Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico [1 ed.] 9789062997961, 9789051031416

Citation preview

Ms. Deborah Shafer (author Chapter 9 and co-author Chapter 8) is a Research Marine Biologist in the Wetlands and Coastal Ecology Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. She is a principal investigator in the development of the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach to the assessment of tidal fringe wetlands and has authored or co-authored several scientific articles and reports related to coastal wetland restoration in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico

SPB Academic Publishing

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Mr. Mark Boyer (co-author Chapter 2) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. He has worked on sensitive wetland ecosystems in private practice and is currently investigating constructed wetlands and their application to urban stormwater systems. He has been author and co-author on several scientific articles on wetland creation and management.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico

Dr. Bill Streever has been involved with wetland restoration research in Florida, Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Australia, and elsewhere. In addition to technical publications, he has written two works of creative nonfiction, Bringing Back the Wetlands and Saving Louisiana?. He is one of three editors-in-chief of the journal Wetlands Ecology and Management, and he sits on the Ramsar Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel. He resides in Anchorage, Alaska, where he manages British Petroleum’s environmental research program on the North Slope of Alaska.

R. Eugene Turner and Bill Streever

Dr. R. Eugene Turner is Director, Coastal Ecology Institute, and Professor, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. His wetland activities include service as the Chair of the Wetland Working Group of the International Association of Ecologists (INTECOL), former Editor and now Honorary Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal Wetlands Ecology and Management, and author, co-author and editor of numerous scientific articles and books on wetland ecology and management.

R. Eugene Turner and Bill Streever

SPB Academic Publishing

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Methodologies for estimating the forest carbon budget for Europe

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

APPROACHES TO COASTAL WETLAND RESTORATION: NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

1

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

i

ii

J. Grace et al.

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

This book is for all who long to see improved restoration practices become routine, and for Emily Kathryn Hana Turner, Ishmael Louis Streever, and their friends to explore the results.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

2

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

Methodologies for estimating the forest carbon budget for Europe

iii

APPROACHES TO COASTAL WETLAND RESTORATION: NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO

by

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

R. Eugene Turner and Bill Streever

SPB Academic Publishing bv/The Hague/The Netherlands Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

3

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

iv

J. Grace et al.

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

ISBN 90-5103-141-6

Distributors: For the USA and Canada: Pathway Book Service 4 White Brook Road Gilsum, NH 03448 Telefax (603) 357 2073 For all other countries: SPB Academic Publishing bv P.O. Box 97747 2509 GC The Hague, The Netherlands Telefax (+31.70) 3300254 email: [email protected] website: kuglerpublications.com/spb

© Copyright 2002 SPB Academic Publishing bv All rights reserved. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means without prior written permission from the publisher.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

4

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

Methodologies for estimating the forest carbon budget for Europe

v

CONTENTS

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 2. Crevasse Splays ................................................................................. 9 3. Former Agricultural Impoundments ................................................. 21 4. Backfilling ......................................................................................... 31 5. Managing Spoil Banks ...................................................................... 45 6 Bay Bottom Terracing ....................................................................... 63 7 Dredged Material Wetlands............................................................... 77 8. Excavated Wetlands ........................................................................... 97 9 Thin-Layer Placement ....................................................................... 115 10. Comparisons, Application, and the Future ....................................... 123 Literature Cited ....................................................................................... 129 Appendix 1. A Lexicon of Wetland Restoration ................................... 137 Appendix 2. Equivalent Units ................................................................. 143 Subject index ........................................................................................... 145

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

5

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

vi

J. Grace et al.

You must not just live on the earth. You must live with the Earth. Will you leave it a little better than when you found it?

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

William A. Niering (1924-1999) Commencement Convocation Address Connecticut College, 1993 (cited in Pyle 2000)

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

6

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

Methodologies for estimating the forest carbon budget for Europe

vii

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Bill Streever and I first met in Australia, where Bill had been recently hired to teach wetland ecology and assist in a wetland rehabilitation project in Newcastle, New South Wales. Bill later moved to the United States (U.S.) where he worked at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), in Vicksburg, MS, and near where I taught and did some research at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA. A then growing friendship was allowed to ripen through professional venues with the establishment of this project. We both recognized the unfortunate effects of habitat loss throughout the world on people, flora, and fauna; we both knew of some possibilities for wetland restoration and rehabilitation; and both sensed that our experiences could be combined into this book in a way that might assist others of similar realized or natant interests. If there was a niche we felt necessary and somewhat competent to fill, it was the niche of sharing information and experience that might help others get a little more done, a little sooner, and with a little more usefulness. Given that wetland losses continue to accumulate everywhere in the U.S., as they have for the last two centuries, this niche seemed like a good thing to fill. We did not attempt this by ourselves. There were many co-conspirators in wetland restoration and creation that we were fortunate to have worked with. Among them, we thank the following persons for their assistance in preparing this book, whether it was through the science, field work, office help, editing, or in the laboratory: Stacey Anderson, Don Cahoon, Mary Landin, Jim Lee, Morris Mauney, Charlie Milan, Tom Minello, Cherie O’Brian, Thomas Oswald, Rick Hartman, Nancy Rabalais, Rickey Ruebsamen, Lawrence Rozas, Janean Shirley, Ima Streever, Erick Swenson, and Russ Theriot. The LSU students in the class Wetland Loss, Restoration and Management, colleagues, and professional contacts offered immensely important help by listening, criticizing, and making constructive suggestions. Our families are partly responsible for any usefulness in this contribution, if only because of their complete support of the many trips, and for the time and energy expended on it – rather than them, who deserve more. Any mistakes of fact or omission, however, are entirely our responsibility. Five anonymous reviewers made many helpful comments on the final draft. This is the silent and selfless constructive work of professionals, who Aldo Leopold said were defined as “those who give more than what is expected.” Our publisher, Peter Bakker, SPB Academic Publishing, has been a wonderful model of infectious humanity from before the first time we discussed this project with him, up to its publication. This work was supported by a contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC, in Vicksburg, MS. The National Marine Fisheries Service provided especially helpful long-term support to R. E. Turner that established formal and informal professional relationships leading to this work.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

