California Coastal Commission

PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL ZONE

A detailed literature review was one of the initial tasks in the process of developing this procedural guidance document. The review focused on literature related to wetland mitigation, functions and values, monitoring, and performance standards. The resulting information has been compiled in an annotated bibliography to assist those seeking further information on a specific topic.

The initial phase of the literature review consisted of an electronic search of various databases, including the University of California on-line catalog, Current Contents, Water Resources Abstracts, EPA's on-line catalog, and Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts. Searches for key words such as restoration, wetland, and mitigation were used to identify references most closely related to this project. These searches yielded an electronic bibliography containing about 500 references. This list was screened to remove duplicate entries and other references that obviously did not apply. Documents cited in the resulting list were sought out and retrieved.

The resulting list of over 250 references was further refined during the retrieval process, eliminating references which were not specific or directly relevant to this project. The research was further focused on references pertaining to California wetlands and references produced in the last ten years.

Reference material was gathered from a variety of sources. Most of the material retrieved from the university libraries was useful, and those references can be found at the various libraries. Documents from EPA were acquired in microfiche form. The California Coastal Commission library proved to be a valuable resource, a number of the documents contained in this bibliography can be found in the Coastal Commission library. Much of the information reviewed is organized in files, according to subject matter, which are stored at the Coastal Commission's San Francisco office. The final phase involved reviewing the references and writing an annotation.

In order to facilitate further use of this bibliography, two cross-referencing tables are included at the end of the references. All references are numbered in this bibliography, and those numbers are listed in each of the tables as appropriate. In Table B-1 the references are grouped according to their subject matter. Table B-2 lists the locations the various references can be retrieved from. Individuals seeking information on a specific topic should examine the appropriate table first.

1. Abbruzzese, B., A.B. Allen, S. Henderson, M.E. Kentula. 1988. Selecting Sites For Comparison with Created Wetlands, p. 291–297. In Proceedings of Symposium '87 Wetlands/Peatlands, compiled by C.D.A. Rubec and R.P. Overend. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Describes the general characteristics and the selection process for wetland test sites within an ecoregion. Paired natural and project sites provide a quantitative characterization of the wetlands, which can be used to improve project design.

2. Ambrose, R.F. In Review. Measuring the Ecological Value of Restored Coastal Ecosystems. M. Sagoff, L.A. Brooks, and S. Van Deveer (eds.). Saving the Seas: Scenic Values and International Governance.

Discusses the ecological value of ecosystems, including wetlands, emphasizing the fundamental functions and processes. Describes some methods currently used to evaluate wetland functions, (e.g., WET) and discusses improvements for an ecological valuation method, including measuring restoration success.

3. American Water Resource Association. 1979. Wetland Functions and Values: P.E. Greenson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association.

Extensively examines the ecological functions and values of wetlands, such as nutrient cycling, hydrology, and productivity, and how these functions translate to social issues, such as flood control, water quality, and wildlife habitat.

4. Baird, K. 1989. High Quality Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes 7(2):60–64.

Emphasizes the need for an ecosystem approach in restoration planning and implementation. This approach is based on the analysis of species composition, community structure, and groundwater and soil characteristics of a model site, then replicating those characteristics at the restored site.

5. Bara, M.O., R.W. Tiner, D.C. Newkirk. 1977. Guidelines for Evaluating Proposed Wetland Alterations in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, South Carolina.

Describes general guidelines for evaluating permit applications proposing to alter wetlands. Discusses specific techniques and approaches, and provides a guidance for South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department personnel to increase consistency.

6. Barber, R.J. 1992. Restoring and Creating Wetlands: A Planning Guide for the Central States Region. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas.

Characterizes wetlands in the central states region, identifying their critical functions and values. Provides an outline of restoration and creation techniques, and project design and evaluation.

7. Barrett, N.E. and W.A. Niering. 1993. Tidal Marsh Restoration: Trends in Vegetation Change Using a Geographical Information System (GIS). Restoration Ecology. Society for Ecological Restoration. pp.18–28.

Describes a methodology for evaluating success, by measuring trends in vegetation, comparing degraded habitat vegetation with restored habitat vegetation. Discusses the process of restoration as convergent, and questions the effectiveness of restoration to duplicate historical conditions.

8. Batha, R. and A. Pendleton. 1987. Mitigation: A Good Tool That Needs Sharpening. California Waterfront Age 3(2):15–17

Describes wetland mitigation as an evolving practice and wetland restoration as an improving science, both of which would benefit from mitigation banking, providing adequate sites for wetland restoration are available.

9. Beatley, T. 1991. Protecting Biodiversity in Coastal Environments: Introduction and Overview. Coastal Management 19:1–19

Describes the value of coastal resources and the multiple threats to coastal biodiversity and habitats. Discusses the need for management plans that emphasize the sustainable uses of coastal resources and the long-term protection and restoration of coastal ecosystems, including wetlands, on a global level.

10. Breen, B. 1993. To Build a Bog. Garbage (Nov–Dec). pp. 32–39.

Discusses wetland restoration projects and the loss of habitat due to project failure. Defines wetland functions and values, emphasizing the importance of hydrology to the project design.

