6—
Wetlands

OVERVIEW

Wetlands occupy a special position in restoration ecology, because they have been affected by so many disturbances and because they fall under regulations that require mitigation of future damages. Unlike lakes and streams, wetlands have not always had recognized value. In recent years, public attitudes have changed from a general disregard of wetlands to a widespread desire to protect and restore them. A major policy forum has recommended ''no-net-overall loss" and "net gain" in the quality and quantity of the nation's wetland resources (The Conservation Foundation, 1988). Thus, there have been numerous attempts to restore degraded wetlands, and there are many opinions about the status of wetland restoration.

The Bush administration has espoused the concept of no-net loss of wetland acreage and functioning. However, attempts to implement such a policy have proved difficult, because wetlands often stand in the way of development. Alaska wetlands were given special status (exemption) in the agreement to mitigate damages to wetlands (memo of agreement between EPA and COE, 1990). At present the area of protected wetlands may be reduced by modifying the delineation manual that is used to identify wetlands that are under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), Section 404 jurisdiction. For example, seasonal wetlands would need to be wetter longer; peripheral areas would need to have vegetation classified as wetland



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 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy 6— Wetlands OVERVIEW Wetlands occupy a special position in restoration ecology, because they have been affected by so many disturbances and because they fall under regulations that require mitigation of future damages. Unlike lakes and streams, wetlands have not always had recognized value. In recent years, public attitudes have changed from a general disregard of wetlands to a widespread desire to protect and restore them. A major policy forum has recommended ''no-net-overall loss" and "net gain" in the quality and quantity of the nation's wetland resources (The Conservation Foundation, 1988). Thus, there have been numerous attempts to restore degraded wetlands, and there are many opinions about the status of wetland restoration. The Bush administration has espoused the concept of no-net loss of wetland acreage and functioning. However, attempts to implement such a policy have proved difficult, because wetlands often stand in the way of development. Alaska wetlands were given special status (exemption) in the agreement to mitigate damages to wetlands (memo of agreement between EPA and COE, 1990). At present the area of protected wetlands may be reduced by modifying the delineation manual that is used to identify wetlands that are under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), Section 404 jurisdiction. For example, seasonal wetlands would need to be wetter longer; peripheral areas would need to have vegetation classified as wetland

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy "obligates" (species confined to wetlands) not just "facultative" species (those that occur in both wetland and upland habitats). Obviously, if less of the wetland is under regulatory domain, development can continue without a net loss (in the legal sense). Although the delineation of wetlands is outside the scope of this chapter, one question is central to the committee's charge: Can damaged wetlands be restored? If so, then restoring one wetland might compensate for damaging another. The answer often depends on how good the wetland science is. Determining whether a damaged wetland has been restored requires good information on wildlife, vegetation, soil, and hydrology. This chapter discusses the functional values of wetlands and describes historic losses and damages. Current wetland restoration technology is summarized, along with constraints on achieving restoration goals, problems encountered during restoration, opportunities for major restoration projects, programs for wetland restoration, and reasons for varying opinions on the success of wetland restoration. Conclusions, recommendations, and research needs complete the chapter; however, recommendations on wetlands policy and institutional changes pertaining to wetlands are included in Chapter 8. Definition of Wetlands In the scientific view, wetlands are transitional areas between terrestrial and open-water systems. In the legal view, wetlands are discrete units subject to regulatory jurisdiction. The diversity of wetland types makes it difficult to have a single definition for a wetland. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), "wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water" (Cowardin et al., 1979). The FWS lists three attributes that help identify wetlands: the presence of hydrophytes, hydric soils, and saturated or inundated substrate. The temporal nature of some wetlands is acknowledged—hydrophytes and hydrologic indicators need only be present periodically. This definition is more inclusive than that used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines) for regulatory purposes. The major federal agencies involved in wetland regulation have adopted a uniform manual for delineating wetland boundaries (Federal Inter-agency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). The diversity of wetland habitat types and the diversity of species they support are impressive. The classification system of Cowardin

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy et al. (1979) for U.S. wetlands includes 5 system types, 8 subsystems, 11 classes, 28 subclasses, and a large number of dominance types. Included within the category of wetlands are vegetation types that range from early colonizing (i.e., pioneer communities dominated by species such as cattails [Typha spp.]), to ancient, self-maintaining (i.e., old-growth, forested wetlands dominated by species such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) in the South and black spruce (Picea mariana) in the northern United States). The disturbances these systems have experienced likewise vary, as does the degree of restoration success. The dynamic nature of wetlands also makes them ecologically complex. Along the edges of rivers, newly deposited sediments will be readily invaded by opportunistic plants and animals. Initial colonists are unlikely to be the same species as those of the floodplain forest that eventually develops. Along the edges of continents, mud flats are formed by alluvial outwash and are gradually colonized by salt marsh, grasses and succulents, which in turn trap sediments that raise the topography and attract additional plant and animal species. Along the edge of an acidic lake, sphagnum moss and herbaceous plants develop a mat that eventually supports bog shrubs and bog forest trees. In all these habitats, the nutrient content of the soil and the biomass of plants and animals increase through time, along with increases in species diversity and ecosystem complexity. The development of open substrates into persistent ecosystems is often called primary succession, a process that may occur over centuries or millennia. However, the process is not unidirectional, and Niering (1989) suggests that the term succession be replaced byvegetation development or biotic change to reflect the complex changes that ecosystems undergo in response to gradual and catastrophic events. Historical Perspectives on Wetlands Until the last two decades, wetlands were considered to be wastelands, having little productive use to society and no direct economic value to private landowners. They needed to be "reclaimed" through draining, ditching, diking, or filling to enhance their benefit to the public. Some federal, state, and local governmental policies actually provided incentives for destruction of wetlands. The purpose of the first "official" federal acts dealing with wetlands—the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849, 1850, 1860—was to convey to 15 states along the Mississippi River and to Oregon all swamp and overflow lands unfit for cultivation so that the states could reclaim the land for agriculture (adapted from Reitze, 1974). The drainage and destruction of wetlands

