revegetation Project~4 acres. Flood Control
Project Mitigation~an additional 28.5 acres (involving
5 additional sites). Approximately 3,640 plants
installed at pilot project site.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Goals of Project:
This project has the dual goals of accomplishing
partial mitigation for Lower Coyote Creek Flood
Control Project impacts and serving as a test site for
determining the most effective, efficient, and
economical means of re-establishing riparian
vegetation on an additional 28.5 acres along Coyote
Creek within the overall flood control project area.
Associated Structural Improvements:
None. Adjacent to "to-be" excavated high flow
bypass channel. Site will eventually be confined by
setback levees.
Judgement of Success:
Currently in process of evaluating the results of
one year of observation comparing the survival and
growth of different types of plant materials for each of
the 15 native plant species installed, flood vs. overhead
sprinkler irrigation, weed control techniques, and
plant protection measures.
Significance:
Results of pilot project will be used in the design of
plans and specifications for the installation of
riparian vegetation on 28.5 additional acres along
approximately 4.5 miles of channel downstream of
Montague Expressway.
Reports
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 1984. Coyote Creek
Planning Study (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway): Engineers Report and Final
Environmental Impact Report. Santa Clara Valley
Water District. San Jose, California.
Stanley, J.T., L.R. Silva, H.C. Appleton, M.S.
Marangio, W.J. Lapaz, and B.H. Goldner. In
press. Coyote Creek Pilot Revegetation Project. In
D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management, and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Coyote Creek
Flood Control Proposal. Santa Clara County
California. Vols I & II. San Francisco District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Interim
Feasibility Report and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Coyote Creek and Berryessa
Creek. San Francisco District.
Contacts;
Pilot Revegetation Project: John Stanley
The Habitat Restoration Group
6001 Butler Lane, Suite 1
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(408)438-4102
Flood Control Project Mitigation:
Dr. Bernard Goldner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
(408)265-2600
459
-------
SARATOGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT REVEGETATION,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Mixed riparian trees/shrubs.
Dominant species— Trees: Populus frcmontii. Juglans
hindsii. Quercus lobata. Quercus agrifolia. Shrubs:
Ceanothus spp., Rhamnua californica Jleteromelea
arbuti folia.
Date Planted and Typ« of Propagule:
1. Phase I - Implemented 1986; on-going monitoring
in progress.
2. Phase II - Implemented 1988; on-going monitoring
in progress.
3. Phase III - Detailed planning in progress. To be
installed in 1989.
4. Container stock.
Location: Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California:
1. Phase I - Cabrillo Ave. to Benton Street.
2. Phase H - Benton Street to Homestead Rd.
3. Phase in - Homestead Road to Pruneridge Ave.
Significance:
Successful planting of gabion-lined flood control
channel. Bubblers placed in each planting basin have
provided reliable irrigation system even on steep side
slopes. Need to use adjustable flow-rate bubblers
because of differential moisture requirements of some
species.
Size:
1. Phase I - 3.4 acres.
2 Phase n - 3.4 acres.
3. Phase HI - 3.0 acres planned.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for riparian habitat loss and visual
impacts from flood control project.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Gabion-lined (stacked and mattress) flood control
channel. Soil over mattress gabions. Bare earth at top
of bank.
Judgement of Success: Over 90% survival after one
year. Plants thriving.
Contacts
Dr. Bernard Goldner
Santa Clara Valley Water District
(408)265-2600
Ken Arutunian
AKA Landscape Architects
236 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(415)321-8833
LYONS RESERVOIR - SOUTH FORK STANISLAUS,
STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian and wet meadow. Dominant
tree species: Alder, Willow, Cottonwood, also Conifers,
especially Ponderosa Pine.
Date planted and type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1986. On-going monitoring in
progress. Liners, direct seeding of Ceanothus.
Location: South Fork Stanislaus River, approximately
1 mile upstream of Lyons Reservoir, near Sonora (just
north of Mi-Wuk Village on Highway 108), Stanislaus
County, California.
Size: 10 acres total, ISO' of streamside.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Pacific Gas & Electric
3400 Crow Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94526
Goals of Project:
Streambank stabilization; meadow enhancement,
fisheries enhancement and reforestation.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Riprapped eroding bank. Fence to exclude cattle.
Judgement of Success:
Good; project completed satisfactorily.
Significance:
Planted in and above large riprap boulders.
Should have placed intermediate and small rock
between large boulders. Should define mechanical and
vegetative erosion control zones in future projects.
460
-------
Reports
In-house reports, Pacific Gas and Electric.
Contacts
Roland Risser
Pacific Gas and Electric
(415)866-5506
SACRAMENTO RIVER MILE 237.5 LEFT, TEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Medium terrace riparian. Key species-
Blue Elderberry, Cottonwood, Sycamore, and Valley
Oak. Also planted—Oregon Ash, White Alder,
California Buckeye, and Box Elder.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in January 1988. On-going monitoring
in progress until January 1991. Tublings and acorns
purchased from nurseries. Elderberry grown in state
CCC nursery from cuttings taken on site. Also
outplanted material from containers (1 and 5 gallon),
leach tubes, tree bands, styrofoam cups, half-gallon
cartons, and bare root cuttings. Also used some live
cuttings.
Location: Red Bluff (6 miles north of Los Molinos),
Tehema County, California.