11. Brooks, R.P., and R.M. Hughes. 1988. Guidelines for Assessing the Biotic Communities of Freshwater Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

Discusses the need for standardized guidelines for evaluating a system, and determining appropriate functions and values for that region. Provides specific monitoring and sampling techniques to standardize data collection.

12. Broome, S.W. 1990. Creation and Restoration of Tidal Wetlands of the Southeastern United States. In J.A Kusler and M.E. Kentual (eds.). Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Describes southeastern wetland types, and their functions. Provides a detailed description of design criteria for restoration and creation of wetlands, specifically addressing the evaluation of successful revegetation.

13. Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating Constructed Wetlands Through Comparisons With Natural Wetlands. EPA/600/3-91/058. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 37 p.

Discusses the need to evaluate created wetlands, comparing the physical and biological parameters with those found in natural wetlands. Describes the EPA's approach to testing and comparing wetlands.

14. Brown. M.T., J.M. Schaefer, K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands and Wildlife in East Central Florida. The Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida.

Describes developing a methodology for determining buffer requirements for water, wetlands, and wildlife. Provides step-by-step procedures for determining buffer requirements and standards.

15. Burkart, B. 1989 Monitoring Methodologies and Their Relationship to Project Success at the First San Diego River Improvement Project. H.G. Hughes and T.M. Bonnicksen (eds.). Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. pp. 86–95.

Describes a monitoring program established for a riparian restoration project, designed to measure success. Discusses the unique features of this project: specific standards of performance, or milestones, must be met within 5 years of monitoring and remedial measures must be undertaken.

16. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991 Draft Guidelines for the Establishment of Wetland Mitigation Banks.

Describes the DFG's guidelines regarding wetland mitigation banks, while maintaining its policy of no net loss of wetland habitat acres or functions.

17. California State Coastal Conservancy. 1993 Conservancy Discussion on Habitat Mitigation (Draft).

Describes the Conservancy's role in mitigation, defines the terms used, and provides a summary of past Conservancy mitigation experiences, issues, and problems.

18. California State Coastal Conservancy. 1993. Draft Port Mitigation Study.

Describes the potential impacts of port expansion on coastal and bay wetlands, and the resultant mitigation needs. Provides recommendations for improving the mitigation process.

19. Castelle, A.J., S. Luchessa, C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter. 1992. Wetlands Mitigation Banking. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Discusses wetland mitigation, emphasizing several key components, and describes the design and implementation of a mitigation bank program. Suggests that those mitigation banks which meet multiple objectives and satisfy regional restoration needs are most successful.

20. Coenen, N.L. and B. Cortright. 1979. Mitigation in the Oregon Coastal Management Program. In: The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Colorado State University, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Discusses Oregon's Coastal Management Program, describing the planning goals and guidelines for estuarine resources, and defines key terms.

21. Confer, S.R., and W.A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of Created and Natural Freshwater Emergent Wetlands in Connecticut. Wetlands Ecology and Management 2(3):143–156

Describes a study comparing created and natural wetlands; while created wetlands performed many of the same functions as natural wetlands, they did not exhibit the same functional value.

22. Dobberteen, R.A., N.H. Nickerson. 1991. Use of Created Cattail (Typha) Wetlands in Mitigation Strategies. Environmental Management 15(6):797–808.

Describes species selection and construction most appropriate for a created wetland project at a polluted site. Argues that created cattail marshes provide an effective approach for mitigation of contaminated sites.

23. Eichbaum, W.M. and B.B. Berstein. 1990. Current Issues in Environmental Management: A Case Study of Southern California's Marine Monitoring System. Coastal Management 18: 433–445.

Describes a case study of marine monitoring in the Southern California Bight, to examine ways in which monitoring could produce better information for management decisions. Concludes that the management programs need to address a regional framework.

24. Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco: A Critique. State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California.

Evaluates the effectiveness of wetland mitigation policies in achieving successful wetland restoration. Reviews permits in San Francisco Bay requiring mitigation, concluding that there was a low level of compliance and limited success rates. Provides recommendations to improve this process.

25. Environmental Law Institute. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Banking. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

Examines the current status of wetland mitigation banking, focusing on the institutional approach in both economic and ecological contexts.

26. Faber, P.M. 1987. A Marsh Revived. California Waterfront Age 3 (1):28–29.

Describes the restoration of Muzzi Marsh in Corte Madera, Marin County, CA. Emphasizes the need to consider elevation and hydrology as key factors for marsh ecosystem restoration longevity.

27. Field, D.W., A.J. Reyer, P.V. Genovese, and B.D. Shearer. 1991. Coastal Wetlands of the United States: An Accounting of a Valuable Resource. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

Describes the distribution and abundance of coastal wetlands in the United States. Discusses coastal wetland functions and values, and the various types of coastal wetlands.

28. Fishbain, L. and P. Williams. 1988. Integrating Riparian Restoration in Flood Control Channel Design: The Example of Wildcat Creek, California. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Urban Wetlands: Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium. Association of Wetland Managers. pp. 71–77.

Describes the restoration of Wildcat Creek, a project that integrates riparian habitat protection and flood control. Discusses opportunities to adjust project design to meet multi-purpose goals when appropriate parties are involved in the design and implementation of the project.