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy continued to be the accepted and often encouraged practice in the United States until the mid-1970s. By the early to mid-1900s, negative impacts, such as declining waterfowl populations, were becoming apparent. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, coupled with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventories of 1954 and 1973 (Reitze, 1974), prompted the realization that the loss of wetland habitat was causing a decline in fish and waterfowl populations. The public has begun to realize that wetlands are valuable systems providing many benefits to society. However, the conflict between private ownership of wetlands (and limited private benefits) and the desire to preserve social and economic values continues to contribute to the loss and degradation of wetlands. Functional Value of Wetlands Wetlands have properties of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Their most widely valued function is providing habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife (Table 6.1), that is contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity (Table 6.2). In addition to this "food chain support" function, wetlands carry out hydrologic functions (e.g., flood-peak reduction, shoreline stabilization, ground water recharge) and water quality improvements (sediment accretion, nutrient uptake), all of which are recognized as valuable to society as a whole (Adamus and Stockwell, 1983). For individuals, wetlands provide recreational, educational, research, and aesthetic functions (see Table 6.1). FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Although wetlands within the conterminous United States constitute only about 5 percent of the land surface (more than 40 million hectares, or about 104 million acres; Tiner, 1984; Dahl, 1990), many wetlands are among the most productive of natural ecosystems, exceeding the best agricultural lands and rivaling the production of tropical rain forests (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Niering, 1986; The Conservation Foundation, 1988; CEQ, 1989). They provide habitat for a rich variety of native species. Riverine wetlands also serve as corridors for large, far-ranging species such as the Florida panther and black bear, as well as wetland-dependent species such as amphibians (Harris, 1988). More than one-third of the federally endangered and threatened plants and animals require wetland habitats during some portion of their life cycle (T. Muir, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication, June 1990).

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy TABLE 6.1 Wetland Functions Flood conveyance—Riverine wetlands and adjacent floodplain lands often form natural floodways that convey floodwaters from upstream to downstream areas. Protection from storm waves and erosion—Coastal wetlands and inland wetlands adjoining larger lakes and rivers reduce the impact of storm tides and waves before they reach upland areas. Flood storage—Inland wetlands may store water during floods and slowly release it to downstream areas, lowering flood peaks. Sediment control—Wetlands reduce flood flows and the velocity of floodwaters, reducing erosion and causing floodwaters to release sediment. Habitat for fish and shellfish—Wetlands are important spawning and nursery areas and provide sources of nutrients for commercial and recreational fin and shellfish industries, particularly in coastal areas. Habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife—Both coastal and inland wetland provide essential breeding, nesting, feeding, and refuge habitats for many forms of waterfowl, other birds, mammals, and reptiles. Habitat for rare and endangered species—Almost 35 percent of all rare and endangered animal species either are located in wetland areas or are dependent on them, although wetlands constitute only about 5 percent of the nation's lands. Recreation—Wetlands serve as recreation sites for fishing, hunting, and observing wildlife. Source of water supply—Wetlands are becoming increasingly important as sources of ground and surface water with the growth of urban centers and dwindling ground and surface water supplies. Food production—Because of their high natural productivity, both tidal and inland wetlands have unrealized food production potential for harvesting of marsh vegetation and aquaculture. Timber production—Under proper management, forested wetlands are an important source of timber, despite the physical problems of timber removal. Preservation of historic, archaeological values—Some wetlands are of archaeological interest. Indian settlements were located in coastal and inland wetlands, which served as sources of fish and shellfish. Education and research—Tidal, coastal, and inland wetlands provide educational opportunities for nature observation and scientific study. Source of open space and contribution to aesthetic values—Both tidal and inland wetlands are areas of great diversity and beauty, and provide open space for recreational and visual enjoyment. Water quality improvement—Wetlands contribute to improving water quality by removing excess nutrients and many chemical contaminants. They are sometimes used in tertiary treatment of wastewater.   SOURCE: Adapted from Kusler, 1983.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy TABLE 6.2 Wetland Attributes That Assist in the Maintenance of Biodiversity • Persistence of habitat for mating, nesting, and protection from predators during extreme environmental conditions. • Resilience, the ability to recover from natural or human disturbances (e.g., environmental extremes, such as tidal closure and drought), often conferred through marsh soils. • Ability to maintain plant populations. Regions with high environmental variability need refuges for long-term maintenance of populations and to ensure resilience (ability to recover rapidly) following extreme events. • Resistance to invasive species (exotic to the region or alien to the habitat). The continual threats of disturbance to topography and hydrology lead to the need for constructed wetlands to resist invasive species. • Ability to support nutrient transformations (microbial and chemical processes controlling the concentrations of nutrients and other compounds and faciliting the biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and the flow of energy). Nutrient transformations are not well known for all wetland types. Plant productivity of freshwater marshes is often phosphorus limited, whereas that of coastal marshes is often nitrogen limited; thus, these elements have been the focus of most assesments of nutrient dynamics. In coastal wetlands, the nitrogen dynamics are very important; both fixation and denitrification rates are linked to availability of organic matter in the soil. Wetland production is important to both aquatic and terrestrial food webs, as summarized by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1989): Wetlands provide cover, freedom from disturbance, food, and other vital habitat factors. It is estimated that over one-half of all the saltwater fish and shellfish harvested annually in the United States, and most of the freshwater game fish, use wetlands for feeding areas, spawning grounds, and nurseries for young. About one-third of the North American bird species are wetland associates. In addition to supporting resident birds year-round, wetlands are important breeding grounds, overwintering areas, and feeding areas for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. Of the 10 to 20 million waterfowl that nest in the conterminous 48 United States, 50 percent or more reproduce in the Prairie Pothole wetlands of the Midwest. Bald eagles, ospreys, hawks, egrets, herons, kingfishers, and a variety of shore, marsh, and passerine birds are other components of the wetland avifauna. Wetland-dependent mammals include muskrats, beaver, marsh rice rats, and swamp rabbits, and otter, mink, raccoon, bobcat, meadow mouse, moose, and white-tailed deer use wetlands as feeding areas. Our knowledge of how food webs are modified as wetland habitat diminishes is not extensive, nor is our understanding of how trophic

