National Academies Press: OpenBook

Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (2001)

Chapter: Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites

« Previous: Appendix B Case Studies
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

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)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Analyses of Soil, Plant, and Animal Communities for Mitigation Sites Compared with Reference Sites." National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10134.
×
Page 216
Next: Appendix D California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Region; Guidelines for Wetland Mitigation »
Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Recognizing the importance of wetland protection, the Bush administration in 1988 endorsed the goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. Specifically, it directed that filling of wetlands should be avoided, and minimized when it cannot be avoided. When filling is permitted, compensatory mitigation must be undertaken; that is, wetlands must be restored, created, enhanced, and, in exceptional cases, preserved, to replace the permitted loss of wetland area and function, such as water quality improvement within the watershed.

After more than a dozen years, the national commitment to “no net loss” of wetlands has been evaluated. This new book explores the adequacy of science and technology for replacing wetland function and the effectiveness of the federal program of compensatory mitigation in accomplishing the nation’s goal of clean water. It examines the regulatory framework for permitting wetland filling and requiring mitigation, compares the mitigation institutions that are in use, and addresses the problems that agencies face in ensuring sustainability of mitigated wetlands over the long term.

Gleaning lessons from the mixed results of mitigation efforts to date, the book offers 10 practical guidelines for establishing and monitoring mitigated wetlands. It also recommends that federal, state, and local agencies undertake specific institutional reforms. This book will be important to anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the “no net loss” issue: policy makers, regulators, environmental scientists, educators, and wetland advocates.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!