Appendix C

Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites

Trajectories for restoration in various mitigation studies are shown in comparison to conditions in reference marshes. The “>” and “<” signs mean that the equilibrium takes more time or less time, respectively, than the age of the mitigation site (years) when the survey was conducted or the data were modeled to project an age.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites Trajectories for restoration in various mitigation studies are shown in comparison to conditions in reference marshes. The “>” and “<” signs mean that the equilibrium takes more time or less time, respectively, than the age of the mitigation site (years) when the survey was conducted or the data were modeled to project an age.

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT TABLE C–1 Analysis of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites Component Location Sites Years Source/Notes 1. Soils California 1 >22, if ever Zedler and Callaway (1999); salt marsh Organic matter/% carbon Louisiana 30 >20 Turner et al. (1994); backfilled marsh   North Carolina 7 >17 Sacco et al. (1994); planted salt marsh   Illinois 2 >7 Mitsch and Flanagan (1996); fresh marsh   Oregon 1 >5 Gwin et al. (1990); fresh marshes   Pennsylvania 44 ? Bishel-Machung et al. (1996); fresh marsh   Metanalysis 19 ≫10 Streever (2000); coastal dredged sites   South Carolina 2 >3 LaSalle et al. (1991); salt marsh Macroorganic concentration North Carolina 1 >3 Moy and Levin (1991); planted salt marsh from uplands   North Carolina 5–7 >25 Craft et al. (1988); Craft (2000) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentration California 1 40+ Zedler and Callaway (1999); salt marsh   North Carolina 5 >30 Craft et al. (1988); salt marsh   Illinois 2 >7 Mitsch and Flanagan (1996); fresh marsh Exchangeable ions South Carolina 2 >3 LaSalle et al. (1991); salt marsh Grain size North Carolina 1 >3 Moy and Levin (1991); planted salt marsh from uplands Nutrient cycling Texas 3 >17 Montagna (1993) Sulfide and nitrogen California 1 >15 Zedler (1990) Average of six soil indices California 4 >5 Zedler and Langis (1991); salt marsh Nutrient exchange North Carolina 1 >5 Craft et al. (1991); salt marsh 2. Plants—trees Ohio 10 >50 Niswander and Mitsch (1995); riparian wetland, simulation model Plant cover Atlantic and Gulf 68 5–7 Matthews and Minello (1994); literature review   Louisiana 30 >20 Turner et al. (1994); backfilled marsh   Oregon 1 3 Frenkel and Morlan (1990); hay farm restoration Height and biomass California 4 >5 Zedler and Langis (1991); salt marsh   California 1 >11, if ever Zedler and Callaway (1999); salt marsh   North Carolina 1 5 Broome et al. (1986)

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Species richness/cover Connecticut 5 >10 Confer and Niering (1992); freshwater marshes   Illinois 2 >7 Mitsch and Flanagan (1996); fresh marsh Native plant species Portland, Oregon 51 >5 Magee et al. (1999); fresh marshes Ratio above- to below-ground biomass North Carolina 1 10 Broome et al. (1986) Below-ground biomass Texas 14 10 Shafer and Streever (2000); salt marsh Three taxa Metanalysis 12–14 >10 Streever (2000); coastal dredge sites 3. Fish and fisheries Finfish number, biomass California 1 >2 Chamberlain and Barnhart (1993); salt marsh Finfish number California 1 5 Zedler (1990) Fish species number Florida 21 10 Roberts (1991) Fish and shrimp North Carolina Review <3 Fonseca et al. (1990); sea grasses Marsh resident fish biomass North Carolina 3 >3 Minello (2000) Marsh fisheries species Texas   >6 Rulifson (1991); salt marsh Biomass and number of finfish and shrimp Florida 1 >2 Moy and Levin (1991); planted salt marsh from uplands 4. Marsh invertebrates Marsh infauna number North Carolina 1 >3 Moy and Levin (1991); planted salt marsh from re-graded uplands   California 4 >5 Zedler and Langis (1991); salt marsh Marsh infauna biomass North Carolina 1 2 Cammen (1976); salt marsh Marsh infauna biomass North Carolina 1 1 Cammen (1976); salt marsh Marsh infauna biomass North Carolina 7 >25 Craft (2000) Marsh infauna species, and species proportions North Carolina 7 <17 Sacco et al. (1994); planted salt marsh   California 4 >5 Zedler and Langis (1991); salt marsh Marsh infauna species number and biomass North Carolina 7 >17 Sacco et al. (1994); fresh marsh

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Component Location Sites Years Source/Notes Marsh infauna biomass, and number Florida 1 >2 Vose and Bell (1994); salt marsh impoundment Larval dipterans Florida 10 <11 Streever et al. (1996); fresh marsh Macrobenthos South Carolina 2 4–8 LaSalle et al. (1991); salt marsh Epibenthos Washington 1 >5 Simenstad and Thom (1996); salt marsh Fish abundance Metanalysis 11 5? Streever (2000) Total crustaceans abundance Metanalysis 9 >12 Streever (2000) 5. Birds Endangered species California 1 >15 Zedler (1990) Bird species number Florida 21 <10 Roberts (1991) Waterfowl Iowa 30 <3 van Rees-Siewart and Dinsmore (1996); fresh marsh Natural assemblages Iowa 30 >5 van Rees-Siewart and Dinsmore (1996); fresh marsh   Portland, Oregon 51 >5 Magee et al. (1999); fresh marsh   Metanalysis NA ? Streever (2000); dredged marshes   Texas 7 >13 Melvin and Webb (1998); dredged marshes