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy structure responds to declines in predatory species, such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. The native food web is no doubt essential to the maintenance of community structure. Power (1990) studied one stream system and demonstrated that communities with and without fish have contrasting structures: Where fish are absent, smaller predators increase in abundance and reduce the numbers of chironomids (midge larvae); thus algae are released from chironomid grazing and they develop a tall, thick turf. In the presence of fish, each trophic level reverses in abundance; the fish reduce numbers of smaller predators, so chironomids increase and in turn consume the algal turf, reducing it to a prostrate form. Elsewhere, introductions of exotic animals are known to have caused major changes to the wetland ecosystem (e.g., nutria alter plant successional processes and ecosystem structure in Louisiana coastal marshes; M. Rejmanek, University of California-Davis, personal communication, September 1990). The introduction of foreign plants can lead to vegetation growth that "swamps" native food chains (e.g., water hyacinths clog southern waterways). Until food chain functions are well understood, restoration projects will be jeopardized by the inability to ensure the reestablishment of critical links. HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS Their position in the landscape, whether as isolated wetlands or floodplains contiquous with rivers and streams, gives wetlands a major role in storage of floodwater and abatement of flooding. Wetlands intercept storm runoff and release floodwaters gradually to downstream systems. Because it is usually the peak flows that contribute to flood damage, wetlands reduce the impact of flooding (Novitzki, 1979). When wetlands are converted to systems that are intolerant of flooding (drained agricultural lands, filled developed land), their storage capacity decreases and downstream flooding occurs. The cost of lost flood storage and abatement functions is substantial, and it is borne almost exclusively by taxpayers. Riverine wetlands along the Charles River in Massachusetts were deemed effective in protecting Boston from flooding, and purchasing them was less expensive than building flood control structures (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). In what is now a classic study of wetland hydrologic values, the COE determined that losing 3,400 ha of wetlands in the Charles River basin would increase flood damage by $17 million per year (equivalent to $5,000 /ha per year, or about $2,000 per acre per year). That such flood protection values are real is supported by experiences where flood protective functions have been lost. Along

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy the Mississippi River, constructing levees and draining the floodplain have reduced floodwater storage from an estimated 60 days to 12 days (Gosselink et al., 1981) because waters can no longer spread out and be absorbed by the broad floodplain. The result has been annually recurring floods along the lower Mississippi River; the costs include flood damages and construction of extensive structures to abate flooding. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNCTIONS The value of wetlands for improving water quality is often overlooked, yet wetlands can remove and transform both organic and inorganic materials—including human waste, toxic compounds, and metals—from inflowing waters (Tuschall, 1981; Best et la., 1982; Best, 1987). Wetland attributes that make them effective in improving water quality include the following (adapted from Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986): As water floods into wetlands from rivers and streams, its velocity decreases, causing an increase in sedimentation. Thus, chemicals sorbed to sediments are removed from the water and deposited in the wetlands. A variety of anaerobic and aerobic processes function to precipitate or volatilize certain chemicals from the water column. The accumulation of organic peat that is characteristic of many wetlands can ultimately lead to a permanent sink for many chemicals. The high rate of productivity of many wetlands can lead to high rates of mineral uptake by, and accumulation in, plant material with subsequent burial in sediments. Shallow water coupled with the presence of emergent vegetation leads to significant sediment-plant-water exchange. HUMAN VALUES As discussed above, wetlands play an active part in hydrologic functions, water quality improvement, and food chain support functions that serve human needs. Because of their importance in floodpeak reduction, shoreline stabilization, ground water recharge, sediment accretion, nutrient removal, toxic material removal, and support of commercially important fish, shellfish, ducks, and geese, wetlands have received special protection under federal and state laws and many local ordinances. Wetlands serve a number of purposes that

