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 R1
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems Science, Technology, and Public Policy Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Water Science and Technology Board Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1992
OCR for page R2
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Support for this project was provided by Living Lakes, Inc.; Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service under Agreement No. 69-3A75-9-152/R; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Agreement No. X-816435-01-0/R; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation under Agreement No. 9-FG-81-16650/R; and the National Research Council. Although the results described in this document have been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement X-816435-01-0 to the National Academy of Sciences, it has not been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems—Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems : science, technology, and public policy / Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems-Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. p. cm. "November 1991." Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN (invalid) 0-309-04534-7 1. Aquatic ecology. 2. Aquatic ecology—Government policy—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Water Science and Technology Board. II. National Research Council (U.S.). Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. III. Tittle. QH541.5.W3N38 1992 91-43324 333.91'153—dc20 CIP Copyright © 1992 by the National Academy of Sciences No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process, or in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or otherwise copied for public or private use, without written permission from the publisher, except for the purposes of official use by the U.S. government. Photograph by Ansel Adams. Courtesy of the Trustees of The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America First Printing, March 1992 Second Printing, March 1993 Third Printing, May 1994 Fourth Printing, March 1996 Fifth Printing, May 1997 Sixth Printing, July 1999
OCR for page R3
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy JOHN CAIRNS, JR., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Chairman G. RONNIE BEST, University of Florida, Gainesville PATRICK L. BREZONIK, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis STEPHEN R. CARPENTER, University of Wisconsin, Madison G. DENNIS COOKE, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio DONALD L. HEY, Wetlands Research, Inc., Chicago, Illinois JON A. KUSLER, Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York CLAIRE L. SCHELSKE, University of Florida, Gainesville LEONARD SHABMAN, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg REBECCA R. SHARITZ, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina SOROOSH SOROOSHIAN, University of Arizona, Tucson RICHARD E. SPARKS, Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana JAMES T.B. TRIPP, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York DANIEL E. WILLARD, Indiana University, Bloomington JOY B. ZEDLER, San Diego State University, San Diego Consultant JOHN J. BERGER, University of Maryland, College Park Liaison Representatives DAN ALLEN, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., San Francisco, California ROBERT BROCKSEN, Living Lakes, Inc., Washington, D.C. JOHN MEAGHER, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TOM MUIR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. ROGER RAYBURN, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. JAMES J. SARTORIS, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado WILLIAM SIPPLE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R4
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Staff SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Specialist Editors SUSAN MAURIZI FLORENCE POILLON
OCR for page R5
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Water Science and Technology Board DANIEL A. OKUN, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chair MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Walnut Creek, California, Chair (through June 1991) A. DAN TARLOCK, IIT, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, Illinois, Vice Chair NORMAN H. BROOKS, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, West Virginia KENNETH D. FREDERICK, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. DAVID L. FREYBERG, Stanford University, Stanford, California WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley DUANE L. GEORGESON, Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles, California HOWARD C. KUNREUTHER, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (through June 1991) ROBERT R. MEGLEN, University of Colorado at Denver (through June 1991) JUDY L. MEYER, University of Georgia, Athens DONALD J. O'CONNOR, HydroQual, Inc., Glen Rock, New Jersey BETTY H. OLSON, University of California at Irvine (through June 1991) STAVROS S. PAPADOPULOS, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Rockville, Maryland KENNETH W. POTTER, University of Wisconsin, Madison P. SURESH C. RAO, University of Florida, Gainesville (through June 1991) BRUCE E. RITTMANN, University of Illinois, Urbana DONALD D. RUNNELLS, University of Colorado, Boulder PHILIP C. SINGER, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill HUGO F. THOMAS, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford (through May 1991) JAMES R. WALLIS, IBM Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York (through June 1991) M. GORDON WOLMAN, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland JOY B. ZEDLER, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
OCR for page R6
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Staff STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer SARAH CONNICK, Staff Officer JACQUELINE MACDONALD, Research Associate JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Specialist ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Secretary PATRICIA CICERO, Senior Secretary JOYCE SPARROW, Secretary