7

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

viii

Preface and Acknowledgements

We wish to eventually update this small review to include additional approaches and to incorporate the improvements realized as society’s collective experience with wetland restoration and creation grows. We would like to learn about onthe-ground projects. If you would like to share additional information, please contact Gene Turner or Bill Streever. R. Eugene Turner Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Bill Streever Anchorage, Alaska, USA

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turner-vrw.pmd

8

9/1/2006, 10:24 AM

Introduction

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Wetlands Lost

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

The 1,879 thousand hectares of coastal wetlands in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) comprise 58% of the U.S. coastal wetland total (Turner and Gosselink 1975). These wetlands occur in every GOM state, although two-thirds of the GOM total are in Louisiana, and are typically associated with estuaries, bays, rivers, and the lee-side of barrier islands. The objective of this book is to facilitate and encourage the restoration of these and other wetlands by reviewing the details of construction and costs (which can range from $1 to $45,000 per hectare), and by evaluating case studies for levels of success. Each approach is presented in brief chapters outlining the essential points of “what, why, and how” the approach can be planned and implemented. The driving purpose, or goal, of this book is to accelerate regional wetland gains and to promote cost-effective practices in wetland restoration. Why do we think that this book is necessary? The area of wetlands has been diminishing almost everywhere for the last several hundred years, but particularly this century, as the twin juggernauts of population growth and per capita resource exploitation expanded. In 1927, as the Great Depression in the U.S. was about to start, there were 2 billion people on the planet. There were 6 billion people on the Earth in the year 2000 and by 2054 there will be 9 billion. Two hundred years ago there were 89.5 million ha of wetlands in the contiguous 48 U.S. states (Dahl 1990). By 1997 this area had shrunk to 42.7 million ha (Dahl 2001). From the 1970s to the mid-1980s, the annual wetland loss rate was 117,400 ha (Dahl and Johnson 1991). The official national policy of “no net loss” may be why the wetland loss rate slowed to 23.7 thousand ha yr-1 from 1986 to 1997 (Dahl 2001). Although wetland loss rates have also declined in coastal Louisiana in recent years, Louisiana experienced particularly high coastal wetland loss rates of 12.5 thousand ha yr-1 (0.86% yr-1) from 1956 to 1978 (Baumann and Turner 1990). Thus, wetland loss has become a national concern (National Research Council 1991; Dahl 2001, National Research Council 2001) and particularly in the northern Gulf of Mexico. We hope to contribute to the reversal of these wetland losses by presenting wetland restoration and creation approaches appropriate for the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps elsewhere.

Turner, R.E. and B. Streever, Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 1–7 © 2001 SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague, The Netherlands Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

1

29-11-2001, 22:43

2

Chapter 1

Wetlands Valued

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

The current appreciation of wetlands has not been consistent in our society (Siry 1984), but has grown remarkably in the last 30 years. Thirty years ago Louisiana oyster beds were administratively protected with the attitude that, because fish and oysters lived in the water and not in the marsh, the marsh habitat was a relatively unimportant influence on fisheries yields. As a result, wetland management was not considered to have a significant role in fisheries management. Urban expansion into low-lying wetlands was the expected behavior of cities, and agricultural expansion and the dredging of wetlands were not regulated by many states. Now, after some scientific research and with documentation of the impacts resulting from wetland loss, we know that many commercially and recreationally valuable species are wetland-dependent, and that wetland integrity and health affect global and local climate, water quality, and social amenities. Shrimp harvests, for example, are directly related to the area of wetlands, not the area of open water. The public has begun to appreciate these connections. Sometimes one may even see a bumper sticker saying: “If the marsh goes, so do the shrimp.” For many people, wetland conservation and restoration are not a matter of fleeting survival, stability, or economics, but of living in a proper relationship within the larger world. For these reasons, and others, there is now an expanding interest in wetlands and how to sustain them. Scientific research has contributed to this development by documenting how wetlands “work” and then using this information to design better wetland restoration and creation approaches. Wetland ecology and wetland restoration are closely related. We find it interesting that the lag time between general research on wetlands (shown in Figure 1.1 as citations to the primary literature on wetlands) and wetland restoration is only about 5 years. Further, the scientist’s attention on wetland restoration (as measured by citations to the primary literature) is now at least 5 percent of all research on wetlands. This seems like a rather quick coupling of research and application. We hope that this book will contribute to the link between science and restoration in a positive way. Not all wetland restoration is considered successful, however, and there remains a great deal to improve. Coastal restoration efforts have succeeded in many locations in the United States (Table 1.1). In other places there have been administrative and procedural issues leading to inadequate or incomplete fulfillment of regulatory requirements (e.g., Race 1986; Crewz and Lewis 1991; Kentula 1992; Sifneos et al. 1992; National Research Council 2001). This book does not address the specific questions of why some of these projects fail and others succeed. Various principles of restoration are discussed in documents prepared by non-profit groups which give guidance about this subject (e.g., Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation 1999; Pyle 2000). Nor is this book about administration, funding, project management, legalities, or monitoring. This book is about ideas developed mostly from experience. These wetland restoration and creation approaches will work, and have worked, in many places, although there are a variety

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

2

29-11-2001, 22:43

Introduction

3

Fig. 1.1. The development of interest in wetlands science and then the “applied” science leading to restoration. The number of references to a scientific article discussing both ‘wetland’ and ‘restoration’ by year of the article’s publication date is from the Science Citation Index (SCI) “Web of Science” and the percent of wetland articles concerned with restoration was calculated from this data set. The foundation for wetland restoration appears to have been laid by detailed scientific studies that are useful across a broad geographic range (as represented by the SCI data of wetland studies).