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy translate into economic values through reduction in flood and storm damage, conservation of water supplies, treatment of wastewater, and production of food. Moreover, wetland recreation often leads to private profits. Consider, for example, anglers who buy special gear and clothing; the growing numbers of bird watchers who purchase books, cameras, and binoculars; the publication of sport and wildlife magazines; and the tourism that is generated by aquatic reserves and a new generation of visitor centers in places as unlikely as wetlands constructed to treat urban wastewater (e.g., Arcata, California). Habitats that provide opportunities for research and education contribute additional human values, with increasing numbers of programs for field experiences at the elementary and high school levels, as well as college and graduate course work. Because wetlands are extremely valuable natural resources, their degradation or loss results in real costs to society. As Dahl (1990) concluded, "Environmental and even socioeconomic benefits (i.e., ground water supply and water quality, shoreline erosion, floodwater storage and trapping of sediments, and climatic changes) are now seriously threatened." However, these values are principally societal values, whereas private wetland owners receive few direct economic benefits from wetlands—and the ownership of wetlands is largely private. Of the acres of wetlands that remain in the United States, almost three-fourths (74 percent) are privately owned (CEQ, 1989). Restoring damaged wetlands should be a high priority, now that wetlands are recognized as valuable environmental and socioeconomic systems. However, restoration is often very expensive—with estimates as high as $10 million to $50 million for a small (260-acre), urban wetland in Los Angeles, depending on the degree of restoration selected. Restoring farmlands to wetlands may be inexpensive and easier to accomplish. Whereas the costs of wetland draining and filling were borne largely by private owners seeking to achieve a direct personal increase in economic benefits, the restoration of wetlands will be borne almost entirely by the public. Exceptions are wetlands restored within the regulatory process: landowners who disturb or destroy existing wetlands often propose to mitigate the damages by restoring or creating degraded wetlands. King (1990) has begun an analysis of the cost effectiveness relationship for wetland restoration projects. His approach is to model combinations of tasks that will speed wetland restoration (e.g., site contouring, vegetation planting, soil augmentation, control of exotic species) and the degree of functional equivalency achieved with each

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy additional task and cost. His intent is to determine the point at which it is no longer economical to spend more on a project (i.e., when the additional ecological benefits would be minimal). A major shortcoming of his analysis is, of course, lack of data on functional equivalency. For the San Diego Bay project (Box 6.1), the use of 11 measured values suggested that, at the age of 5 years, the constructed wetland had less than 60 percent of the functional equivalency of reference wetlands. A second data point (obtained at perhaps 10 years) is needed to determine if site development has leveled off or if the site can eventually achieve great similarity with natural wetland functioning. A second major shortcoming of cost-benefit analyses in general is the inability to put dollar values on ecosystem attributes. Although one can estimate the cost of many of the human values described above, one can never predict all that might be derived from wetland restoration. An endangered plant that might be rescued by a marsh restoration project may some day be found to produce an important pharmacological chemical; restoration of a coastal wetland may prevent real estate damage should sea level rise at unexpected rates; wetland plants may become horticulturally or agriculturally important (Glenn et al., 1991); a habitat-dependent bird may be shown to be effective in controlling mosquito and malarial outbreaks; the presence of open space may be shown to be essential to mental health. LOSS OF WETLANDS Trends in historical losses of wetlands in the United States were recently summarized in a report to Congress (Dahl, 1990): At the time of Colonial America, the area that now constitutes the 50 United States contained an estimated 392 million acres (about 160 million hectares) of wetlands…. Over a period of 200 years, the lower 48 states lost an estimated 53 percent of their original wetlands…. On average, this means that the lower 48 states have lost over 60 acres (about 25 hectares) of wetlands for every hour between the 1780's and 1980's [emphasis added]. By the 1980s, wetlands constituted only 5 percent of the landscape, down from an original 11 percent. The distribution and abundance of wetlands have also changed significantly since the 1780s (Figure 6.1). The midwestern farm belt states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin lost more than 36 million acres (about 15 million hectares) of wetlands—roughly one-third of all wetlands lost in the history of our nation. All states, except for Alaska, Hawaii,

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy BOX 6.1 SWEETWATER MARSH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, SAN DIEGO BAY, CALIFORNIA Southern California's best-studied wetland restoration site is in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, which includes 128 ha of wetlands (mostly intertidal salt marsh) and some uplands along the eastern side of San Diego Bay, California (32°38´N, 117°6´W). The site and the restoration project are both significant—the wetland provides habitat for endangered species and thus is critical for maintaining regional biodiversity; the project has exceptionally high criteria for judging success and thus serves as a model for future restorations. Protection of the site and strict standards for restoration came about only after a lengthy court battle. The new refuge was designated after a federal district court (Thompson, 1988) settled a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the League for Coastal Protection against three federal agencies. Wetland habitat had been damaged by construction of a wider freeway, a new freeway interchange, and a flood control channel. Endangered species had been jeopardized, and mitigation measures had not been implemented. The lawsuit also led to reinitiation of consultations and a new biological opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988), which included strict criteria for successful mitigation. The requirements were expanded to include functional wetlands that would support persistent populations of three endangered species, the lightfooted clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) , the California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), and the salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus). The current shoreline of San Diego Bay bears little resemblance to what was once the natural landscape. The bay entrance to Paradise Creek marsh has been filled, and tidal flushing has been rerouted through a channel dredged straight south to the Sweetwater River. A railroad and Interstate 5 cross the landward edge of the refuge and wetlands. The alterations preceding the restoration/mitigation project included widening of Interstate 5, construction of a new freeway interchange, and excavation of a new flood control channel through existing wetland. Restoration began in fall 1984 with the excavation of about 4.9 ha of disturbed upper intertidal marsh, including areas previously used as an urban dump. Eight lower intertidal islands and adjacent channels