OCR for page R7
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources M. GORDON WOLMAN, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, Chairman ROBERT C. BEARDSLEY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts B. CLARK BURCHFIEL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RALPH J. CICERONE, University of California at Irvine PETER S. EAGLESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge HELEN M. INGRAM, University of Arizona, Tucson GENE E. LIKENS, The New York Botanical Garden, Millbrook, New York SYUKURO MANABE, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey JACK E. OLIVER, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York PHILIP A. PALMER, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Newark, Delaware FRANK L. PARKER, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina DUNCAN T. PATTEN, Arizona State University, Tempe MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Allied Signal Aerospace Company, Torrance, California LARRY L. SMARR, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland CRISPIN TICKELL, Green College at the Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford, United Kingdom KARL K. TUREKIAN, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut IRVIN L. WHITE, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, New York Staff STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director JANICE E. MEHLER, Assistant Executive Director JEANETTE SPOON, Financial Officer CARLITA PERRY, Administrative Assistant ROBIN LEWIS, Senior Project Assistant
OCR for page R8
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is Autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Stuart Bondurant is acting president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R9
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy [E]very generation receives a natural and cultural legacy in trust from its ancestors and holds it in trust for its descendants. This trust imposes upon each generation the obligation to conserve the environment and natural and cultural resources for future generations. The human species faces a grave obligation: conserve this fragile planet Earth and its human cultural legacy for future generations. We now recognize that humans have the power to alter the planet irreversively, on a global scale. Humans must be concerned with the condition of the planet that is passed to future generations. E. BROWN-WEISS Environment April 1990
OCR for page R10
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R11
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Preface This report is the result of recognition by the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council's (NRC) Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources that it should be concerned with the emerging science of restoration ecology in relation to aquatic ecosystems. During its deliberations, the Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems found that almost every restoration effort it reviewed focused on some component of a larger hydrologic system. The components fit into one of four categories: lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. However, the committee was also acutely aware that each of these entities functions in a larger ecological landscape greatly influenced by other components of the hydrologic cycle, including adjacent terrestrial systems. Regrettably, the case histories of restoration attempts that involved this larger ecological landscape were exceedingly rare. After much discussion, the committee finally decided to review restoration case studies in the components of lakes, river and streams, and wetlands because the available literature tended to be compartmentalized in this way and because it was a convenient and easily understood means of communicating a large body of information. At the same time, the committee believed very strongly that the spatial and temporal scope of most restoration efforts was far too small. Moreover, the committee felt that all too many environmental decisions, including those involving restoration, had been made in a fragmented fashion unlikely to produce a self-maintaining aquatic eco-system integrated into the larger ecological landscape. As a result,
OCR for page R12
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy there is a special chapter on integrated aquatic ecosystem restoration (Chapter 7) that discusses the failings of a fragmented approach and speculates on the advantages to be derived from a more integrated approach to restoring aquatic ecosystems. The committee recognized the difficulty of producing a report of acceptable length while also providing a useful level of detail on the large number of restoration efforts that have been completed or are in progress. It was decided that a limited number of illustrative case studies would be selected for review and that the level of detail would include only the information necessary to communicate the unique attributes of each restoration effort. This report describes the status and functions of surface water ecosystems; the effectiveness of aquatic restoration efforts; the technology associated with those efforts; and the research, policy, and institutional reorganization required to begin a national strategy for aquatic ecosystem restoration. Although ground water is an important natural resource in the United States and degradation of its quality has an effect on surface water supplies, the committee chose not to review restoration of ground water. Despite increasing awareness that some of the ground water in the United States is contaminated, public policy toward ground water protection is still in the formative stages. Increased technology and expanded monitoring activities probably will detect the effects of past contamination and land uses on water quality. Conclusive answers to questions about the location, extent, and severity of ground water contamination, and about trends in ground water quality, must await further collection and analysis of data from the nation's aquifers.1 The Water Science and Technology Board has in progress at this time a separate, special, detailed assessment of ground water remediation. The committee was much influenced by the strategy of the former NRC Committee on Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems. 2 Our committee shares the 1986 NRC committee's perception that, whereas much about the functioning of ecological systems remains poorly understood, it is common to fail to use even available information when attempting to solve environmental problems. Finally, our committee also decided to provide examples of the 1 U.S. Geological Survey. 