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Table 1.1. Examples of coastal restoration efforts of less than 100 ha. State

Source

California Connecticut Florida Louisiana New Hampshire and Maine Washington

Zedler and Callaway 1999; Zedler 1996 Dreyer and Niering 1995 Harrington and Harrington 1982 Boyer et al. (1997) and in this book Burdick et al. 1996 Simenstad and Thom 1996

of methods and results. We wish to point out two observations about the general field of restoration and creation, however: (1) that there is a very real dearth of comparative studies, and (2) the scale, diversity and skill of our restoration and creation efforts can be improved upon in almost all instances.

Science and Restoration The approaches described in these chapters are based on material originating in the backroads of scientific writings, including our own. As scientists we feel compelled to quote one of our university mentors who often said, “the shortest path to a solution is understanding” (H. T. Odum). Scientists are capable of providing very efficient methods to develop this understanding, which will bring with it

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

3

29-11-2001, 22:43

4

Chapter 1

lower long-term restoration and creation costs. But this understanding will only develop if scientists are allowed to function freely, and in a way that allows for the transfer of information developed from one restoration project to another project, and to also allow for failures. Failure is not to be feared in developing insights about how a system ‘works,’ because failure can be very instructive if there is a framework for understanding it. Scientific progress is not usually gained by monitoring studies, but with replication and experimentation. However, much of what is called monitoring could become a scientific enterprise with relatively small and incremental additions to the budget or the staffing. The long-term costs of restoration may remain much higher than necessary without this “scientific approach.” We encourage people to think strategically by designing projects with the expectation that the results might actually be transferable from one site to another, while understanding that the nuances of wetland ecosystem behavior are neither always transparent nor easily grasped. Restoration is, after all, about more than engineering. All of us involved in restoration have opportunities to be systematic with our restoration efforts. We also have an obligation to support strong critical thinking and quantitative networks that are neutral, well ventilated, and flexible. When this attitude is allowed to flourish, then restoration will flourish. (For a discussion of the pitfalls of rigidity in academics and natural resource agencies, see Feyerabend (1993), Bella (1996), Mattson (1996), and Zemansky (1996)).

Terms

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

There is a rapidly evolving vocabulary within the field of restoration (see Appendix 1: A Lexicon of Wetland Restoration). The terms “restoration” and “creation” are used somewhat interchangeably in the scientific and management literature. A dictionary definition of restoration is “an act of restoring or the condition of being restored: as a bringing back to a former position or condition” and for creation, “the act of creating; especially the act of bringing the world into ordered existence”, suggesting a sense of the new and original (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1973). Lewis (1990) defined a created wetland to be “the conversion of a persistent upland or shallow water area into a wetland through some activity of man” and a restored wetland as “A wetland returned from a disturbed or altered condition to a previously existing natural or altered condition by some action of man (i.e., fill removal).” In practice, restoration and creation efforts are often attempting to establish a wetland where there was previously a wetland, but one that was present so long ago that it has passed a management threshold where wetland establishment is unlikely without energetic efforts to do so. Is establishing a wetland in a 200-yearold agricultural impoundment to be called restoration or creation? If the natural deltaic cycle is 500 years between delta growth and abandonment, then if we build small sub-delta lobes where there once was a wetland and it lasts 50 years, will that be an act of wetland restoration or wetland creation?

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

4

29-11-2001, 22:43

Introduction

5

In this book “restoration” means either or all of these definitions, allowing avoidance of a discursive focus on a conceptual categorization that will result in a loss of focus on a net gain in wetland area and functions.

Chapter Outline

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Eight restoration approaches are included. They include projects that can be implemented in major rivers, coastal plains, and open water. Some create wetlands from dredged materials (Dredged Material Wetlands, Thin-Layer Placement, and Bay Bottom Terracing). Another approach uses dredging to favorably manipulate the flow of water and sediments to form new wetlands along major river channels (Crevasse Splays). Three are specifically concerned with converting open water back to wetland several years after human influences altered the landscape (Former Agricultural Impoundments, Backfilling, and Managing Spoil Banks). We choose these approaches because they can be applied widely across the region, there is supporting evidence for their application in peer-reviewed science journals, and there are usually several examples of their successful implementation. An additional criterion was that there are significantly large areas (>1000 ha) for potential application of the approach in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Each chapter can be read within 15 to 60 minutes without rushing through it. Each chapter is meant to be complete, so that the reader does not need to refer to the other chapters to grasp essential points. The eight chapters on approaches begin with a definition of the restoration approach and its objectives so that the reader knows what the approach is. This material is followed by a discussion of the essential background materials necessary to understand that approach and the examples. A practical set of guidelines to choosing effective sites comes next, along with a brief outline of the pitfalls or problems and how to avoid them. The area available for restoration and the estimated costs (pro-rata areal basis) are included with a rationale for those costs. Schumacher (1989) said about economic systems that “small is beautiful.” His perspective included much more than mere economics, in a way that integrated knowledge, person-to-person interactions, and a sense of dignity in the relationships among people and their environment. This perspective may also apply to wetland restoration efforts. When administered appropriately, small projects may bring a level of energy, commitment, detailed knowledge, acceptance, and success that larger projects cannot. Sometimes, however, the larger and more expensive project is the only reasonable alternative to meet the ecological objectives, e.g., designing species reserves, establishing migration corridors, or protecting endangered species. The attributes of small and large projects are touched upon in the final chapter that includes a comparison of these approaches.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