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy provide rapid responses and solutions (e.g., for trash removal, exotic species invasions, sedimentation and erosion events). Funding priority should be given to programs for restoration of damaged wetlands over wetlands creation because of the superior chances of success. An exception would be where restoration is part of a mitigation agreement that would result in a net loss of acreage. Give whole-ecosystem restoration and restoration for nongame species priority over restoration to support game species. The goal should not espouse single-species management. Retain habitat remnants (e.g., small, fragmented wetlands) in urban areas, for use in education, research, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. An appropriate federal agency should prepare periodic ''state of the wetlands" reports. Research Needs and Techniques Traditional research on wetlands and ecosystem development should also be continued, using both natural and restored wetlands. Examples of this traditional research include the following topics mentioned by several EPA authors (modified from Kusler and Kentula, 1989): the hydrologic needs and requirements of wetland plants and animals, including minimum water depths, hydroperiod, velocity, dissolved nutrients, the role of large-scale but infrequent events such as floods, and the effects of long-term fluctuations in water levels; the importance and functional significance of substrate to wetland plants and animals, and to chemical and biological functions; characteristics of development rates for natural successional vegetation; recolonization of restored sites by invertebrate and vertebrate fauna; functions of wetlands, with special emphasis on habitat values for a broad range of species, food chain support, and water quality enhancement; evaluation of the stability and persistence of wetland ecosystems; and evaluation of the impact of sediment deposition or erosion, nutrient loading or removal, toxic runoff, pedestrian and off-road vehicle use, grazing, and other impacts on wetland structure and function.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Additional research needs concern characterizing the role of microbes. Bacteria and fungi are important to nutrient cycles, acting as both facilitators and competitors for plant nutrient uptake. Cooke and Lefor (1990) sampled planted and natural salt marsh soils at Indian River marsh in Connecticut and observed that vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (fungi that help plants take up nutrients) were absent in the transplanted site but present in nearly every natural marsh sample. The role of mycorrhizae in wetland soils is not at all clear, and restoration sites offer opportunities to carry out field experiments in this area. The potential for improving transplant growth by manipulating soil microbial communities needs to be explored. Other bacteria perform important "bioremediation" functions. By decomposing contaminants, they may reduce or eliminate the effects of toxic waste spills, such as gasoline seepage from aging underground tanks (R. Gersberg, San Diego State University, personal communication, 1990). Finally, the microbes of wetlands are important to global carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen cycles, and their ability to perform these roles in restored wetlands has barely been explored (Cantilli, 1989). We also need to know what ecosystem functions can be restored under various constraints and how rapidly restoration can proceed. A variety of specific techniques may be used to restore physical features and ecological functions of wetlands, depending on wetland type, disturbance condition, and other constraints. Develop innovative methods of accelerating the restoration process (e.g., better propagation techniques for native plant species), surveys and protocols for obtaining adequate genetic diversity in the transplant material, soil augmentation procedures to shorten time to obtain the desired vegetative cover, ways to use microbes to detoxify contaminants (bioremediation) and enhance nutrient availability, and methods for controlling exotic species. Design and conduct experimental research programs to examine restoration techniques and functional development over time in different system types. Use restoration sites for scientific experiments that are designed to accelerate the restoration process. Support baseline studies of wetland ecosystem functioning to provide comparisons of different system types among various regions and at different stages of development. Establish regional and national data bases.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING Aberle, B. 1990. The Biology, Control, and Eradication of Introduced Spartina (Cordgrass) Worldwide and Recommendations for Its Control in Washington. Draft report. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Seattle. 88 pp. Adamus, P. R., and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. Vol. 1. Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Allen, J. A., and H. E. Kennedy, Jr. 1989. Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, La. and U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville, Miss. 28 pp. Atwater, B. F. 1979. History, landforms, and vegetation of the estuary's tidal marshes. In T. J. Conomos, ed., San Francisco Bay, The Urbanized Estuary. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division, San Francisco, Calif. Belt, C. B., Jr. 1975. The 1973 flood and man's constriction of the Mississippi River. Science 189:681-684. Berger, J., ed. 1990. Ecological Restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Descriptive Directory and Source Book. Restoring the Earth, Inc., Berkeley, Calif. Best, G. R. 1987. Natural wetlands-southern environment: Wastewater to wetlands, Where do we go from here? Pp. 99–120 in K. R. Reddy and W. H. Smith, eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, Fla. Best, G. R., J. R. Tuschall, P. L. Brezonik, J. R. Butner, W. F. DeBusk, K. C. Ewel, A. Hernandez, and H. T. Odum. 1982. The Fate of Selected Heavy Metals in a Forested Wetland Ecosystem. Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Bradshaw, A. D. 1988. Alternative endpoints for reclamation. Pp. 69–85 in J. Cairns, Jr., ed., Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Broome, S. W. 1989. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States. Pp. 37-72 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Broome, S. W., C. B. Craft, and E. D. Seneca. 1987. Creation and development of brackish-water marsh habitat. Pp. 197-205 in J. Zelanzny and J. S. Feierabend, eds., Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4–7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Cairns, J., ed. 1988. Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Vol. 1, 192 pp.; Vol. 2, 222 pp. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Cammen, L. M. 1976a. Abundance and production of macroinvertebrates from natural and artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Am. Midl. Nat. 96:244–-253. Cammen, L. M. 1976b. Macroinvertebrate colonization of Spartina marshes artificially established on dredge spoil. Coastal Mar. Sci. 4:357–372. Cantilli, J. F. 1989. Sulfide Phytotoxicity in Tidal Salt Marshes. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University. Carlton, J. T. 1989. Man's role in changing the face of the ocean: Biological invasions and implications for conservation of near-shore environments. Conserv. Biol. 3:265–273. Carothers, S. W., G. S. Mills, and R. R. Johnson. 1989. The creation and restoration of