Size: 2 acres.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
650 Capitol Mall, Room 5000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4794
Goals of Project:
Mitigation for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
(VELB) habitat loss due to installation of rock slope
protection. Demonstration of medium terrace
revegetation techniques.
Associated Structural Improvements: None.
Judgement of Success:
Excellent survival to date. Slight top damage to
larger elderberry from frost. Monitoring experimental
treatments (container type, preplanting hole depth, soil
amendment/soil texture, depth to seasonal water table)
for analysis with respect to plant species survival,
growth rate and vigor.
Significance:
In addition to satisfying mitigation requirement,
the project is serving as a test of COE Riparian
Planting Design Manual for the Sacramento River.
Design Manual may be modified based upon results of
trial plantings.
Chainey, S. and S. Mills. In press. Revegetation of
riparian trees and shrubs and alluvial terrace
soils along the Upper Sacramento River. In
D. Abell (Ed.), California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Manage-ment and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Sutler, G.E., Dr. J. Singleton, J. King, and A. Fisher.
In press. Practical techniques for Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetle mitigation. In D.
Abell. 1988. California Riparian Systems
Conference: Protection, Management and
Restoration for the 1990's. September 22-24, 1988.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service.
Contacts:
Skip Mills
Army Corps of Engineers
(916)551-2069
Steve Chainey and Greg Sutler
Jones & Stokes Associates
1725 - 23rd Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916)444-5638
SESPE CREEK REVEGETATION, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Riparian woodland/scrub. Dominant
tree species: Alder, Sycamore, Willow. Also, adjacent
Upland Chaparral.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in March 1983. Monitored for 2 years.
Planted container stock and herbaceous hydroseed
mix.
Location: Sespe Creek, North of Ojai, Ventura County,
California.
Size: 8 miles.
Lead Agency or Organization:
California Department of Transportation
District 7
120 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Goals of Project:
Replace riparian vegetation cleared by road crew.
461
-------
Associated Structural Improvements:
Significances
None, other than grading to achieve conditions for
natural revegetation.
Judgement of Success:
Very successful, significant amount of natural
invasion and establishment as a result of grading
changes done to creek bed. Significant mortality to
planted materials largely from weather extremes and
late planting.
A site may best be restored using more design
attention to substrate preparation, and configuration
based upon stream hydrology than on the numbers and
type of plant specimens used. Natural invasion should
be kept into the design of every restoration project.
This, in essence, certifies the site as suitable for a
perpetual habitat over a long time period.
Contact:
John Sully
CalTrans - District 7
(213)620-2607
ELKHORN REGIONAL PARK RIPARIAN RESTORATION,
YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Native riparian trees, shrubs, grasses.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1985.
Location: Sacramento River, Elkhorn Regional Park,
West of Sacramento (bordering IS), Yolo County,
California.
Size: 1 acre.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Yolo County Community Services.
Goals of Project:
Restoration for 8 riparian dependent bird species.
Revegetate with plant species mix preferred by
desirable riparian bird species. Increase insect
production for avifauna.
Associated Structural Improvements; None.
Judgement of Success:
On-going monitoring.
Significance:
Used comparable area modeling of avian habitat
preference in order to develop plant pallette and
planting design which would favor preferred species.
Revegetation of disturbed area within largest stand of
riparian woodland in this stretch of the Sacramento
River.
Contacts:
Kerry Dawson
Dept. of Environmental Design
University of California at Davis
Davis, CA 95616
(916)752-2960
PUTAH CREEK RIPARIAN RESERVE, YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Wetland Type: Cottonwood, Willow, Valley Oak forest.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule:
1. Phase I - site preparation and installation in
progress.
2. Phase H - to be planted in the Fall of 1988.
Location: North Bank of the South Fork of Putah Creek,
Davis (between Highway 80 and Old Davis Rd.
Bridges), Yolo County, California.
Lead Agency or Organization:
University of California at Davis Arboretum
Davis, CA 95616
Goals of Project:
Riparian corridor enhancement.
Associated Structural Improvements:
Disking of compacted soil. Removal of exotic
eucalyptus and tamarisk.
Judgement of Success:
On-going monitoring.
462
-------
Significance:
Contacts
Oak plantings have utilized a number of
techniques for experimental plots including augering,
baskets, acorns, and seedlings, and high and low
watering basins.
Kerry Dawson
Dept. of Environmental Design
University of California at Davis
Davis, CA 95616
(916)752-2360
BEAR
, CROOK COUNTY, OREGON
Wetland Type: Stream riparian - sedge, rush, grass,
willow.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1976.
Location: Bear Creek (tributary to the Crooked River),
approximately 25 miles south of Prineville, Crook
County, Oregon.
Size: Approximately 3 miles of stream.
Lead Agency or Organization:
U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Prineville District Office
P.O. Box 550
185 East 4th Street
Prineville, OR 97754
Goals of Project:
Reduce sedimentation in Prineville Reservoir,
improve wildlife habitat, re-establish trout fishery,
improve stream flows in late summer and improve
watershed conditions.
Associated Stmctural Improvements:
Juniper riprap placed on some banks. Fencing to
allow control of livestock access.
Judgement of Success:
Excellent. 5 years of rest from grazing has been
followed by 5 years of late winter/early spring 3
pasture grazing. Grazing use increased from 72
animal unit months in 1976 to 313 animal unit months
in 1986. Eroding steep cut banks have been stabilized
by vegetation. The channel has also narrowed as
vegetation stabilized streambanks being built from
sediment deposits.