5

29-11-2001, 22:43

6

Chapter 1

Additional Resources Margaret Meade reminded us that individuals can make a difference in many different ways, but that doing so requires something: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Our experiences, our personal examples, and the results of wetland projects we are involved in are some of the best resources to accomplish the multiple goals of habitat conservation and restoration. We will learn much that will satisfy us even when projects fails. Failing on a small scale, besides demonstrating something about the illusion of failure, is not as punitive as failing with a very large project, and there have been plenty of examples before now. What is more important is that it will prepare us for the next project. Perhaps some day the long period of net wetland losses will become a net wetland gain. Some general reading materials that may be useful are listed below. This brief list is very selective and reflects the purposes of this book and the authors’ interests, and their intention to keep this book short. The reader can find out more about this material and other resources by browsing through internet web pages and bookstores. The publications below are only a starting point.

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

A. General Wetland Works with Significant Material on Restoration Daiber 1982 Keddy 2000 Mitsch and Gosselink 2000 National Research Council 1991, 1994, 2001 B. Serials Ecological Engineering Ecological Applications Environmental Management Estuaries National Wetlands Newsletter Restoration Ecology Wetlands Wetlands Ecology and Management C. Restoration Manuals/Reviews/Books/Examples Lewis 1982 Kusler and Kentula 1990 Kentula et al. 1992 Thayer 1992 Kent 1994

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

6

29-11-2001, 22:43

Introduction

7

Dreyer and Niering 1995 Simenstad and Thom 1996 Special Issue of Ecological Applications 6(1), 1996 Special Issue of Wetlands Ecology and Management 1996 Volume 4(2) on Hydrologic Restoration Special Issue of Wetlands Ecology and Management 1996 Volume 4(2) on Dredged Material and Salt Marshes Middleton 1999 Pyle 2000 Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation 2000 Streever 1999 Zedler 1996, 2001; Zedler and Callaway 1999

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

D. National Professional Groups, Societies and Journals Association of State Wetland Managers Conservation Biology Society for Ecological Restoration Estuarine Research Federation Society of Wetland Scientists

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

7

29-11-2001, 23:42

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved. Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn001a

8

29-11-2001, 23:42

Crevasse Splays

9

2. CREVASSE SPLAYS

Definition

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

A crevasse splay is land that builds in shallow bays from sediments carried there in a distributary channel formed through a levee breach (Figure 2.1). Crevasse splays are generally small (less than 500 ha). They are common features in the lower end of the Mississippi River delta and other distributary river deltas (Figure 2.2). Here we use the word “splay” to include only land with emergent vegetation, but not mudflats or sub-aqueous deposits.

Fig. 2.1. The Loomis Pass crevasse and splay in the Mississippi River delta in 1995, looking east.

Objectives The objective of building crevasses is to divert water and its constituents from a river or distributary channel so that it flows through the excavated channel and into shallow bays, filling them in, and allowing vegetation to be established. A successful crevasse splay restoration project leads to:

Turner, R.E. and B. Streever, Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 9–20 © 2001 SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague, The Netherlands Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn002a

9

29-11-2001, 22:45

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

10

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.2. Examples of crevasses and splays in the Mississippi River delta at different scales. A white dot locates the main channel within the crevasse. A-B. Natural crevasses on South Pass and Southeast Pass. C-D-E. Created wetlands from constructed breaks in the Mississippi River levee. F-G. A constructed crevasse splay one year before (1987) and 8 years after a break in the Mississippi River levee; this location is on the east bank of Main Pass (Latitude: 29° 13' 10" N; Longitude: 89° 14' 57" W).

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn002a

10

29-11-2001, 22:45

Crevasse Splays

11

(1) creation of shallow-water habitat; (2) establishment of emergent marsh vegetation in shallow water habitat found in the interdistributary bays between distributary levees; and (3) a self-sustaining wetland for at least 10 years. Background Natural Crevasses and Land Building