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy riparian habitat in southwestern arid and semi-arid regions. Pp. 359–376 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science . Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3089/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Chabreck, R. H. 1989. Creation, restoration, and enhancement of marshes of the northcentral Gulf Coast. Pp. 127-144 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3089/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Clean Water Act of 1977. P.L. 95–217, Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1566. Clewell, A. F., and R. Lea. 1989. Creation and restoration of forested wetland vegetation in the southeastern United States. Pp. 199–238 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3089/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of 1990. P.L. 101–646, Nov. 29, 1990. Conner, W. H., and J. R. Toliver. 1990. Observations on the regeneration of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum( L.) Rich.) in Louisiana swamps. South. J. Appl. For. 14:115–118. Conners, D. H., F. Riesenberg, R. D. Charney, M. A. McEwen, R. B. Krone, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1990. Research Needs: Salt Marsh Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Creation Technique for Caltrans Construction Projects. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis. 60 pp. Cooke, J. C., and M. W. Lefor. 1990. Comparison of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in plants from disturbed and adjacent undisturbed regions of a coastal salt marsh in Clinton, Connecticut, USA. Environ. Manage. 14:131–137. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1989. Environmental Trends—Chapter 5: Wetlands and wildlife. Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 152 pp. Covin, J. D., and J. B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects on Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, Calif. Wetlands 8:51–65. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Craft, C. B., S. W. Broome, and E. D. Seneca. 1988. Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon pools in natural and transplanted marsh soils. Estuaries 11:272–280. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States: 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp. DeWald, J. M., and J. P. Rieger. 1982. Restoration of a Degraded Salt Marsh: Objectives and Techniques. Unpublished report. California Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 11, San Diego. 10 pp. Erwin, K. L. 1989. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the southeast. Pp. 239-272 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Ewel, J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. Pp. 31–33 in W. Jordan, M. Gilpin, and J. Aber, eds., Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, New York. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Cooperative technical publication. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 76 pp. plus appendices. Fink, B., and J. Zedler. 1990. Endangered plant recovery: Experimental approaches with Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus. Pp. 460–468 in H. G. Hughes and T. M. Bonnicksenm, eds., Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. Society for Ecological Restoration, Madison, Wis. Fonseca, M. S. 1989. Regional analysis of the creation and restoration of seagrass systems. Pp. 175–198 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, and G. W. Thayer. 1988. Restoration and management of seagrass systems: A Review. Pp. 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. Timber Press, Portland, Ore. Frenkel, R. E., and J. C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River Salt Marshes: Retrospect and Prospect. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, Wash. Glenn, E. P., J. W. O'Leary, M. C. Watson, T. L. Thompson, and R. O. Kuehl. 1991. Salicornia bigelovii Torr.: An oilseed halophyte for seawater irrigation. Science 251(4997):1065–1067. Gosselink, J. G., and L. C. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands 9:83–174. Gosselink, J. G., S. E. Bayley, W. H. Conner, R. E. Turner. 1981. Ecological factors in the determination of riparian wetland boundaries. Pp. 197–219 in J. B. Clark and J. Benforado, eds., Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York. Gosselink, J. G., W. H. Conner, J. W. Day, Jr., and R. E. Turner. 1989. Classification of wetland resources: Land, Timber, and Ecology. Pp. 28–48 in D. Jackson and J. L. Chambers, eds., Timber Harvesting in Wetlands. Division of Continuing Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. Gosselink, J. G., L. C. Lee, and T. A. Muir. 1990a. Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Mich. 708 pp. Gosselink, J. G., G. P. Shaffer, L. C. Lee, D. M. Burdick, D. L. Childers, N. C. Leibowitz, S. C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J. M. Visser. 1990b. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. BioScience 40(8): 588–600. Greeson, P. B., J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark, eds. 1979. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minn. 674 pp. Gross, K. L. 1987. Mechanisms of colonization and species persistence in plant communities. Pp. 173–188 in W. Jordan, M. Gilpin, and J. Aber, eds., Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hackensack Meadowland Reclamation and Development Act (HMRDA). 1968. State of New Jersey Statutes. Chapter 17, Section 13:17-1 to 13-17-86. Haltiner, J. 1990. Sweetwater Marsh: Morphology and tidal circulation. Philip Williams & Assoc., Ltd. Report Prepared for Caltrans District 11, San Diego, and Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory, San Diego State University, San Diego, Calif. Harris, L. D. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates. Environ. Manage. 12:675–693.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Hartman, J. M. 1988. Recolonization of small disturbance patches in a New England salt marsh. Am. J. Bot. 75:1625–1631. Hollands, G. G. 1989. Regional analysis of the creation and restoration of kettle and pothole wetlands. Pp. 287–304 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Hook, D., D., 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. 1988. The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Vol. 1, 592 pp.; Vol. 2, 394 pp. Timber Press, Portland, Ore. Hunt, C. E. 1988. Down by the River: The Impacts of Federal Water Projects and Policies on Biological Diversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Johnson, L. E., and W. V. McGuinness, Jr. 1975. Guidelines for Material Placement in Marsh Creation. Contract Report D-75-2 for Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 189 pp. Jorgensen, P. D. 1975. Habitat preference of the light-footed clapper rail in Tijuana Estuary Marsh, Calif. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University. Josselyn, M., ed. 1982. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant Technical Report No. T-CSGCP-007. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Tiburon, Calif. Josselyn, M. N., and J. W. Buchholz. 1984. Marsh Restoration in San Francisco Bay—A Guide to Design and Planning, Tech. Rept. #3, Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University, Tiburon, Calif. Kahrl, W. L. 1979. The California Water Atlas. Governor's Office of Planning and Research and California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif. King, D. M. 1990. A Framework for Evaluating Wetland Restoration Projects. April 1990 Draft report to Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Kraus, M. L., and D. J. Smith. n.d. Competition and Succession in a Perturbed Urban Estuary: The Effects of Hydrology. Monograph. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, Lyndhurst, N.J. Kusler, J. A. 1983. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. Kusler, J. A., and M. E. Kentula, eds. 1989. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I-II. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Kusler, J. A., M. L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, N.Y. Langis, R., M. Zalejko, and J. B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay, California. Ecol. Appl. 1:40–51. Larson, J. S. 1988. Wetland creation and restoration: An outline of the scientific perspective. Pp. 73-79 in J. Zelazny and J. S. Feierabend, eds., Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4–7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Larson, J. S., and C. Niell, eds. 1987. Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the Science Base. Publ. 87-1. Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Levine, D. A., and D. E. Willard. 1989. Regional analysis of fringe wetlands in the Midwest: creation and restoration. Pp. 305-332 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula,