Significance:
Highly significant, approximately 1,000 people
have toured the area. Example of cooperative effort
involving ranchers. Grazing advisory board provided
County money for fencing and ranchers provided the
labor.
Report;
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas:
perceptions in management. Ranyelanda T 9(6t:260-
265.
Contacts:
John Heilmeyer, Earl McKinney,
and Wayne Elmore
(503)447-4115
CAMP
, CROOK COUNTY, OREGON
Wetland Type: Stream riparian - sedge, rush, grass.
Location: Camp Creek (tributary to upper Crooked
River), approximately 40 miles southeast of Prineville,
Crook County, Oregon.
Size: Approximately 5 miles of stream.
Lead Agency or Organization:
U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Prineville District Office
P.O. Box 550
Prineville, OR 97754
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Goals of Project:
Improve wildlife habitat, reduce siltation and
erosion, and improve stream flows. Reverse historic
downcutting and widening of Camp Creek attributed to
overgrazing by sheep since 1880. To re-establish
conditions which existed prior to 1875 by re-converting
sagebrush-rabbitbrush community to wet meadow by
raising water table.
Associated Structural Improvements:
No instream structures. Fencing for livestock
exclusion to permit vegetative recovery installed in
1966 and between 1969 and 1974. Presently,
approximately 4 miles of channel are fenced.
Judgement of Success:
Excellent. Plant species diversity has increased
from 17 to 45 after recovery. Wildlife species diversity
has increased from 75 sighted in control area one-half
mile downstream of the fenced stream section to 131
sighted within the fenced enclosure.
463
-------
Significance:
Dramatic recovery has received national
recognition. Riparian vegetation on streambanks has
helped to reduce erosion compared to above and below
this stream section by causing silt to be deposited in the
thick vegetative mat. Bottom of streambed has risen
between 1973 and 1979 which is raising the water level
in the stream and streambank. Streamflow in treated
stream section has gone from intermittent to
perennial.
Reports
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas:
perceptions in management. Rangelands.
9(6)260-265.
Winegar, H.H. 1977. Camp Creek Channel fencing
plant, wildlife, soil and water response.
Rangeland'g Journal. 4(1):!0-12.
Contact
Wayne Elmore, Riparian Specialist,
and Dick Cosgriffe
(503)4474115
FIFTEEN MELJB CREEK/RAMSEY CREEK, WASCO COUNTY, OREGON
Wetland Type: Alder, Cottonwood, Willow.
Date Planted and Type of Propagule: Project
implemented in 1974. Cuttings (presumably not Alder).
Location: Fifteen Mile Creek and Ramsey Creek
(tributary to Fifteen Mile Creek), near Dufur, Wasco
County, Oregon. Private property—Carlton Ranch,
Underbill Ranch.
Size: 10 miles of streambank.
Lead Agency or Organization:
Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation
District in cooperation with: Local landowners,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and The
Dalles Chapter of the Northwest Steelheaders.
Goak of Project:
Control severe bank erosion caused by continual
use by livestock and farming and 1964 and 1974 floods.
Improve habitat conditions for anadromous steelhead
trout.
.lii/l|«aitMmt of ftinrmm-
The level of stream corridor recovery along
Fifteen Mile Creek between 1974 and 1981 has been
described as "phenomenal". In fenced livestock
exclosures, young alder, cottonwood and willow growth
along the stream often form nearly continuous
hedge-like bands from 15 to 20 feet high. Where growth
has been accelerated with fertilizer and irrigation
water, the stream disappeared beneath a complete tree
canopy within five growing seasons.
Significance:
Improved riparian condition eliminated the need
for annual rechannelization.
Sections of the streambank were fenced to control
grazing while riparian vegetation was re-established.
Limited use of heavy rock riprap where sever bank
erosion was likely to re-occur.
Report:
Newton, J. 1981. A Stream on the Mend.
Wildlife. February, p. 3-6.
Contact:
Wayne Elmore
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 550
Prineville, OR 97754
(503)447-4115
Oregon
464
-------
OVERVIEW AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
JoyB.Zedler
Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory
San Diego State University
and
Milton W. Weller
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A & M University
INTRODUCTION
Despite loss of over 50% of the wetlands in
the contiguous United States, there is continuing
pressure to use wetlands for immediate economic
gain. Functional values that are nearly perpetual
(self-maintaining) are rarely considered, and
the complexity, integrity, and uniqueness of
natural wetlands are undervalued. It is
commonly assumed that wetland losses can be
mitigated by restoring or creating wetlands of
equal value. Some feel that replication is not
always necessary if certain functions are
replaced; others, including most wetland
scientists, recognize that duplication is
impossible and simulation is improbable. All
would agree that we need substantially more
information about what functions are being lost
and how to replace them. This overview
highlights the topics for which information needs
are greatest and provides a research strategy to:
a) improve wetland restoration/creation efforts,
b) determine the degree to which constructed
systems can replace lost functions, and c)
determine the potential for persistence
(resilience) of restored and constructed wetlands.
We rely on authors of papers in this volume
(hereafter called reviewers), our own experience,
other wetland restoration literature, and
discussions with other members of the National
Wetlands Technical Council.