1987. National Water Summary 1987. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350. U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado. 2 National Research Council. 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving. Commission on Life Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R13
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy creative use of ecological information, believing that a good example is more instructive than a bad one. In following this strategy, we also recognized that powerful analytical systems are not substitutes for biological insights or imaginative questioning and hypothesizing. Therefore, we joined the Committee on Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems in focusing on some important issues concerning restoration techniques. This report does not address the need for reintroducing species in restoration attempts, except to note the need for source pools of species in each ecoregion. The 1981 National Research Council report Testing for Effects of Chemicals on Ecosystems3 advocated the establishment of ecological preserves, although for a different purpose (test species for ecotoxicological procedures including the establishment of microcosms and mesocosms). The need for such ecological preserves as a source of recolonizing species will increase dramatically if the ''no-net-loss" policy for wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems is not implemented expeditiously. The committee carried out its tasks through a series of meetings in which the format of the report was decided. Subgroups were formed to draft the various chapters. Restoration case studies were selected by these groups to illustrate points made in each chapter. The committee made four field trips to sites where restoration of aquatic systems had taken place or was going on. Subcommittees made two other site visits. An assignment of this complexity, especially in a newly developing field, requires an exceptional effort on the part of committee members. The linkages among various components of the aquatic ecosystems and the terrestrial system that so strongly affects them are numerous and complex, as are the economic and policy questions related to the restoration process. Committee members worked diligently to sort through an enormous amount of information pertaining to a variety of aquatic ecosystems involving an even wider variety of methods to identify and analyze components critical to restoration efforts. I am much indebted to the subcommittee chairs Patrick Brezonik, Donald Hey, Leonard Shabman, Richard Sparks, James Tripp, Dan Willard, and Joy Zedler, who facilitated the flow of information and the meeting of deadlines. Most importantly, their summaries at each committee meeting ensured that the entire committee was aware of the working of these subunits. 3 National Research Council. 1981. Testing for Effects of Chemicals on Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R14
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Many thanks are also due to the committee members, NRC staff, and NRC consultant, who prepared the case histories without which the quality of this report would be seriously diminished. This report has benefited greatly from the skilled and creative efforts of Sheila D. David, Senior Staff Officer for the NRC, in contributing to the conceptual development of this study. I am personally indebted to Ms. David for alerting me to situations that required immediate attention and for her thoughtful discussions on how this report might best fill the charge of the Water Science and Technology Board. The committee's consultant, John J. Berger, has been exceedingly helpful in a variety of ways including major contributions to the case studies and several chapters of the report. The committee is deeply indebted to Jeanne Aquilino, Administrative Specialist, for the systematic and orderly distribution of materials, draft report production, and professional assistance during the scheduled meetings. I also wish to thank those who made presentations and provided background material to the committee during visits to restoration sites. Special thanks to David Rosgen, hydrologist, Pagosa Springs, Colorado; committee member Donald Hey, Director, Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project; Louis Toth of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD); Kent Loftin (former project manager) of the SFWMD; Anne Galli, Carol Ceberio, Don Smith, and Anthony Scardino, Jr., of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission; Tom Muir of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Steve Cordle and Bill Sipple of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, this study could not have been accomplished without the financial support of the National Research Council Fund; Chevron, USA, Inc.; Living Lakes, Inc.; the Soil Conservation Service; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All committee members commented that the boundary conditions for this topic were much more difficult to establish than for other study projects in which they had participated. Part of the reason for this is that the varied disciplinary information necessary for an informed decision is daunting. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, no one on the committee had any reservations about the potential for improving damaged aquatic ecosystems appreciably through restoration efforts. Even if a major national effort to restore aquatic ecosystems is forthcoming, their protection and management will require continued advances in point and nonpoint pollution abatement. The management and restoration of aquatic ecosystems will require intensive monitoring, as well as increased interaction and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies concerned with air, water,