29. Fleischer, S., L. Stibe, L. Leonardson. 1991. Restoration of Wetlands as a Means of Reducing Nitrogen Transport to Coastal Waters. Ambio 20(6):271–272.

Wetland creation on drained farmland is advocated as an efficient and cost-effective approach to reducing anthropogenic nitrogen loading in marine coastal areas.

30. Frederickson, L.H., F.A. Reid. 1986. Wetland and Riparian Habitats: A Nongame Management Overview. Management of Nongame Wildlife in the Midwest: A Developing Art. North Cent. Sect. Wildl. Soc. pp 58–96.

Describes abiotic and biotic characteristics of wetland ecosystems, specifically as they pertain to the habitat requirements of nongame wildlife. Emphasizes that the goals for effective management of wetlands should be to maintain productive and diverse ecosystems.

31. Frederickson, L.H., F.A. Reid. 1990. Impacts of Hydrologic Alteration on Management of Freshwater Wetlands. J.M. Sweeny (ed.). Management of Dynamic Ecosystems. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc., West Lafayette, Indiana.

Describes the design and management of restored wetlands that emulate natural hydrology, specifically fluctuations in water levels, in order to maximize biotic functions.

32. Frost, J.B. and K. Stenberg. 1992. Designing Wetlands Preservation Programs for Local Governments: A Guide to Non-Regulatory Protection. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Describes wetland preservation and the design and administration of a preservation program. Provides a guidebook for local governments and administrators to design and manage a program that reflects local needs and priorities, while protecting valuable resources.

33. Gale, J.G. and P.B. Williams. 1988. Integrating Tidal Wetland Restoration with Coastal Flood Basin Design: The Example of Shorebird Marsh, Corte Madera, California. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Urban Wetlands: Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium. Association of Wetland Managers. pp. 83–89.

Describes the integration of wetland enhancement values and flood control design in the restoration of shorebird Park Marsh. Successful implementation required complex hydraulic design and monitoring to meet design goals.

34. Garbisch, E.W. 1986. Highways and Wetlands: Compensating Wetland Losses. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia.

Provides a manual of techniques for establishing wetlands; general guidelines and technical information. Describes wetland functions and values, procedures of establishment, and factors which may limit success.

35. Gardner, R.C. 1991. Public Participation and Wetland Regulation. Journal of Environmental Law 10(1):1–40.

Discusses the legal issues regarding the Administrative Procedure Act and informal rulemaking, specifically as it relates to the guidance documents utilized by those agencies regulating wetlands, Section 404.

36. Gates, S. 1982. An Inventory of California Coastal Wetlands with a Potential for Restoration and Enhancement. M. Josselyn (ed.). Wetland Restoration and Enhancement. California. Sea Grant College Program. pp. 11–21.

Discusses the need to identify sites with potential for restoration, as the opportunities to restore coastal habitat diminishes with increased development. Provides a listing of the restoration or mitigation projects and their status.

37. Gonor, J.J. 1979. An Evaluation of the Ecological Basis of Mitigation Requirements in Oregon Statewide Estuarine Resource Planning. In: The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Colorado State University, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Discusses the Oregon mitigation site criteria, which ensures that the critical functions of the development site are replicated at the mitigation site. Describes the adjustments needed at a mitigation site to maximize the potential for replacing the lost ecosystem.

38. Goodwin, P. and P.B. Williams. 1992. Restoring Coastal Wetlands: The California Experience. J. Institute of Water and Environmental Management 6:709–719

Describes hydrologic considerations in the design and construction or enhancement of tidal wetlands. Discusses a multi-objective approach for project development, implementation, and management, and provides examples from several case studies.

39. Grenell, P. 1986. The Coastal Conservancy's Emerging Role in Shaping Wetland Mitigation Approaches: Standards and Criteria. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. pp–102

Discusses wetland mitigation and the Conservancy's role in identifying appropriate sites and establishing mitigation banks. Describes problems associated with mitigation and raises questions regarding the process of wetland mitigation.

40. Gwin, S.E. and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance of Wetlands Created Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. EPA/600/3-90/061. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

Describes a project evaluating created wetlands, comparing design plans in permits against the as-built completed projects. Determines that none of the created wetlands evaluated were built as designed.

41. Hammer, D.A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers.

Describes wetland characteristics, values, and functions, and objectives for restoration and creation of wetlands. Provides a comprehensive reference addressing multiple aspects of wetland ecology.

42. Holland, C.C. and M.E. Kentula. 1992. Impacts of Section 404 Permits Requiring Compensatory Mitigation in California. Wetland Ecology and Management 2(3):157–169.

Evaluated permitting trends, along with compensatory mitigation and wetland impacts over time. Describes the inadequate documentation of permits and the insufficient monitoring of mitigation projects as limitations in protecting wetland resources.

43. Hook, D.D. 1993. Wetlands: History, Current Status, and Future. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12:2157–2165.