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Wetland growth in the Louisiana coastal zone is the result of coastal processes associated with the seven major episodic cycles of the Mississippi River deltaic growth and abandonment over the past 7,000 years and the maintenance of soil properties belowground, especially through healthy plant growth. Deltaic growth seaward, before channel abandonment, is the result of growth in smaller incremental additions known as subdelta lobes. Subdelta building is controlled by the processes of distributary mouth-bar islands. Coleman and Gagliano (1964) ordered the mouth-bar island process into crevasse (subdelta) and crevasse splay divisions, with crevasse splays being the lowest order. The size, frequency, and expected life spans appear to distinguish the two orders, with the crevasse splays (also called “splays”) being smaller and shorter-lived (less than 100 years). Crevasses may form naturally as levee breaks during high-water events or be constructed by breaking levees. Once these breaks exist, sediment-laden waters flow into the interdistributary bay, where some sediment is deposited and some may escape out of the bay back towards the sea. Over time, sediment remaining in the bay creates splays consisting of mud flats, channels, and land that expands into the open-water habitat. After the initial channel forms and mud flats and subaerial land begin to accrete, a series of bifurcations (a division of one channel into two channels) occurs (Figure 2.3) that expands the area of splay formation (Welder 1959). Some channels within the splay are abandoned for more hydraulically efficient routes, allowing smaller splay sections to conglomerate into larger land masses. As emergent vegetation colonizes the area, rapid accretion occurs and the relative land elevations begin to quickly rise, accompanied by continued rapid vegetation growth and areal expansion. The main crevasse channel eventually fills with a subaqueous levee and is abandoned, ultimately ending the growth of the crevasse splay (Welder 1959). Crevasses have been studied long enough to empirically document many aspects about their life cycle, but the morphological factors of each site may have a controlling influence that prohibits intelligent generalization about their life spans. For example, estimates about how long natural crevasse life cycles last range from about 10 to 150 years (Coleman and Gagliano 1964; Gagliano et al. 1973; Adams and Baumann 1980; Joyner 1988).

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn002a

11

29-11-2001, 22:45

12

Chapter 2

Crevasse Splay Construction as a Restoration Method Cutting a channel through a natural levee mimics what naturally happens in high river water events. Draglines on barges can easily access restoration sites to excavate crevasses and short channels that connect the major channel to bays. Only limited excavation is required to make these changes. Wetlands might be created with crevasses with greater restoration success by understanding how the crevasses work, and then constructing them where and when they may not naturally occur (Figure 2.2).

Past Experience and Research Examples Twenty-four crevasses were constructed in the Delta National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR), LA, from 1983 to July 1995 (Figure 2.4) by several entities, including oil and gas companies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS undated; Boyer et al. 1997). The results of these activities have, in a very short time and at a very economical price, created nearly 288 ha of emergent marsh in the DNWR. Additional crevasses are being built and existing crevasse channels are being maintained by the National Marine Fisheries Service with funding from the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA).

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Crevasse Splay Growth Rates Visible splay growth is not usually apparent until two to three years after the artificial crevasse is constructed (Figure 2.5, bottom), probably because adequate sedimentation into the receiving bay must precede the appearance of land. A linear regression analysis of data from the Delta National Wildlife Refuge suggests that the cumulative growth rate for all artificial crevasses 3 years and older is 4.76 ha yr-1 (n = 15; Standard Error (S.E.) = 0.31). The growth rate for crevasses built at the first and second channel bifurcation was 5.8 ha yr-1 (n = 4; S.E. = 0.23), and 4.3 ha yr-1 (n = 9; S.E. = 0.38), respectively. Crevasses cut on tertiary and quaternary channels were 50 percent (Table 10.1). The cost per area varies widely, however, from essentially “free” to $44,600 ha-1 (Table 10.1). The least expensive approaches involve dredged material placement (when it is undertaken as part of channel maintenance), breaching levees along rivers (crevasses), and removing man-made levees (backfilling and spoil bank management). From one perspective, the most expensive approaches create wetlands from another habitat (new wetlands from a higher elevation terrestrial habitat) by what might be called “brute-force-engineering.” Both the large and small projects, and the inexpensive and expensive projects, can be relatively effective. Large projects (total area or total project cost) or relatively expensive projects ($ha–1) may be the only option in some regions or situations. Using the lowest cost approach ($ha–1) may not meet the needs of restoration if a functional marsh is not built, an endangered species is lost, or the restoration is too slow to meet the requirements of managers who must consider Turner, R.E. and B. Streever, Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 123–128 © 2001 SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague, The Netherlands

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

123

29-11-2001, 23:22

124

Chapter 10

Table 10.1. Estimates of the total area available, number of restoration sites, annual restoration rate (as a percent of the total area with vegetative cover), and the size range of individual restoration sites in the northern Gulf of Mexico. An explanation of the data sources is in the footnotes (based on the relevant chapter contents). Approach

Total Area Available (ha)

Crevasse Splays1 Agricultural Impoundments2 Backfilled Canals (10% area) (including spoil bank) 3 Spoil Bank Restoration4 Terracing5 Dredged Material Wetlands6 Excavated Wetlands7 Thin Layer Placement8

Number of Sites

Restoration Individual Rate Project Size Cost (% yr–1) Range (ha) ($ ha–1)

>47,600 >100 (@ 4.76 ha yr–1) 45,180 20

1.1

10-300

48

1

300-7,000

1

8,043

1,870

1.5

1-50

1,000

>10,000 (100 ha each) 1,000 (50 ha each) >144,000 (144 ha each) >2,000 (20 ha each) >10,000

>100

2.5

10-1,000

10

20

5

10-100

4,686

>1000

>50

20

1-100

44,600

1-100

???