REASONS FOR RESTORING/CONSTRUCTING WETLANDS
While mitigation policies are the stimulus
for most wetland restoration/creation projects
today, there have been many efforts to alter or
create wetlands in the past. Replacement of lost
values has not always been required; rather,
wetlands have been created or modified
specifically to: 1) provide waterfowl and other
wetland wildlife habitats; 2) minimize flood
damage through increased flood-storage capacity;
3) store rainwater for livestock use or crop
irrigation; 4) create agricultural basins for rice,
cranberries, fish or crayfish; 5) improve water
quality by trapping sediments; and 6) confine
acid mine wastes, chemical contaminants, or
fertilizer waste products. In addition, wetlands
have been created inadvertently where
topographic changes, such aa roadway
construction, have impounded water, or where
gravel extraction or other mining has created
suitable basins for wetland development. The
marshes adjacent to the Salton Sea are perhaps
the most extensive inadvertent wetlands in North
America; the dry basin became a sea in 1904
when an irrigation canal overflowed with
fioodwater from the Colorado River.
Today, wetland restoration and creation
projects involve a variety of ecosystems and
many kinds of target species (e.g., fishes, birds,
plants). Most of the freshwater projects have been
in patustrine or open marsh wetlands that are
aesthetically pleasing and have high, or at least
more visible, wildlife values. Intentional
conversion of shrub-dominated wetlands to
herbaceous marshes has been common in the
northeast, where it is easy to do and where
wildlife become easier to view than in forests.
The creation of open-water areas for agricultural
water supplies has been extensive, involving tens
of thousands of ponds in Missouri, Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas. Their functions are
limited by pond depth, turbidity and watershed
characteristics. Nevertheless, these wetlands are
new to the landscape. In the southwest, riparian
restoration projects have been implemented to
improve bird habitat. Throughout the country,
streams have been restored for fisheries through
structural modifications and the reduction of
465
-------
disturbance from livestock. Bogs and fens,
which are extremely mature and complex
systems, seem not to have been the target of
restoration/creation attempts.
Forested palustrine wetlands are being lost
at up to five times the rate of upland forests,
according to a recent review of U.S. Forest
Service data (Abernethy and Turner 1987).
These habitats have been studied for plant-water
relationships, and the water purification values
of trees such as cypress are now well understood.
Still, little has been done to create such forests
beyond tree planting in agricultural settings,
and much needs to be learned about the
management of woody succession, the creation of
natural understory communities, and the
impoundment of waters to create bottomland
habitat for wildlife.
Along the coasts, restoration efforts have
been widespread (but not extensive) in intertidal
marshes dominated by cordgrass, in mangrove
forests, and in subtidal seagrass beds. Compared
to inland restoration projects, coastal systems
involve fewer plant species. Although providing
monotypic vegetation (e.g., cordgrass) is often the
immediate restoration objective, the ultimate
goal is to provide habitat for a diverse coastal
animal community that includes benthic
infauna, fishes, terrestrial and aquatic insects,
and birds. In California, mitigation agreements
often require enhancement of habitat for target
species, such as commercially valuable fishes
or mammals, waterfowl, or plants and
animals that are threatened with extinction and
protected by federal and state laws.
Most projects involve modifications of
former or degraded wetlands. Because many
freshwater wetlands have been degraded by
sedimentation, water turbidity, eutrophication, or
altered water levels, and because many coastal
wetlands have been filled or diked, there are
numerous opportunities to restore or enhance
existing sites. Some mitigation projects attempt
to compensate for lost area by changing one
wetland type (e.g., shallow water) to another (e.g.,
deeper water), or vice versa. Few projects replace
lost wetland by converting upland to new
wetland. A few attempts have been made to create
vernal pools from upland habitat for the purpose
of conserving endangered plant species.
However, upland conversions or deeper water
conversions are complex and expensive, and less
likely to achieve agreed-upon goals than
enhancement of degraded sites. Most former
wetlands sites retain at least some vegetation
and/or seed banks, and thus have.potential for
recovery. This is especially true of wildlife
habitat development using water control
structures and of the construction of farm ponds
in the southern Great Plains, which often occurs
in small drainages.
SETTING GOALS AND EVALUATING SUCCESS
Evaluating whether an attempt to create or
restore a wetland has been successful is always
controversial, largely because criteria for
success differ. As Josselyn et al. (this volume)
reiterate, success may be viewed as replacement
of natural functional values or as compliance
with a specific contract. The former is often the
mitigation requirement, but natural functions
are too complex to be identified in detail in a
construction contract. The reviewers agreed that
goals are too often vague or unrealistic. On the
other hand, objectives listed in a contract may be
too narrow in scope or too few in number.
The overall recommendation is to improve
goal setting by beginning the mitigation permit
process with a thorough evaluation of functions
that will be lost when the wetland is destroyed or
modified. In order to set goals for in-kind
replacement, it is essential to know how the
wetland is functioning; then, mitigation can be
planned, and compliance of the resulting project
evaluated. In discussing restoration/creation
projects, the term "success" is best avoided or
used only with qualifiers that identify the
measurement criteria. Scientifically defensible
standards are needed, based on research to
develop suitable sampling protocols and identify
appropriate reference (comparison) data sets.
Follow-up efforts to evaluate progress toward
some goal have been almost totally lacking in
the mitigation process. Legal mandates to do so
vary by project and often are not enforced. A few
studies have incorporated vegetation assessments
of the mitigation sites, but quantification is often
lacking and the timing of the assessment may be
inadequate (e.g., two weeks after planting is
insufficient to distinguish live from dead
cordgrass). It is imperative that constructed
wetlands be persistent. Reviewers agreed that
more detailed and longer-term monitoring
programs are required to determine if wetland
functions are being replaced in perpetuity.