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Lewis, R. R. III. 1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Lewis, R. R. III. 1989. Creation and restoration of coastal plain wetlands in Florida. Pp. 73–102 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Loftin, K. A., L. A. Toth, and J. T. B. Obeysekera. 1990. Kissimmee River Restoration: Alternative Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Fla. June. Loucks, O. L. 1989. Restoration of the pulse control function of wetlands and its relationship to water quality objectives. Pp. 55–65 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Vol. II. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Lowry, D. J. 1989. Restoration and creation of palustrine wetlands associated with riverine systems of the glaciated Northeast. Pp. 273–286 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. MacDonald, P. O., W. E. Frayer, and J. K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, Chronology, and Future Projections of Bottomland Hardwood Habitat Losses in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service , Washington, D.C., 2 vols. Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 539 pp. Moy, L. D. 1989. Are Spartina Marshes Renewable Resources? A Faunal Comparison of a Man-Made Marsh and Two Adjacent Natural Marshes. M. S. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 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. Rept. D-85-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Nichols, F. H., J. E. Cloern, S. N. Luoma, and D. H. Paterson. 1986. The Modification of an Estuary. Science 231:567–573. Niering, W. A. 1986. Wetlands. The Audubon Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 538 pp. Niering, W. A. 1989. Vegetation dynamics in relation to wetland creation. Pp. 67–74 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. II. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Nordby, C. S., and J. B. Zedler. 1991. Responses of fish and marcobenthic assemblages to hydrologic disturbances in Tijuana Estuary and Los Pe:asquitos Lagoon, California. Estuaries 14:80–93. Novitzki, R. P. 1979. Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin's wetlands and their influence on floods, stream flow, and sediment. 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, Minn. 377 pp. Odum, W. E. 1988. Predicting ecosystem development following creation and restoration of wetlands. Pp 67–70 in J. Zelazny and J. S. Feierabend, eds., Increasing