Describes historical uses which have impacted wetlands and the resultant habitat loss. Discusses the confusion regarding delineation and definition of wetlands, and provides a conceptual model of the factors influencing wetlands and their jurisdiction. Concludes that the sustainability of wetlands will require learning to limit our use of resources, and controlling population growth.

44. Horner, R.R. and K.J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide For Wetland Mitigation Project Monitoring. Washington State Transportation Commission.

Provides a guide for monitoring wetland mitigation projects. Describes monitoring as a way to assess the achievement of functional objectives, and to evaluate a project's success. Discusses the diagnostic procedures and tasks involved to obtain and interpret data.

45. Ischinger, L.S., K. Schneller–McDonald. 1988. Wetland Restoration and Creation in the West: What Do We Really Know? In: Restoration, Creation and Management of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the American West. A Symposium of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Denver, Colorado.

Discusses the published literature dealing with wetland and stream restoration and creation. Examines the objectives, observed responses, and monitoring efforts of past restoration and creation projects, concluding that the data base of information available rarely quantifies the functions of natural wetlands and that projects have not been adequately monitored. Provides a summary of problems and research needs.

46. Josselyn, M.N. 1986. Effectiveness of Coastal Wetland Restoration: California. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. pp 246–251.

Describes a variety of technological solutions to addressing the unique constraints of Pacific coast wetland restoration efforts. Provides an analysis of the advantages and problems of each approach, and lists further research needs.

47. Josselyn, M., and J. Bucholz. 1982. Summary of Past Wetland Restoration Projects in California. M. Josselyn (ed.). Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant College Program. pp–10.

Provides a listing of restoration projects, comparing objectives, methods, and monitoring. Concludes that many projects had vague objectives and monitoring was limited; recommends improvements for restoration projects.

48. Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz. 1984. Marsh Restoration in San Francisco Bay: A Guide to Design and Planning. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Tiburon, California.

Describes restoration and enhancement of tidal saline marshes in the San Francisco Bay. Examines previous restoration projects, identifies useful techniques and problems that exist. Provides design and monitoring objectives.

49. Josselyn, M., J. Zedler, T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland Mitigation Along the Pacific Coast of the United States. In: J.A Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.). Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Describes the various types of wetlands found along the Pacific Coast and the characteristics that make them unique. Discusses the limited success of mitigation projects and provides recommendations for improved functional designs. Outlines critical aspects for successful mitigation plans and monitoring programs to evaluate success of restoration projects.

50. Kelly, J.R., M.K. Laubhan, F.A. Reid, J.S. Wortham, L.H. Frederickson. 1993. Options for Water-level Control in Developed Wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.8. Waterfowl Management Handbook, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Describes the design and construction of contour levees as an attractive alternative for wetland restoration, aimed at restoring wetland functions and productivity to benefit wildlife.

51. Kentula, M.E. 1986. Wetland Creation and Rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest. In R. Strickland (ed.). Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Describes various types of wetland rehabilitation projects and provides information on the scientific literature and documentation available.

52. Kentula, M.E. 1987. Does Mitigation Work? EPA's Wetland Research Program is Checking. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

Describes an evaluation process undertaken by the U.S. EPA to compare various completed restoration projects with relevant reference sites.

53. Kentula, M.E. 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: EPA's Research Program and an Extensive Sampling Approach to Comparing Created and Natural Wetlands, p. 304–310. In Proceedings Society of Ecological Restoration Annual Meeting, Oakland, California.

Briefly discusses the threats to remaining wetland habitat and the need to evaluate wetland creation projects. Describes the EPA evaluation project and methods for selecting wetland sites. Addresses the effect of ecological setting on the characteristics of the wetlands in the area, and their associated ecological functions.

54. Kentula, M.E. 1994. Establishing Quantitative Performance Criteria for Wetland Restoration, p 137–139. Symposium on Ecological Restoration: Proceedings of a Conference, March 1993. EPA 841-B-94-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Describes developing performance criteria, and the use of performance curves to evaluate restoration projects. Discusses how monitoring information can be used to set quantitative performance criteria.

55. Kentula, M.E. 1994. The Status of Restoration Science: Wetlands Ecosystems, p. 21–24. Symposium on Ecological Restoration: Proceedings of a Conference, March 1993. EPA 841-B-94-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Discusses the reality that wetland restoration projects have not achieved functional replacement of natural systems. The status report developed by Kusler and Kentula reveals the limitations of the knowledge base, and indicates that the needed information will emerge from current research work in progress.

56. Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneros. 1992. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Describes a detailed approach for agencies to develop a regional database that characterizes natural, restored and created wetlands. Guidelines for developing wetland performance criteria and for improving wetland management and restoration are discussed.

57. King, D. and C. Bohlen. 1994. Estimating the Cost of Restoration. National Wetlands Newsletter 16(3):3–8.

Summarizes the results of a study that was designed to estimate the cost of successful wetland mitigation. Discusses the limited success of past restoration projects and attributes these failings to the lack of funds committed to the projects and the regulators failing to demand success.

58. Kusler, J., and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Executive Summary, p. xvii–xxv. In: J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Discusses the range of issues regarding wetland restoration and creation, including the limited scientific knowledge available, determination of success, and the need for long-term monitoring. Provides recommendations for wetland managers.