Elsewhere in this volume (cf. paper by Erwin),
specific suggestions are made for evaluating
wetland ecosystem development.
Long-term commitments to maintain
restored/created wetlands seem rare except in
466
-------
government agency projects, where weed control
and maintenance of dikes and water-level
control structures are often included in the long-
range plan or forced by local advocates. Coastal
wetlands are dynamic, and mitigation wetlands
won't necessarily develop according to eng-
ineering or landscape plans. Initial seedings
or plantings may not perform as expected due to
weather, substrate type, elevation, or other
unpredictable conditions. Water regimes may
not meet expectations. Thus, many reviewers
recommended that projects provide for "mid-
course corrections"-- recognizing that something
unplanned may happen. The conscientious
evaluator sees the need for a change of direction
to meet the original or changing goals, but
contracts may not allow it. Such readjustments
are more common in wildlife or flood
control projects where goals are more general
and perhaps less restrictive. Ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of data can and
should allow for readjustments. If an unplanned
event is beneficial to the region, it can be
capitalized upon; if it is a problem, plans can be
made to correct it.
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH
The process of restoring wetlands involves at
least three steps that can benefit from scientific
research.
Step!: Setting general (large-scale,
region-wide) goals. Usually these are loosely
stated as "maintain regional biodiversity"
and/or solve societal problems, such as "improve
water quality" or "enhance fisheries" or "reduce
shoreline erosion". For this step, the kinds of
information needed include: a) broad surveys of
species distributions and knowledge of the
relationships of species and their biotic and
abiotic habitats and; b) general models of
wetland functions for filtering materials from
flowing water, supporting fisheries, and
reducing hydrologic hazards. The fields of study
range from taxonomy, biogeography, and
landscape ecology, to water and soil chemistry
and hydrology.
Step 2: Specifying project objectives and
implementation procedures. The targets here are
usually biological ones - with waterfowl,
fisheries, endangered species, and/or selected
vegetation types to be enhanced or exotic and pest
species to be removed. Altering the topography
or changing channel or shoreline morphometry
is often prescribed. The information required
includes detailed knowledge of species-habitat
relationships and existing hydrology; in many
cases, hydrologic models of existing and future
changes in water circulation and sediment
distribution will also be needed. Plant and
animal population ecology, autecology,
sedimentology, and hydrology are fields of study
that can contribute understanding at this stage of
restoration planning.
Step 3: Assessing how well the project
matches its goals. Monitoring plans and on-site
sampling are needed to characterize the
effectiveness of restored, enhanced, or created
wetlands. Controversies over whether projects
are successful or not have already developed,
and it is not clear which aspects of the project
must be measured (contract compliance versus
wetland functional value). In the future, it is
likely that the methods of sampling the site and
the data analysis required to interpret the results
will also become more controversial, especially
if penalties are established for inadequate
mitigation. Sampling design and statistics
become important.
INFORMATION NEEDS: SIMILARITIES AMONG REGIONS
The reviewers agree on one general
principle—that mitigation efforts cannot yet
claim to have duplicated lost wetland functional
values. It has not been shown that restored or
constructed wetlands maintain regional
biodiversity and recreate functional ecosystems—
there is some evidence that constructed wetlands
can look like natural ones; there are few data to
show they behave like natural ones. We can
plant cordgrass gardens, but we don't know how
well they resemble native cordgrass ecosystems.
The restoration planning process does not
include baseline studies of wetland ecosystem
functioning, i.e. the dynamics of the wetland.
Permits may require inventories, but these are
rarely more than "snapshots" of the ecosystem,
i.e., one-time characterizations of structure.
The greatest need is to understand wetland
hydrology. As one hydrologist concluded, the
interaction between wetlands, surface water, and
ground water is still poorly understood or
467
-------
documented for most wetland types. The
interactions that occur in wetlands among
hydrologic elements, soils, water quality, and
plant 'communities are rarely studied long
enough, or in sufficient detail or precision, to
provide complete understanding. We need to
understand wetland hydrology before we can
effectively understand any of the other
interactions or processes that occur in wetlands.
The range of hydrologic conditions typical for
each wetland type, and the extremes that stress or
destroy each wetland type, must be determined
(R. Novitzld, U.S.G.S., pers. comm.).
A widespread need is to understand the
relationships between wetland species and
wetland topography. Grading must be planned
and implemented with high precision—a few
centimeters too high or too low will prevent the
desired community from developing. While the
concept seems simple, one of the most common
errors in site construction is incorrect elevation.
Closely tied to hydrology and topography is
the need to understand the importance of
substrate type to wetland species. It is not yet
clear how particle size and organic matter
content interact to influence the establishment,
distribution and growth of plants and animals,
or the chemistry of the soil (e.g., pH, nutrients,
oxygen, sulfides).
Several reviewers identified the need for
more information about the gene pools that will
be affected by wetland alterations. There is
concern both about loss of local diversity and
introduction of "alien" genes during
transplantation of stock from distant sources.
Because of ecotypic variation, foreign plants
may lack necessary adaptations for
environmental conditions at the transplant site.