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT References Bishel-Machung, L., R.P.Brooks, S.S.Yates, and K.L.Hoover. 1996. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16(4):532–541. Broome, S.W., E.D.Seneca, and W.W.Woodhouse, Jr. 1986. Long-term growth and development of transplants of the salt-marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 9:63–74. Cammen, L.M. 1976. Abundance and production of macroinvertebrates from natural and artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Amer. Midl. Nat. 96(2):487–493. Chamberlain, R.H., and R.A.Barnhart. 1993. Early use by fish of a mitigation salt Marsh, Humbolt Bay, California Estuaries 16(4):769–783. Confer, S.R., and W.A.Niering. 1992. Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 2(3):143–156. Craft, C. 2000. Co-development of wetland soils and benthic invertebrate communities following salt marsh creation. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 8(2/3):197–207. Craft, C.B., S.W.Broome, and E.D.Seneca. 1988. Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon pools in natural and transplanted marsh soils. Estuaries 11(4):272–289. Craft, C.B., E.D.Seneca, and S.W.Broome. 1991. Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh soils. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 152(2):187–200. Fonseca, M.S., W.J.Kenworth, D.R.Colby, K.A.Rittmaster, and G.W.Thayer. 1990. Comparisons of fauna among natural and transplanted eelgrass Zostera marina meadows: criteria for mitigation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 65(3):251–264. Frenkel, R.W., and J.C.Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River Salt Marshes: Retrospect and Prospect Corvallis, OR: Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University. Gwin, S.E., M.E.Kentula, and E.M.Preston. 1990. Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance of Wetlands Created Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. EPA/ 600/3-90/061. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cornvallis, OR. 122 pp. LaSalle, W.M., M.C.Landin, and J.G.Sims. 1991. Evaluation of the flora and fauna of Spartina alternifora marsh established on dredged material in Winhay Bay, South Carolina. Wetlands 11(2):191–208. Magee, T.K., T.L.Ernst, M.E.Kentula, and K.A.Dwire 1999. Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment Wetlands 19(3):517–534. Matthews, G.A., and T.J.Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina alterniflora Marshes in the United States. Vol. 2. Inventory and Human Resources Directory. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 2. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Dept. Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Melvin, S.L., and J.W.Webb. 1998. Differences in the avian communities of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes. Wetlands 18(1):59–69. Minello, T.J. 2000. Temporal development of salt marsh value for nekton and epifauna: utilization of dredged material marshes in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 8(5):327–341. Minello, T.J., J.R.Zimmerman, and E.F.Klima. 1987. Creation of fishery habitat in estuaries. Pp. 106–120 in Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials, Proceedings of First Interagency Workshop, 7–9 October 1986, Pensacola, Florida, M.C.Landin and H.K.Smith, eds. Tech. Report D-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mitsch, W.J., and N.Flanagan. 1996. Comparison of Structure and Function of Constructed Deep water Marshes with Reference Freshwater Marshes. A study at the Des Plaines River Wetland Demonstration Project in northeastern Illinois. RF Project No. 729179, The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus, OH.

OCR for page 211
COMPENSATING FOR WETLAND LOSSES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Montagna, P.A. 1993. Comparison of Ecosystem Structure and Function of Created and Natural Seagrass Habitats in Laguna Madre, Texas. Final Report. Tech. Report No. TR/93-007. Port Aransas, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute. Moy, L.D., and L.A.Levin. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resources? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14(1):1–16. Niswander, S.F., and W.J.Mitsch. 1995. Functional analysis of a two-year-old created instream wetland: hydrology, phosphorus retention, and vegetation survival and growth. Wetlands 15(3):212–225. Roberts, T.H. 1991. Habitat Value of Man-Made Coastal Marshes in Florida. Technical Report WRP-RE-2. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Rulifson, R.A. 1991. Finfish utilization of man-initiated and adjacent natural creeks of South Creek Estuary, North Carolina using multiple gear types Estuaries 14(4):447–464. Sacco, J.N., E.D.Seneca, and T.R.Wentworth 1994. Infaunal community development of artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17(2):489–500. Shafer, D.J., and W.J.Streever 2000. A comparison of 28 natural and dredged material salt marshes in Texas with an emphasis on geomorphological variables. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 8(5):353–366. Simenstad, C.A., and R.M.Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecol. Applic. 6(1):38–57. Streever, W.J. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged material: a critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 8(5):295–316. Streever, W.J., K.M.Portier, and T.L.Crisman. 1996. A comparison of Dipterans from ten created and ten natural wetlands Wetlands 16(4):416–428. Turner, R.E., J.M.Lee, and C.Neill. 1994. Backfilling canals to restore wetland: empirical results in coastal Louisiana. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 3(1):63–78. van Rees-Siewert, K.L., and J.J.Dinsmore. 1996. Influence of wetland age on bird use of restored wetlands in Iowa Wetlands 16(4):577–582. Vose, F.E., and S.S.Bell. 1994. Resident fishes and macrobenthos in mangrove-rimmed habitats: evaluation of habitat restoration by hydrologic modification. Estuaries 17(3):585–596. Zedler, J.B. 1990. A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands with Examples from Southern California. Report. No. T-CSGCP-021. La Jolla: California Sea Grant College. Zedler, J.B., and J.C.Callaway. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor. Ecol. 7(1):69–73. Zedler, J.B., and R.Langis. 1991. Authenticity: comparisons of constructed and natural salt marshes of San Diego Bay. Restor. Manage. Notes 9(1):21–25.