59. Kusler, J. 1992. Wetlands Delineation: An Issue of Science or Politics? Environment 34 (2):7–11, 29–37

Describes the background regarding the political controversy over wetland definition and delineation criteria, and the lack of consistency in regulatory processes. Limitations of the 1991 "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" are discussed.

60. LaRoe, E.T. 1979. The Biological Basis for Estuarine Ecosystem Mitigation. In: The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Colorado State University, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Defines mitigation and its appropriate use. Provides guidelines for mitigation to ensure functions and values are maintained and no further habitat is lost.

61. Lewis, R.R. 1989. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plain Wetlands in Florida. In: J.A Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Describes the coastal plain wetlands in Florida, and various restoration projects and goals. Evaluates success and failure, concluding that excessive wave energy, improper planting elevation and slope, and human impacts all contributed to the failure of projects.

62. Lowe, E.F., L.E. Battoe, D.H. Stiles, M.F. Coveney. 1992. Particulate Phosphorus Removal via Wetland Filtration: An Examination of Potential for Hypertrophic Lake Restoration. Environmental Management 16(1):67–74.

Describes a cost-effective means of pollution abatement, specifically particulate phosphorus removal, for impacted lakes in Florida. By creating a large wetland on the lake's former floodplain, the particulate phosphorus can be deposited and filtered as the water from the lake flows through the vegetated wetland, with a long-term removal efficiency of at least 30 percent.

63. Lunz, J.D. 1978. Habitat Development Field Investigations, Windmill Point Marsh Development Site, James River, Virginia: Summary Report. Dredge Material Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Describes a marsh development project using dredged material. The resulting marsh provided increased habitat for fish and wildlife communities, enhancing the ecological value of the area.

64. Marble, A.D. 1992. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Provides a guidebook for evaluating wetland functional replacement. Describes wetland functions and values, and evaluation of these functions.

65. MacDonald, K.B. 1989. Top–Down Planning: An Integrated Approach to Restoration Goals, Criteria for Success, and Monitoring in Coastal Wetlands. H.G. Hughes, and T.M. Bonnicksen (eds.). Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. pp 365–375.

Describes a planning process that integrates restoration goals, criteria for success, and monitoring requirements. Provides a conceptual model of top–down planning which illustrates the selection of evaluation species, ecological requirements, biological and physical habitat variables, and develop criteria for engineering design. Discusses the need for successive stages of evaluation and complimentary criteria for success to satisfy habitat restoration goals.

66. Magee, T.K., S.E. Gwin, R.G. Gibson, C.C. Holland, J.E. Honea, P.W. Shaffer, J.C. Sifneros, M.E. Kentula. 1993. Research plan and Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands Study. Document Production by K. Miller. EPA/600/R-93/072. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

Describes a study to develop sound wetland management strategies for restoration or creation projects. Provides detailed methods used to characterize and compare the functions of natural and restored wetlands. This information is aimed at developing performance criteria and design guidelines for wetland projects.

67. Mason, H. L. 1980. Techniques for Creating Salt Marshes Along the California Coast. In: Rehabilitation and Creation of Selected Coastal Habitats: Proceedings of a Workshop. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of the Interior. pp. 23–24.

Describes techniques to collect, germinate, and plant Spartina, and discusses several problems associated with salt marsh construction.

68. McCollum, J.M. 1986. A Field Biologist Perspective on the Habitat Evaluation Procedures: An Impact Assessment Tool. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. pp. 311–313.

Describes the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) as an excellent tool to assist biologists and others to evaluate mitigation proposals.

69. McCreary, S. 1987. Towards Affirmative Restoration. California Waterfront Age 3(1):11–18.

Discusses wetland habitat loss and damage and the need for restoration efforts. Describes mitigation efforts, and lists goals for affirmative wetland restoration.

70. Meiorin, E., M. Josselyn, R. Crawford, J. Calloway, K. Miller, R. Pratt, T. Richardson, R. Leidy. 1991. San Francisco Estuary Project: Status and Trends Report on Wetlands and Related Habitats in San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Bay Estuary Project, Oakland, California.

Describes the functions and values of wetlands, and addresses issues faced in managing wetlands as a resource. Provides information on the classification and distribution of wetlands in the San Francisco estuary.

71. Michael, E.D., L.S. Smith. 1985. Creating Wetlands Along Highways in West Virginia. West Virginia Department of Highways and U.S. Department of Transportation.

Discusses wetland values in West Virginia, in comparison to highway wetland values. Describes desirable features in created wetlands, and methods to create those features.

72. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academic Press, Washington, D.C. 552 pp.

Describes and discusses from a national perspective the scientific, technological, and public policy aspects of restoring aquatic ecosystems — including wetlands. Defines restoration and describes the attributes necessary to consider for effective restoration and for evaluating success. The basic elements of a national restoration strategy are described.

73. Nelson, B. 1987 Mitigation in San Francisco Bay: But Where and How? California Waterfront Age 10(1):23–27

Discusses the scarcity of potential mitigation sites in San Francisco Bay, and the partial successes and failures of wetland restoration projects in the Bay. Concludes that once speculation by developers for wetland areas ceases, the agencies will be able to protect the resources of the Bay.