Such shortcomings may not be obvious until
several years after transplantation, if the gene
lacking is one that allows tolerance to rare
extremes in temperature, salinity, or other
conditions. It is also possible that foreign stock
might outcompete local material in the short run
and eliminate important genes from remnant
populations. Because there are so many
unknowns, several reviewers recommended: that
transplant stock be taken from the nearest
possible source, that nursery grown stock be
labeled to specify the location where seeds or
sprigs were obtained, and that contracts require
local stock.
More information is needed to predict
which methods of planting will achieve
vegetative cover most rapidly across a variety of
site conditions. Existing techniques include: 1)
reliance on natural germination, often enhanced
by water level management or irrigation; 2)
seeding; 3) planting of tubers, rhizomes or whole
emergent plants; and 4) planting of trees from
cuttings, dormant poles, or potted plants.
Individual reviewers identified additional
information needs for problems that are
widespread among regions of the U.S.: 1) We
need to understand what conditions favor and
discourage nuisance species. Weedy exotics are
more likely to invade disturbed sites; they may
outcompete the restoration target species. Both
preventative and control measures are needed. 2)
We need to understand the dispersal of plants
and the movements of animals among wetlands.
Linkages with adjacent wetlands may be cut, so
that the native species may not have ready access
to the mitigation site. 3) We need to know more
about the content of toxic substances at mitigation
sites. Old landfills may be exposed by grading,
heavy metals and organic toxins may be present
in concentrations high enough to stress
transplants and reduce their survival. The
mobility and the potential for trophic
concentration of exposed materials need to be
predictable so that hazards can be identified. 4)
We need to understand" wetland soil chemistry.
Nutrient dynamics are influenced by inundation
and exposure. Aeration of some wetland soils
(cat clays) may lead to very low pH and soils
that retain their acidity for many years.
INFORMATION]
The concerns of reviewers differed widely
by region and wetland type:
1. The scale of restoration problems differs
enormously from region to region. In
Louisiana, 40 square miles of wetland are
being lost each year. Along the Florida coast,
mangrove forests are being chipped away a
few hectares at a time.
region: In Louisiana, river flows need to be
redirected so that sediment-starved marshefe
will accrete and keep up with subsidence and
rising sea level. In southern California,
sediment-choked lagoons are filling too fast.
The tidal prism declines, and the ocean inlet
becomes blocked to tidal flow. Extreme
environmental conditions eliminate species
with narrow ranges of tolerance.
2. Sedimentation problems differ drastically by 3. Dredge spoil islands can provide an
468
-------
important substrate for marsh creation
where the coastal shelf is flat and wide (e.g.,
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts); they compete for
rare sub tidal habitat where the shelf is steep
and narrow (Pacific Coast). In most regions,
bay disposal is not permitted.
4. The functions that are most valued differ for
each region.
a. Hydrologic benefits that are most valued
range from shoreline anchoring along the
Atlantic Coast, to flood storage along major
rivers, t.o providing wet habitat for wetland
plants and animals in southern California.
b. Water quality problems may focus on
sediment load in Louisiana and industrial
wastes in the northeast.
c. The dominant vegetation differs, and
research on transplanting cordgrass in
North Carolina doesn't necessarily transfer
to problems concerning mangroves in
Florida or sedge-dominated marshes in
Oregon. Where endangered plants are
present (e.g., Mesa mint in vernal pools,
salt marsh bird's beak in coastal marshes),
very specific vegetation plantings are called
for. One might expect that a single
transplanting protocol could be developed, at
least for sea grasses, which occur nearly
everywhere along the nation's coast,
including Hawaii and Alaska. But, among
the ecological regions, the species grow
differently and transplanting recom-
mendations do not transfer from one region
to the next (cf. Fonseca, this volume).
d. The animal uses of different wetland types
vary by region. In the Pacific Northwest,
and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
wetlands may be managed for various
fisheries, while some in San Francisco
Bay may be designed for the endangered
salt marsh harvest mouse, and many in
southern California and Florida are
managed for endangered birds.
5. Finally, regions differ in information
availability, which is a function of the time
span over which scientists have been
involved in restoration research (10+ years
in N. Carolina), the number of projects that
have been done in a region (e.g., Florida
mangrove work), the type of restoration
problem (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dredged Material Research Program) and
whether or not anyone has taken the
initiative to review past projects (e.g.,
Shisler's work in New Jersey).
Because of these different information needs,
individual papers provided research recom-
mendations specific to their region or a single
wetland type.
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
To meet the wide variety of information
needs, we propose a research program (Figure 1)
that is based on improved understanding of
wetland functioning (a national wetland
ecosystem initiative), that will characterize
similarities and differences in the functioning
of natural and constructed wetlands
(comparisons within regions), and that will
respond to specific needs for local projects and
regional regulatory personnel (demonstration
sites, each with an experimental component).
Of these three goals, the first is broad and open-
ended, requiring a long-term funding
commitment and many investigations; yet a
commitment to basic understanding underlies
all wetland science. The second and third goals
focus on comparisons within biogeographic
regions and these studies would provide the most
rapid and direct input to regulatory personnel.
The rationale for each research goal is
discussed, with priorities for the types of studies
that should be undertaken:
L NATIONAL, WETLAND ECOSYSTEM
RESEARCH PROGRAM
A national wetland ecosystem research
program is needed to provide better
understanding of wetland ecosystem
functioning, wherein science is applied to
wetland restoration and construction. We need
to move from descriptive to hypothesis generating
and testing studies. Long-term efforts of 5 to 15
years and multidisciplinary involvement is
required. Studies of soils, chemistry,
microbiology, and physiology of wetland
components must be included. A national
program encompassing many wetland types
would allow an interactive and creative setting
for basic science, as well as problem solving.