extensive no data

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

1(Chapter 2) Crevasse locations are restricted to major rivers, including the Atchafalaya, Mississippi, and Mobile Rivers. There are hundreds of locations with the potential for construction of crevasses near Head-of-Passes, in the Mississippi River delta. Based on experience with natural and created crevasses of greater than 20 years, it would take 92 years to fill the receiving basin, at a rate of 1.1 percent yr–1 and cost of $48 ha–1. The average project cost of each of 11 crevasses was $21,377. 2(Chapter 3) There are at least 43 former agricultural impoundments in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Of these, there are a minimum of 20 (average size 2,259 ha) that could have their levees de-constructed at strategic locations to restore wetlands where they once were (circa 1910-1920). The estimated gain would occur at 1 percent yr–1 and cost about $1 ha–1. A project cost was $5,000 each. 3(Chapter 4) The area of dredged canal surface in the northern Gulf of Mexico is at least 36,593 ha (circa 1978). A conservative estimate is that at least 10 percent of these are available for backfilling over the next 10 years under a vigorous restoration program. The area of spoil banks associated with these canals was about 43,833 ha (in 1978) for a total area of 80,426 ha. At an average backfilled site size of 4.3 ha (in 1990), there are 1,870 potential sites for backfilling. The estimated re-vegetation of both spoil bank and canal surface area was about 26 percent for canals that were probably about 20 years old in 1987. The wetland restoration rate would be higher if they had been chosen with the benefit of the information described in Chapter 4. A conservative wetland restoration rate would be 1.5 percent yr–1, and there may be a “step-function” to the restoration recovery that occurs when the canal becomes shallow enough for emergent vegetation to root. The cost to achieve restoration of the impacts from the direct and indirect wetland losses would be less than $1,000 ha–1 for a suite of canals whose average surface area is 1.3 ha (individual site cost = $1,300). 4 (Chapter 5) The length and area of spoil banks in Louisiana in 2000 is about 23,006 km and 56,365 ha, respectively. Turner et al. (1994a) were able to identify 100 sites whose spoil banks could be strategically removed and result in a probable wetland restoration of 50 percent of the area within 20 years. Open water within a 100-ha site might be restored to wetlands at about $10 ha–1. These are preliminary estimates because there is not much practical experience with implementing spoil bank management. Furthermore, the longer the time between impoundment and restoration, the more likely that the indirect impacts will be harder to reverse (e.g., because of soil subsidence). The ratio of surface:edge is nonlinear for impounded wetlands. Therefore, there is an economy of scale with restoration as the area of impounded wetland increases. 5(Chapter 6) A rough estimate of an average site size is 100 ha. If expansion of wetland between terrace

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

124

29-11-2001, 23:22

Comparisons, Application, and the Future

125

Table 10.1. Cont. mounds takes place, as anticipated, then restoration costs will decline. If only the surface area of the terrace is considered, then the costs range from $10,000 to $30,000 ha–1. If all the open water turns into marsh, the costs could be as low as $4,686 ha–1. There are no estimates of the area available for terracing projects, and so we estimated that there were at least 20 more @ 50 ha, based on our collective experience. The restoration rate for the Sabine Terracing Project was 5 percent yr–1 for the first 3 years. An individual project costs around $220,000. 6(Chapter 7) The area available for dredged material restoration is unpredictable, but is surely greater than 1000 ha. The wetland area should be created over the entire fill area within one year, for an annual restoration rate of 100 percent. Dredged material wetland restoration costs were $23,600 ha–1 for one project (for a 144 ha project whose total cost = $3.4 million). These are preliminary numbers, because the actual costs to an agency may be subsidized through State-Federal agreements. These numbers are only for dedicated dredging projects. The project costs would be quite different (if not free) if the dredged material used to create a wetland was part of a navigation project that was going to be done regardless of whether or not there were any wetland restoration objectives. 7(Chapter 8) The area available is limited by land purchase, accessibility, regulation requirements, etc. Costs are considered proprietary, in many instances. If done correctly, the site should be fully vegetated within 5 years. Costs for two projects ranged from $22,200 to $67,000 ha–1 (average $44,600 ha–1). The average project cost for two projects was $1 million. 8(Chapter 9) Thin layer placement can be used to restore former wetlands converted to shallow open water by adding an additional layer of sediment on top of existing wetlands or open water. The benefits are, however, not easily determined on a $ ha–1 basis.

flood protection, water quality, or fisheries habitat issues. To say that “bigger is better” is no more an appropriate generalization than to conclude that “smaller is the only way to go.” Similarly, to base management decisions solely on cost per area is not appropriate.

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Wetland Equivalency The primary purpose of most wetland restoration is, in general, to replicate the ecological functions of a natural wetland in the newly restored site. How well this is achieved is usually evaluated by monitoring vegetative cover, often as a matter of administrative convenience or a consequence of staffing limitations. Measuring vegetative cover is not the same as measuring ecological functions, however. A point of considerable interest is whether or not equivalency to natural reference wetlands is realized (NRC 2001). King (1991) points out that if too little is expected of wetland restoration, then the costs will be low because market imperatives will drive the design standards with budget constraints in mind. Projects will tend to exclude the expensive components that a restorationist would consider as essential, not because a permit applicant knows it is unsatisfactory, but because they know their business and what it takes to compete with other businesses. These under-valued restoration efforts can be the very ones most likely to fail any test of long-term sustainability and equivalency. King (1991) makes the point that these tests of equivalency, therefore, reflect the limits of our scientific understanding and experience, as well as the social infrastructure that manages, regulates and sets the minimum project design criteria, and monitors and enforces non-compli-