74. Onuf, C.P. 1979. Guidelines for the Protection of the Natural Resources of California's Coastal Wetlands. Proceedings of a Workshop on Coastal Wetlands. University of California, Santa Barbara.

Discusses recommendations and prerequisites for planning that will adequately protect the natural resources of the coastal zone. Describes appropriate categories for monitoring, and suggests approaches to protecting the natural resources.

75. Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL). 1990. A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands, With Examples From Southern California. San Diego State University, and California Sea Grant College.

Describes a comprehensive approach to monitoring for success criteria in a restored salt marsh. Provides a detailed list of salt marsh functions and attributes, and monitoring methods, which will allow for comparable data with natural reference sites.

76. Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. 1988. Wildcat Creek Enhancement Plan. Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., San Francisco, California.

Describes a design for the enhancement of Wildcat Creek, including habitat gains and losses achieved through manipulation of the hydrology; creation of marsh ponds, channel excavation, and the excavation of the marsh plain.

77. Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. 1994 Draft Discussion Document for Developing a Monitoring Plan for Wildcat Creek Marsh Enhancement Project. Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., San Francisco, California.

Discusses monitoring categories to determine success, and to determine whether restoration goals have been met. Identifies monitoring categories as compliance, management, design improvements, and scientific research.

78. Purcell, L.J., T.D. Johnson. 1992. Creating Wetlands. Water Resources: Civil Engineering 62 (8):36–37.

Describes a Port of Long Beach landfill mitigation project. . Habitat losses and gains for both fish and birds were evaluated at the wetland restoration site. The resulting project provided a mix of habitats to compensate for habitat loss. Following various remediation efforts, monitoring results indicate the restoration was a success, as the area provides a refuge for wildlife.

79. Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring Success of Wetland Mitigation. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. pp 242–245.

Discusses studies evaluating mitigation success and restoration goals and criteria. Identifies criteria for determining the effectiveness of created and restored wetlands in replacing the functions of natural wetlands.

80. Race, M. 1985. Critique of Present Wetlands Mitigation Policies in the United States Based on an Analysis of Past Restoration Projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management 9(1):71–82.

Reviews previous restoration projects in San Francisco Bay, finding limited success and accomplishments. Provides recommendations to improve the success and reduce the certain loss of wetland acreage.

81. Race, M and D. Christie. 1982. Coastal Zone Development: Mitigation, Marsh Creation, and Decision-Making. Environmental Management 6(4):317–328.

Discusses the limitations of past restoration projects, and concludes that while mitigation and marsh creation are important tools, they cannot be used at the expense of natural habitats.

82. Ray, D.K. and W.O. Woodroof. 1986. Approaches for Restoring and Recreating Wetlands in California's Coastal Zone. J.A. Kusler (ed.). Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. pp. 392–402.

Describes the various approaches to wetland restoration and enhancement, and illustrates how most projects have proven to be inadequate or failed to achieve their goals. Discusses the assessment of mitigation projects. Suggests that the collection of baseline data, improved mitigation ratios, and the use of indicator species would improve evaluation and success of large projects.

83. Reid, F.A. 1993. Managing Wetlands for Waterbirds. Trans. 58th N.A. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf.

Advocates wetland restoration and management that attempts to mimic regional hydrologic cycles, through manipulation of altered hydrologic regimes, in order to provide a breadth of microhabitats for many species of waterbirds.

84. Riddle, E.P. 1987. Mitigation Banks: Unmitigated Disaster or Sound Investment? California Waterfront Age 3(1):37–40.

Describes the benefits and potential obstacles to successful mitigation bank projects. Concludes that mitigation banks can be an effective tool if used for a specific mitigation need, which satisfies restoration goals.

85. Roberts, L. 1993. Wetlands Trading Is A Loser's Game, Say Ecologists. Science 260:1890–1892.

Describes wetland mitigation practices as having failed to live up to expectations, as most wetland restoration projects are fundamentally different from the wetlands they are intended to replace. Discusses defining success and developing standards to evaluate success.

86. Rowinski, C. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Issues and Regulations Analysis. New Hampshire Coastal Program.

Discusses mitigation policy issues, and addresses various technical questions, including assessment criteria, monitoring, and determining success.

87. Russell, C.S. 1992. First Steps in the Development of a Method for Evaluating Environmental Restoration Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Reviews and evaluates the literature regarding the effectiveness and evaluation of restoration. Provides a conceptual model for the development of an evaluation framework and measurement techniques.

88. Salvesen, D. 1994. Wetlands: Mitigating and Regulating Development Impacts. The Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C.

Describes wetlands as a resource and reviews federal and state wetlands regulations. Concludes with a listing and description of various mitigation strategies, including avoidance, minimization, restoration, enhancement, and mitigation banking.

89. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1987. Mitigation Practices Guidebook. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

Provides information on the Commission's mitigation policy and practices regarding fill, to assist permit applicants and interested parties.

90. Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M. Thom. 1990. Temporary Residence by Juvenile Salmon in a Restored Estuarine Wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47(11):2079–2084.

Describes the foraging use and residence time of juvenile chum and fall Chinook salmon in a restored wetland.

91. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1992. SWCS Adopts Wetland Policy Statement. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47(6):438–440.

States the value of wetlands and the functions they perform. Articulates SWCS wetland definition and delineation process, emphasizing a need for regional specificity and regulatory consistency.

92. Squires, L. 1992. A Research Strategy to Develop Ecological Indicators of Wetland Condition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Lab, Corvallis, Oregon.

Describes a selection strategy for identifying ecological attributes of wetland condition. The framework presented includes methods for identifying, interpreting, and field testing the selected attributes that indicate significant differences between natural and degraded wetlands.

93. Stevens, M.L. and R. Vanbianchi. 1993. Restoring Wetlands in Washington: A Guidebook For Wetland Restoration Planning and Implementation. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the restoration process; project planning, site assessment, design and implementation, and monitoring and management.

94. Thayer, G.W. (ed.). 1992. Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Maryland Sea Grant College.

Discusses the nation's wetland restoration projects, providing case studies of unique ecosystems and restoration techniques.

95. U.S. Department of the Army. 1991. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Army: San Francisco District Corps of Engineers.

The guidelines provide an outline for applicants preparing mitigation and monitoring plans associated with projects requiring a permit from the Corps. Performance evaluation and success criteria are included in the monitoring plan.

96. U.S. Department of the Army. 1993. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Army: Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch.

Provides guidelines for applicants preparing mitigation and monitoring applications required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Describes the required documentation including project description, monitoring plans, and goals and success criteria.

97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Mitigation Banking Guidance.

Establishes procedural guidance for EPA Region IX personnel on the appropriate use, creation, and operation of mitigation banks.

98. Vellidis, G., R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith, R.H. Hubbard. 1993. Methods to assess the water quality impact of a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48(3):223–230.

Describes a project to evaluate the feasibility of re-establishing a riparian wetland in a forest to act as a nutrient sink for non-point source pollution from farms.

99. Vernberg, F.J. 1993. Salt-Marsh Processes: A Review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12:2167–2195

Reviews salt marsh processes, describing the physical, geological, and chemical characteristics. Primary and secondary production, decomposition, and nutrient cycling are discussed, concluding with a summary of saltmarsh interactions with the ocean ecosystem.

100. Wakeman, N. 1982. Development of Regional Wetland Goals: San Francisco Bay. M. Josselyn (ed.). Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant College Program. pp 32–37.

Discusses regional wetland habitat needs for San Francisco Bay, and specific criteria for wetland restoration and enhancement.

101. Water Resources Program. 1992. Wetlands Engineering: Design Sequence for Wetlands Restoration and Establishment. WRP Technical Note WG-RS-3.1.

Describes design and construction techniques for wetland restoration and establishment, based on the concept that design activities associated with wetland substrate soils and hydrology should precede those associated with establishing wetland vegetation. Provides an efficient sequence of activities for design, facilitating an integrated approach for wetland establishment.

102. Williams, S.L. and J.B. Zedler. 1992. Restoring Sustainable Coastal Ecosystems on the Pacific Coast: Establishing a Research Agenda. California Sea Grant, La Jolla, California.

Describes the limitations of scientific knowledge of the ecosystems on the Pacific coast, and provides a priority list of research needs.

103. Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland Creation and Restoration in the United States from 1970 to 1985: An Annotated Bibliography. Special Issue. Journal of The Society of Wetland Scientists 6(1)1–88.

Reviews wetland restoration and creation literature and references, emphasizing site engineering and plant propagation.

104. Zedler, J.B. 1983. Salt Marsh Restoration: The Experimental Approach. Coastal Zone 1983, American Society of Civil Engineers 3:2578–2586.

Describes the unique features of southern California salt marshes, which precludes transfer of techniques for restoration from other regions. The physical and biological factors that limit the establishment of salt marsh plants, specifically cordgrass, are outlined. Suggests using a scientific experimental approach and incorporating knowledge from other projects in order to improve the success of restoration, and to determine why it succeeded or failed.

105. Zedler, J.B. 1984. Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern California. California Sea Grant College Program, Institute of Marine Resources, University of California.

Discusses the goals of restoration and compatible restoration techniques, in order to satisfy regional objectives. Identifies plant communities found in coastal marshes, and their distribution. Describes the limiting factors for plant establishment, and suggested planting techniques and monitoring.

106. Zedler, J.B. 1987. Mitigation Problems on the Southern California Coast: An Ecologists View. California Waterfront Age 3(1):32–36.

Discusses the limitations and quandaries raised by past wetland mitigation projects, and criticizes the mitigation process as having resulted in continued loss of wetland habitat. Concludes that restoration will only be a success if approached scientifically and when total ecosystems are restored.

107. Zedler, J.B. 1988. Salt Marsh Restoration: Lessons from California. Cains, J. (ed.). Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems Vol.1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Discusses the need for defined goals which address regional requirements. Addresses the unique characteristics of saltmarsh systems in southern California. Recommends experimentation as part of the restoration process, and assessment criteria. Appendix I and II provide examples of restoration from which lessons for improvements can be learned.