Where one branch of science has provided
predictive powers (e.g., non-point source pollution
models and lake restoration models), technology
transfers should be included in the research
programs (O. Loucks, Butler University, pers.
469
-------
Research to understand
wetland ecosystem functioning
Region 1
Wetland
Regions 2 n
Basic science
Reference Data Sets
Experts
Comparative research
on
constructed
wetlands
natural
wetlands
Documentation of
similarities and
differences in
structure and
functioning
Experimentation
incorporated into
restoration sites
Appropriate techniques,
understanding of why
some techniques succeed
and why others fail;
improved restoration.
Figure 1. Research strategy to improve wetland restoration programs. Elements should be
implemented simultaneously, i.e., research need not proceed from top to bottom.
470
-------
comm.)- Studies of vegetation should recognize
the dynamic, often stochastic, nature of wetlands
that are subject to catastrophic events and rare
environmental extremes (W. Niering,
Connecticut College, pers. comm.).
Current ecosystem research programs (e.g.,
NSF-LTER program) focus on a few sites chosen
to represent major biomes. We recommend a
broader approach for wetland ecosystem research
that focuses on wetland types—not just a single
site for each type but an understanding of
wetland types with a biogeographic region—to
provide reference data sets that characterize the
spatial and temporal dynamics of ecosystem
structure and functioning. Specific studies
should address:
1. The history of species composition,
microstratigraphy, development of organic
soil deposits and other soil characteristics.
While considerable work of this type has
been done in peat beds and bogs, goals have
focused on describing climate and species
change, and have been less oriented to
processes and changes in functional
components of the system.
2. The importance and functional significance
of organic soil and of the chemical and
biological processes in wetlands.
3. The geochemical and geomorphological
processes that influence soil-water holding
capacity, movement and quality.
4. Relationships between substrate type and
geomorphology to wetland autonomy, e.g.,
perched wetlands, water-table wetlands, and
flow-through basins.
5. Biochemical processes of nutrient turnover
at various water regimes. The relationship
of macroinvertebrates to nutrient dynamics.
6. Life-history patterns of plants at various
water regimes, especially minima and
maxima. Plant responses to fixed-water
regimes.
7. Persistence of communities and resilience to
extreme events.
8. The relative values of wetlands and uplands
in performing hydrologic functions such as
flood desynchronization and ground water
recharge.
IL LANDSCAPE-LEVEL COMPARISONS
Landscape-level comparisons of natural and
constructed wetlands are needed to understand
controls on short and long-term achievement of
restoration goals. Within regions and within
wetland types, we need to identify the rates with
which constructed wetlands approach the
functional characteristics of more natural
systems, the factors that slow wetland
development, and the techniques for accelerating
the achievement of restoration goals. Pilot
studies are underway in Florida, the Pacific
Northwest, and Louisiana, with funding from
EPA. Their focus is on structural similarities
and differences between constructed and
"reference" wetlands (M. Kentula, NSI
Technology Services, Corp., pers. comm.). These
studies need to be extended to identify beneficial
attributes and shortcomings of wetland
mitigation projects and to identify causes of
successes and failures in developing the proper
hydrologic and biologic functions. They also
need to be extended to all regions of the country.
Reviewers provided a number of specific
suggestions for research. These include:
1. Determination of the range of hydrologic
conditions typical for each wetland type, and
identification of the extremes that stress or
destroy each wetland type. Important
questions are: what changes in groundwater
are tolerable; what degree of streamflow
alteration is permissible; what degree of
salinity change will alter ecosystem
structure; what degree of sediment input can
the ecosystem absorb?
2. Physiological requirements and tolerance of
plants to soil and water chemistry (including
salinity) and temperature. Important
questions for natural and constructed
wetlands are: is nitrogen fixation similar; is
the nutrient trapping function present; do
toxic materials have similar impacts; is
productivity similar; are the species
groupings likely to persist?
3. Genetic make-up of hydrophytes across their
distributional range. It is important to know
if the vegetation in constructed wetlands has
the potential to withstand extremes in
physical and biological (e.g., insect
irruptions) conditions.
4 Cumulative impacts of adjacent projects on
hydrology and water quality of the developed
site. Can the constructed wetlands persist
within regions where multiple impacts occur?
5. Ecological merits of mitigating damages on-
site vs. off-site and with restoration vs.
construction efforts. Can regional bio-
diversity and functional values be
maintained with off-site mitigation; are
newly constructed systems less likely to
succeed than restored systems?
471
-------
6. Weed problems and control methods. It is
hypothesized that constructed wetlands are
less resilient than natural systems, and that
considerable effort will be needed to control
weedy species.
7. Studies of various "buffer concepts",
including protective zones (bands around
wetlands) that might reduce negative
impacts at the upland-wetland interface.
How broad must buffers be, and what
qualities must they possess to protect
functional values? Are requirements
similar for natural and constructed
systems?
The comparative research programs should
include interaction with regulatory agencies to
provide rapid information transfer. The research
should analyze monitoring data from regional
restoration sites to identify problems and
evaluate the need for mid-course corrections.
The biological goals of ongoing and future
restoration projects should be updated
continuously as information on regionally
significant species becomes available.