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

125

29-11-2001, 23:22

126

Chapter 10

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

ance. Having said that, however, it is worth remembering that approaches to restoration that facilitate natural processes, such as crevasse splays, may offer a very low cost method of working toward a wetland that will eventually be very similar to a natural reference wetland. A well-documented salt marsh restoration attempt in southern California demonstrates the importance of measuring more than vegetation when estimating ecological success. Four constructed salt marshes were studied for five years or longer, and the percent equivalency of eleven attributes compared to nearby natural sites. Three different attributes of plant health (biomass, height, and nitrogen content) varied between 42 and 84 percent equivalency, two benthic invertebrate parameters varied from 36 to 78 percent equivalency, and four different soil parameters (organic content, sediment nitrogen, pore water nitrogen, and nitrogen fixation) varied from 17 to 110 percent of that in the reference marsh. Plant height was a particularly important variable, because 95 percent equivalency for plant height might not meet the minimum nesting needs of the endangered Light-footed Clapper Rail. A high score in one parameter does not equate to a comparably high score for another parameter. A recent update, compiling the 10-year data set, indicated that this site would not likely comply with initial project expectations (Zedler and Callaway 1999). Results from a variety of trajectory analyses of soil, plant, and animal communities for mitigation sites support the observations of Zedler and Callaway (1999) and are summarized in Table 10.2. Plant cover and biomass for some restored marshes may reach an equilibrium in 3 years, but the species composition may take 10 years or longer to stabilize, if it stabilizes at all. The restoration trajectories for soils, plants, and animals are not the same (e.g., Zedler and Callaway 1999). In contrast to herbaceous vegetation, soil development may be quite slow (Craft et al. 2000) and range from a minimum of three years to at least 30 years to reach equilibrium, if equilibrium is realized at all. The fish and bird components may reach equivalency in as few as 2 years for some species. In some cases the trajectory may never reach equilibrium or the equilibrium conditions may not be equal to conditions at the reference sites. Streever (2000) examined restoration trajectories at dredged material wetlands and found no definable closure to recovery rates Table 10.2. The time towards equivalency for soil, plant, and animal components in wetland restoration projects compared to that of natural reference wetlands. Based on information contained in NRC (2001) and Burdick et al. (1996). Study Component

Range (Years)

Soils Wetland Plants Cover or Biomass Species composition Below-ground biomass Fish and fisheries Marsh invertebrates Birds

3 to > 30, or never 3 to > 20, or never 5 to > 10, or never 10+, or never 2 to >10, or never 1 to > 17, or never < 3 to > 15, or never

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

126

29-11-2001, 23:22

Comparisons, Application, and the Future

127

for birds, soils, or plants. In summary, it appears that there is no general trajectory that applies to all wetland types or components. The significance of these results is not that equivalency among reference and newly managed (or created or mitigated) environments is not reached, or that restoration should not be done. The significance is that: (1) ecological equivalency may not be reached within a few months or for several years, or even decades, depending on the attribute that is of interest; (2) the ecosystem does not move smoothly to an equilibrium or at the same rate for all components; and (3) some components (including ones identified as important in permits and restoration guidelines) may never reach equivalency with natural reference wetlands. Those attempting restoration might keep this in mind when determining which approach to implement. The time it takes one ecosystem attribute to reach ecological equivalency may be different from another attribute. This may be important depending on whether the management objectives are to provide flood protection, specific habitat conditions for an endangered species, or intertidal habitat for a suite of migratory fish.

Learning Curves

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Restoration is a learning process for both scientists and managers. Much of what is being proposed now was not attempted before the 1990s. The efficiency of much of ecological restoration is, therefore, incompletely realized and we must acknowledge that there is a long way to go before coastal restoration can be considered a sustainable and routine undertaking. King (1991) suggested that there were seven phases of the “learning curve” for ecological restoration (Figure 10.1). These stages progressed from the initial stages of exploration and observation, to the initial experimentation, the first implementation attempts, to an independent comparison of methods used, to standardization of these methods, to further specialization and refinements, and finally to the routine application of the most successful approaches. He pointed out that these seven stages represent a rather general sequence of developments for the complex application of science to technology that is observed in such diverse fields as space exploration and heart surgery. When projects are relatively complex, then it is much more difficult for stages 2, 4, and 7 to occur, and so progress along a learning curve may be slower than for less complex projects. Where the size of the project affects the complexity of the project, then we should expect that the restoration cost of the project will increase. This seems to be the reason why large river diversions are much less economical at restoring new wetlands, when compared to the much smaller crevasse splay projects. Furthermore, compared to smaller projects, progress is further hindered because experimentation is excluded (because of size and cost) and the exploration to improve operations and reduce costs is inhibited or not routine (because of the sparse examples). The approaches described within this book sug-

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

127

29-11-2001, 23:22

128

Chapter 10

Fig. 10.1. The learning curve for ecological restoration projects, based on a figure from King (1991). Skill at wetland restoration is proposed to develop in stages roughly progressing from fact-finding (Stages 1 and 2), trial-and-error (Stage 3), to improved methods development (Stage 4, 5, and 6) and then routine application (Stage 7). King (1991) predicted that the focus of the 1990s would be on methods comparison and standardization.

gest that restoration as currently practiced is in the northern Gulf of Mexico is in the middle of this learning curve.

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Closure It could be said that you cannot make restoration happen, but that you can provide an environment for restoration to happen. The approaches in these chapters provide a variety of means to provide that environment, and at diverse costs and levels of effort. Because wetland restoration is part science, part bureaucracy, and part management, the result is a sometimes slow movement up the learning curve. However, there is no reason to suspect that we are not making progress. Some of this progress is due to the desire by some to re-establish their relationship with the natural landscape in a way that is spiritual; others are more conservation-minded and conscious of the paucity of natural landscapes remaining. For some, restoration is a kind of natural laboratory experiment on a grand scale, while still others are contributing to progress as part of a business decision to facilitate the acquisition of wetland dredge-and-fill permits. Often, all of these factors are at play simultaneously. It will be the contributions from many – each responding to his or her own suite of motivations – that moves restoration science and technology forward.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