OCR for page R15
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy wildlife, soil, agriculture, forestry, and urban planning and development. We hope this report contributes to the knowledge base and advancement of restoration ecology. John Cairns, Jr., Chairman Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy
OCR for page R16
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R17
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Contents SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 National Strategy 3 Congress 4 Long-Term, Large-Scale Coordinated Restoration — Planning, Evaluating, and Monitoring 5 Lakes 6 Rivers and Streams 8 Wetlands 10 Education and Training 12 Conclusion 13 References 13 1 OVERVIEW 14 Study Background 15 What Is Restoration? 17 Status of Aquatic Resources in the United States 21 Need for National Aquatic Restoration 35 References and Recommended Reading 37 2 A SELECTIVE HISTORY OF CHANGING GOALS AND AUTHORITY FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 41 Water Quality Management 44 Nonstructural Approaches to Floodplain Management 48
OCR for page R18
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Federally Owned Lands and Public Incentives for Private Decisions 49 Change at Century's End 50 Emerging Role of the States 52 References 54 3 PLANNING AND EVALUATING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 55 Introduction 55 Restoration Project Planning 57 Purpose of Evaluation 64 Selecting Assessment Criteria and Synthesizing Data 64 Conclusions and Recommendations 68 References and Recommended Reading 69 4 LAKES 71 Overview 71 Introduction-Importance of Lakes 75 Stresses on Lakes 76 Lake Restoration and Management 97 Federal and State Programs for Lake Restoration and Management 107 Lake Restoration Technology 113 Integrated Aquatic Systems 147 Needs in Lake Restoration 148 Conclusions and Recommendations 152 References and Recommended Reading 154 5 RIVER AND STREAMS 165 Overview 165 Introduction-Importance of Rivers and Streams 176 Concepts Related to Management and Restoration of Rivers and Streams 178 The Riverine-Riparian Ecosystem 184 Stresses on Rivers and Streams 188 Fluvial Restoration 206 Conclusions and Recommendations 244 References and Recommended Reading 249 6 WETLANDS 262 Overview 262 Loss of Wetlands 271 Restoration Opportunities 282
OCR for page R19
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Programs for Wetland Restoration 287 Status of Wetland Restoration Research and Technology 289 Constraints on Achieving Restoration Goals 293 Controversies About the Success of Restoration Projects 316 Needs 320 Conclusions and Recommendations 329 References and Recommended Reading 332 7 INTEGRATED AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 341 Introduction 341 Institutional Barriers to Integrated Aquatic Restoration 343 Importance of Integrated Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration to Wildlife 343 Appropriate Scale for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 345 Use of Historical Records in Reconstructing Watersheds 346 Conclusion 347 References and Recommended Reading 348 8 A NATIONAL RESTORATION STRATEGY: BASIC ELEMENTS AND RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS 350 Introduction 350 National Restoration Goals 354 Principles for Priority Setting and Decision Making 356 Policy and Program Redesign for Federal Agencies 360 Innovation in Financing and Use of Land and Water Markets 368 Summary 375 References 376 APPENDIXES A RESTORATION CASE STUDIES 379 Lakes 380 Lake Michigan 380 Can Lake Apopka Be Restored? 393 Rivers 398 The Atchafalaya Basin 398 The Upper Mississippi River 406 The Illinois River-Floodplain Ecosystem 412 Restoring Attributes of the Willamette River 433 Citizen Restoration Efforts in the Mattole River Watershed 457
OCR for page R20
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy The Merrimack River 462 The Blanco River 469 The Kissimmee Riverine-Floodplain System 476 Wetlands 495 Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Restoration in the Mississippi Drainage 495 Prairie Potholes 504 The Hackensack River Meadowlands 508 B GLOSSARY 519 C BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF 526 INDEX 533
OCR for page R21
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Boxes 1.1 The Meaning of Restoration 18 4.1 Medical Lake, Washington 112 4.3 Lake Washington 118 4.3 Shagawa Lake, Minnesota 120 4.4 Clear Lake, Minnesota 123 4.5 West and East Twin Lakes, Ohio 127 4.6 Lake Trummen, Sweden 129 4.7 Lake Baldwin, Florida 136 4.8 Springfield Lake, Illinois 142 5.1 The Santa Cruz River, Southern Arizona 167 5.2 The Willamette River 170 5.3 The Palmiter Method 174 5.4 Acid Mine Drainage 203 5.5 The Pere Marquette: A Case Study of Benign Neglect 211 5.6 Restoration of the Blanco River 218 5.7 Dam Removal 219 5.8 San Juan River Restoration 228 5.9 A Successful State Program in Stream Restoration 234 6.1 Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego Bay, California 272 6.2 San Francisco Bay, California 294 6.3 Restoration in the Hackensack River Meadowlands: Summary 297 6.4 Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Restoration in the Mississippi Drainage 302 6.5 Ways to Reduce Risks of Failure in Wetland Restoration Projects 309 6.6 Unforeseen Problems 309 6.7 Characteristics of a Worst-Case Wetland Restoration Project 316
OCR for page R22
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy This page in the original is blank.