108. Zedler, J.B. 1988. Restoring Diversity in Salt Marshes: Can We Do It? E.O. Wilson (ed.). Biodiversity. National Academy Press.

Describes wetland restoration projects in California which resulted in loss of area and habitat, concluding that assessment must be for the entire ecosystem, and not for target species.

109. Zedler, J.B. 1988. Why It's So Difficult to Replace Lost Wetland Functions. In: Increasing Our Wetland Resources. Conference Proceedings, National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C. pp 121–123.

Describes the limitations in knowledge regarding wetland restoration, and the many frustrations that arise. Compares restoring a wetland ecosystem to building an urban center, and the various problems with that process. Concludes that if we are to succeed in restoration, we need to know what happens, and why.

110. Zedler, J.B. 1991. The Challenge of Protecting Endangered Species Habitat Along Southern California Coast. Coastal Management 19:35–53.

Describes the limitations and short-comings of mitigation wetland restoration projects, using the San Diego Bay as a case study. Scientific monitoring of food chain support, plant productivity, and nitrogen supply, all indicate that the restored wetland lacks the functional equivalency of a natural wetland. Specific criteria for success are discussed, and policy recommendations are made to attain the long-term goal of no-net-loss.

111. Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy Architecture of Natural and Planted Cordgrass Marshes: Selecting Habitat Evaluation Criteria. Ecological Applications 3(1):123–138.

Describes the methodology and specific criteria needed to assess clapper rail habitat, including standards for monitoring. To ensure suitable habitat needs are sustained by the site, monitoring of the constructed site must occur for at least five years.

112. Zedler, J., M. Josselyn, and C. Onuf. 1982. Restoration Techniques, Research, and Monitoring Vegetation. M. Josselyn (ed.). Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant College Program.

Summarizes the ecological features of wetland vegetation, reviews the data available on vegetation establishment, and suggests research and monitoring programs to improve restoration efforts.

113. Zedler, J.B., R. Langis, J. Cantilli, M. Zalejkop, and S. Rutherford. 1989. Assessing the Functioning of Constructed Salt Marshes. H. G. Hughes and T.M Bonnicksen (eds.). Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. pp. 311–317.

Discusses the concerns being raised regarding enhanced, restored, and constructed wetlands, and the rationale for strict assessment criteria to meet the goal of functional habitat.

114. Zedler, J.B., R. Langis, J. Cantilli, M. Zalejkop, K. Swift, and S. Rutherford. 1990. Assessing the Functions of Mitigation Marshes in Southern California. pp 323–330.

Discusses the need to evaluate wetland restoration projects to ensure that functions are not being lost. Describes the functions performed by natural wetland ecosystems, and the specific criteria which are unique to systems in California. Provides recommendations for assessing success, including specific measurements.

115. Zedler, J.B., C.S. Norby, and B.E. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary: A National Estuary Research Reserve. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Resource Division, Washington D.C.

Provides a comprehensive characterization of the physical, chemical, and biological factors affecting the ecology of Tijuana Estuary. Discusses the ecological significance of the area, the communities that exist within, and the inter-relationships of the various habitats. Describes the monitoring and management programs, provides extensive data.

116. Zedler, J.B. and A.N. Powell. 1993. Problems in Managing Coastal Wetlands: Complexities, Compromises, and Concerns. Oceanus 36(2):19–28.

Describes the complexity of the marsh ecosystem, and the threats which affect this coastal habitat. Discusses the failures of mitigation, and provides management recommendations.

117. Zentner, J. 1982. Development of Regional Wetland Restoration Goals: Coastal Wetlands. M. Josselyn (ed.). Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. Sea Grant College Program. pp. 23–31

Discusses the need to develop some standards or criteria by which to form restoration goals. Evaluates coastal wetland values, as they apply to restoration goals.

Subject Categories: Mitigation, Monitoring Techniques, Functions and Values, Success Criteria and Evaluation Methods, Wetland Restoration and Creation, and General Wetland References.

Mitigation:

5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 37, 39, 40, 42, 46, 52, 55, 57, 60, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 106, 110, 113.

Monitoring Techniques:

11, 13, 15, 23, 42, 44, 66, 75, 77, 92, 93, 95, 96, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115.

Functions and Values:

3, 12, 64, 71, 75, 87, 90, 93, 110, 113, 114, 117.

Success Criteria and Evaluation Methods:

1, 2, 7, 13, 15, 53, 54, 56, 64, 65, 68, 86, 87, 107, 110, 113,

Wetland Restoration and Creation:

4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83, 86, 91, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 116.

General Wetland References:

9, 14, 27, 32, 35, 43, 59, 70, 74, 99, 115.

University of California Libraries: (use Melvil to determine which university library)

34, 41, 63, 71

California Coastal Commission Library:

3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 25, 32, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 58, 68, 72, 75, 79, 82, 93, 94, 105, 112, 115.

Files at Coastal Commission, San Francisco Office:

2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34,36, 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117. (Microfiche copies only: 1, 11, 13, 21, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 66, 87.)

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Appendix A

Return to Executive Summary

Go to Appendix C

Go to Literature Cited

Go to Glossary

Return to California Coastal Commission Publications Page

Return to California Coastal Commission Home Page