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4–7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Onuf, C. P., and M. L. Quammen. 1985. Coastal and riparian wetlands of the Pacific region: The state of knowledge about the food chain support. Pp. 98–173 in Proceedings of National Wetland Technical Council Workshop, April 14–16, Mill Valley, Calif. Onuf, C. P., M. L. Quammen, G. P. 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. Pp. 186–199 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, Minn. Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL). 1990. A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands with Examples from Southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021. California Sea Grant Program, La Jolla, Calif. 105 pp. Park, R. A., M. S. Trehan, P. W. Mausel, and R. C. Howe. 1988. The Effects of Sea Level Rise on U.S. Coastal Wetlands. HRI Report No. 142. Holcomb Research Institute, Butler University Indianapolis. 60 pp. Park, R. A., M. S. Trehan, P. W. Mausel, and R. C. Howe. 1989. Coastal wetlands in the twenty-first century: Profound alterations due to rising sea level. Pp. 71–80 in Wetlands: Concerns and Successes. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association, September, Tampa, Fla. Parnell, J. F., D. M. DuMond, and R. N. Needham. 1978. A Comparison of Plant Succession and Bird Utilization on Diked and Undiked Dredged Material Islands in North Carolina Estuaries. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Peters, R. L., II. 1988. The effect of global climatic change on natural communities. Pp. 450–461 in E. O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Pontius, F. W. 1990. Federal laws protecting wetlands. J. AWWA 82:12–16. Power, M. E. 1990. Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811–814.  Prouty, W. F. 1952. Carolina bays and their origin. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 63:167–224. Quammen, M. L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation. Natl. Wetl. Newsl. 8:6–8. Reitze, A. W., Jr. 1974. Wetlands, special problems in land use control. Chapter 2 in Environmental Planning: Law of Land and Resources. North American International, Washington, D.C. 941 pp. Richardson, C. J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science 228:1424–1427. Roberts, T. H. 1989. Habitat value of man-made coastal marshes in Florida. Pp. 154–179 in F. J. Webb, ed., Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa. Fla. Rutherford, S. E. 1989. Detritus Production and Epibenthic Communities of Natural Versus Constructed Salt Marshes. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University. Sacco, J. N. 1989. Infaunal Community Development of Artificially Established Salt marshes in North Carolina. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Sacco, J. N., F. L. Booker, and E. D. Seneca. 1987. Comparison of the macrofaunal communities of a human-initiated salt marsh at two and fifteen years of age. Pp. 282–285 in J. Zelazny and S. Feierabend, eds., Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4-7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy San Francisco Estuary Project. 1990. Status and Trends Report on Pollutants in the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement CE-009496-01 by the San Francisco Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute, 180 Richmond Field Station, 1301 South 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94804. Saucier, R. T., C. C. Calhoun, Jr., R. M. Engier, T. R. Patin, and H. K. Smith. 1978. Executive Overview and Detailed Summary: Dredged Material Research Program. Tech. Rept. DS-78-212. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Schalles, J. F., R. R. Sharitz, J. W. Gibbons, G. J. Leversee, and J. N. Knox. 1989. Carolina Bays of the Savannah River Plant. SRO-NERP-18.U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 70 pp. Seneca, E. D., and S. W. Broome. In press. Proceedings of a NOAA Restoration Symposium. Invited Talk. September 1990. Sharitz, R. R., and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS-82/04. Division of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 93 pp. Shisler, J. K. 1989. Creation and restoration of the coastal wetlands of the northeastern United States. Pp. 145–174 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Shisler, J. K., and D. J. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of artificial salt marshes in New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publ. No. P-40502-01-84. New Brunswick, N.J. 160 pp. Skinner, J. 1962. A Historical Review of the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San Francisco Bay Area. Report 1. Water Projects Bureau, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif. Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology. 3rd ed. Harper and Row, New York. 835 pp. Spicher, D., and M. Josselyn. 1985. Spartina (Gramineae) in northern California: Distribution and taxonomic notes. Madroño 32:158-167. Stanley, J. T. 1989. Riparian wetland creation and restoration in the far west: A compilation of information. Pp. 417–464 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Strickland, R., ed. 1986. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wash. Swift, K. L. 1988. Salt marsh restoration: Assessing a southern California example. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University. 84 pp. Tax Reform Act of 1986. P.L. 99–514, 100 Stat. 2085 (1986), 49 U.S.C. § 16 et seq. The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda . Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 69 pp. Thompson, Justice Gordon, Jr. 1988. Memorandum Decision and Order. Sierra Club and League for Coastal Protection v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al. U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Civil No. 86-I942-GT(IEG), May 13, San Diego, Calif. Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Tripp, J. T. B., and M. Herz. 1988. Wetland preservation and restoration: Changing federal priorities. Va. J. Nat. Resour. Law 7:221–275. Tuschall, J. R., Jr. 1981. Heavy Metal Complexation with Naturally Occurring Organic Ligands in Wetland Ecosystems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 212 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. Charles River Watershed, Massachusetts. New England Division, Waltham, Mass. 65 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Mitigation for Dredged or Fill Material Disposal in Wetlands. February 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1988. Biological Opinion 1-1-78-F-14-R2. The combined Sweetwater River food control and highway project, San Diego Country, California. Letter from Walley Steuke, Acting Regional Director. U.S. FWS, Portland, Oregon, to Colonel Tadahiko Ono, District Engineer, Los Angeles District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 30. 28 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. Wetlands: Meeting the President's Challenge. 1990 Wetland Action Plan. U.S. FWS, Washington, D.C. 64 pp. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York. 374 p. Water Resources Development Act of 1986. P.L. 99–662, Nov. 17, 1985, 100 Stat. 4082. Willard, D. E., V. M. Finn, D. A. Levine, and J. E. Klarquist 1989. Creation and restoration of riparian wetlands in the agricultural midwest. Pp. 333–358 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Williams. S. L. 1990. Experimental studies of Caribbean seagrass bed development. Ecol. Monogr. 60:449–469. Woodhouse, W. W., Jr., E. D. Seneca, and S. W. Broome. 1974. Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for Substrate Stabilization and Salt Marsh Development. Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va. Zalejko, M. K. 1989. Nitrogen Fixation in a Natural and a Constructed Southern California Salt Marsh. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University. Zedler, J. B. 1988a. Restoring diversity in salt marshes: Can we do it? Pp. 317–325 in E. O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Zedler, J. B. 1988b. Salt marsh restoration: Lessons from California. Pp. 123–138 in J. Cairns, ed., Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Zedler, J. B. 1988c. Why it's so difficult to replace lost wetland functions. Pp. 121–123 in J. Zelazny and J. S. Feierabend, eds., Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4–7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Zedler, J. B. 1991. The challenge of protecting endangered species habitat along the southern California coast. Coast. Manage. 19:35–53. Zedler, J. B., and R. Langis. 1991. Urban wetland restoration: A San Diego Bay example. Proceedings: Third Annual "Country in the City" Symposium, Portland, Ore., April 1990. Audubon Society of Portland. Zedler, J. B., and M. W. Weller. 1989. Overview and future directions. Pp 465-473 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. I. U.S. EPA/7600/3-89/038. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore. Zedler, J. B., R. Langis, J. Cantilli, M. Zalejko, K. Swift, and S. Rutherford. 1988. Assessing the functions of mitigation marshes in southern California. Pp. 323–330 in J.

OCR for page 262
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy A. Kusler, S. Daly, and G. Brooks, eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium, Urban, Wetlands Oakland, Calif. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, N.Y. Zedler, P. H. 1987. The Ecology of Southern California Vernal Pools: A Community Profile. Biological Report 85 (7.11). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 136 pp. Zelazny, J., and J. S. Feierabend, eds. 1988. Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council, October 4–7, 1987. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.