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

-------