Finally, we recommend that the regional
approach initiated in this review book be
augmented with preparation of regional resource
information banks that list high-priority
restoration goals, characterize additional
restoration projects by describing their problems
and achievements, and continue to update the
literature on restoration within the region and
nationwide.
WETLAND RESTORATION
DEMONSTRATION SITES
Wetland restoration demonstration sites
with manipulative experimentation and rapid
information transfer are needed to improve
restoration projects and to foster a close working
relationship between regulatory personnel and
scientists— beyond the publication of research
findings. Wetland scientists can offer new data,
but there should be incentive and opportunity to
contribute more — those scientists interested in
wetland restoration can identify questions that
should be asked of permit applicants and can
offer opinions based on unique experiences. In
many situations, this interaction already exists
and should be fostered. In other situations, it
needs to be developed. Therefore, we suggest that
EPA fund at least one restoration research
program in each of its regions.
The priority goals of the research program
should be to develop best restoration methods, to
understand the causes of successes and failures,
to transfer information to regulatory personnel,
and to provide expert consultation on highly
controversial permits. The criteria used to
identify suitable research programs should
include the following:
1. The mitigation project(s) should be
"representative" of the region—preferably, it
will include more than one type of habitat
type, including the one most commonly
mitigated in the region. At least one
reference site should also be selected.
2. The project should include an experimental
component, so that cause-effect relationships
can be tested. At least some of the region's
important questions should be answerable
through manipulative experimentation at the
restoration site.
3. There should be a designated mechanism for
rapid information transfer to regulatory
personnel, including field site visits and
video or slide shows. Where multiple
responses to the requests for proposals are
obtained, on-site reviews that include
regulatory personnel should be implemented.
This review process alone would identify
specific problems, sites, and available
expertise.
4. There should be opportunities for several
experts in the region to interact with agency
personnel—-in reviewing the research
program and in evaluating successful and
unsuccessful mitigation programs.
5. The research program should begin with 2-3
years of intensive study, and include a long-
term component, if only reevaluation at 5, 10
and 15-year intervals. Continued commit-
ment by funding agencies will allow the
most basic restoration question to be
answered, i.e., are we creating gardens or
functional, resilient ecosystems? Long-term
projects will insure that advice continues
even after regulatory personnel change.
Specific objectives should be geared to each
region according to recommendations in this
volume; they include studies of each of the
research objectives recommended above, plus
detailed, site-specific studies identifying and
investigating:
1. Dependencies between animals, plants and
substrate, including hydroperiods required by
individual plant species, host specificity of
herbivorous insects, dependence of infauna
on substrate texture, nesting and feeding
requirements of birds. Special, detailed
studies are needed for each region's rare and
endangered species.
2. Merits of using natural seed banks or seed-
bearing mulch from other wetlands vs.
472
-------
adding seeds and the merits of various
planting techniques.
3. Required watering regimes (irrigation
requirements, if any; elevation and
inundation tolerances), fertilizer needs, and
salinity tolerances for species planted at the
site. The value of (need for) organic soil for
successful plant establishment.
4. Control regimes to reduce or eradicate local
nuisance species.
5. Indicator species that can help quantify
wetland functions, e.g., use of invertebrates
as measures of food chain support;
abundance of blue-green algae or legumes as
indicators of nitrogen fixation potential;
presence of clean-water species of fishes or
invertebrates that indicate filtering
functions.
IV. PRIORITIES FOR FUNDING
If EPA research budgets are limited, every
attempt should be made to identify other federal,
regional, and local sources of research support,
so that efforts can be coordinated. Immediate
funding of regional demonstration sites will
provide the most direct contribution of scientific
understanding to improved restoration (Strategy
III). A long-term commitment to systematic data
gathering (monitoring) of selected sites will be
necessary to understand if restored wetlands
have the resilience to persist well into the future.
Expansion of research to compare a diverse
selection of wetland types within and among
regions (Strategy II) would broaden the basis for
sound management. Finally, the commitment to
understanding wetland functioning at the
broadest geographic scale (Strategy I) is basic to
wetland science. There will be progress toward
this goal if Strategies III and II are adopted. The
demonstration sites and regional comparisons
are important components of the research
program needed to insure successful restoration
and management of the nation's existing
wetland resources.
CONCLUSION
There is a national need to understand
wetland functioning at its most basic and
detailed levels, to compare natural and
constructed wetlands within biogeographic
regions, and to test methods of restoring
wetlands using manipulative experimentation.
Wetland research should be directed toward the
proximate goal of preserving wetland values,
and ultimately, of understanding the details of
how wetlands function. Problems and objectives
involve different research levels (e.g., size of
areas, time scales, precision and complexity).
Some problems require immediate solutions for
crisis situations; with answers based on research
that uses a less precise level or a smaller size
scale. The research program must build short-
term goals into a long-term design, both to gain
perspective and to prioritize projects and
funding.
Interaction between researchers and
regulatory personnel will help solve practical
problems and crisis decision-making and help
develop technology for restoring degraded
wetlands or constructing new ones. Transfer of
information between programs will enhance
effectiveness and aid in research problem
identification. A national program of wetland
ecosystem research will move the process of
wetland construction, restoration and enhance-
ment from trial-and-error to a sound
management program.
LITERATURE CITED
Abernethy, Y., and
Forested Wetlands:
727.
R.E. Turner. 1987. U.S.
1940-1980. BioScience 37:721-
473
------- |