128

29-11-2001, 23:22

Literature Cited

129

LITERATURE CITED

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Abernethy, R. and J.G. Gosselink 1988. Environmental conditions of a backfilled pipeline canal four years after construction. Wetlands 8:109-121. Adams, R.D. and R.H. Baumann 1980. Land building in coastal Louisiana: Emergence of the Atchafalaya Bay delta. Louisiana Sea Grant Publication No. LSU-T-80-02. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Anonymous 1995. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act: Summary of Priority Lists 1-4. CWPPRA Report Series No. 1. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. Arndorfer, D.J. 1973. Discharge patterns in two crevasses of the Mississippi River Delta. Marine Geology 15: 269-287. Aronson, J.C., R.V. O’Neill, and R.W. Hoekstra 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: Some working principles from hierarchy theory. USDA Forest Service General Tech Report RM-110. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1991. Status of Wetland Mitigation at North American Gulf Terminals, Inc.’s West Fowl River Marsh Creation Site. Report submitted to North American Gulf Terminals, Inc., Mobile, AL. Barry, W.J., A.S. Garlo and C.A. Wood 1996. Duplicating the mound-and-poll microtopography of forested wetlands. Restoration and Management Notes 14: 15-21. Bass, A., and R.E. Turner 1997. Relationships between salt marsh loss and dredged canals in three south Louisiana estuaries. Journal of Coastal Research 13: 895-903. Baumann, R.H., and R.E. Turner 1990. Direct impacts of outer continental shelf activities on wetland loss in the central Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Geology and Water Resources 15: 189-198. Bella, D.A. 1996. The pressures of organizations and the responsibilities of university professors. BioScience 46: 772-778. Bertness, M.D., A.M. Ellison 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecology 57: 129-147. Bielefeld, R.R., and A.D. Afton 1992. Canvasback food density in the Mississippi River Delta, Louisiana: Habitat and temporal differences. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 46: 97-103. Boyer, M.E., and R.E. Turner 1995. Data on crevasse splays in the Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi River Delta. Final Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, TX. Boyer, M., J. Harris, and R. E. Turner 1997. Constructed crevasses and land gain in the Mississippi River delta. Restoration Ecology 5: 85-92. Britsch, L.D., and J.B. Dunbar 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana Coastal Plain. Journal of Coastal Research 9: 324-338. Brockmeyer, R.E., Jr., J.R. Rey, R.W. Virnstein, R.G. Gilmore, and L. Earnest 1997. Rehabilitation of impounded estuarine wetlands by hydrologic reconnection to the Indian River Lagoon, Florida (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 93-110. Burdick, D.M., M. Dionne, R.M. Boumans, and F.T. Short 1996. Contrasts in ecological responses to tidal restoration of two New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 129-144. Cahoon, D.R., and J.H. Cowan 1988. Environmental impacts and regulatory policy implications of spray disposal of dredged material in Louisiana wetlands. Coastal Management 16: 341-362. Cahoon, D.R., and R.E. Turner 1989. Accretion and canal impacts in a rapidly subsiding wetland. II. Feldspar marker horizon technique. Estuaries 12: 260-268. Cairns, J., Jr. 1990. The prediction, validation, monitoring and mitigation of anthropogenic effects on natural systems. Environmental Auditor 2:19-25. Cairns, J., Jr. 1991. The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology. The Environmental Professional 13: 186-194. Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 1992. Executive Summary, Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. PL 101-646. Coleman, J.M., and S.M. Gagliano 1964. Cyclic sedimentation in the Mississippi River deltaic plain. United States Gulf Coastal Studies, Louisiana State University, Coastal Studies Institute, Baton Rouge, LA. Technical Report No. 16, Part G.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

129

29-11-2001, 23:22

130

Literature Cited

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Courtemanche, R.P., Jr. 1996. Recovery of back barrier marsh vegetation on a barrier island after a hurricane induced overwash event. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 87 pp. Craft, C. 2000. Co-development of wetland soils and benthic invertebrate communities following salt marsh creation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:197-207. Craig, N.J., R.E. Turner and J.W. Day, Jr. 1980. Wetland losses and their consequences in coastal Louisiana. Zeitshrift Geomorphologie Suppl. Bd. 34: 225-241. Crewz, C.W., and R.R. Lewis, III 1991. An Evaluation of Historical Attempts to Establish Emergent Vegetation in Marine Wetlands in Florida. Florida Sea Grant College, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Fl. 76 pp. + appendices. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Dahl, T.E. 2001. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Daiber, F.C. 1982. Animals of the Tidal Marsh. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, New York. 422 pp. Darnell, T.M., E.H. Smith, J.W. Tunnell, K. Withers and E.R. Jones 1997. The influence of landscape features on bird use of marsh habitat created for Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) through beneficial use of dredge material: Final Report. Report #TAMU-CC-9704-CCS from Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX. Davis, D.W. 1973. Louisiana canals and their influence on wetland development. Ph.D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 199 pp. Davis, J.E., and W.J. Streever 1999a. Wetland erosion protection structures: How low can you go? Wetlands Research Bulletin CRWRP-1 (1): 5-8 (http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/ wetlands.html). Davis, J.E., and W.J. Streever 1999b. Geotextile tube structures: Example contract specifications. WRP Technical Note WG-RS-3.2. Day, J. W., G. P. Shaffer, L. D. Britsch, D. J. Reed, S. R. Hawes and D. R. Cahoon 2000. Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi Delta: A spatial and temporal analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries 23: 425-438. Day, S., W.J. Streever and J.J. Watts 1999. An experimental assessment of slag as a substrate for mangrove rehabilitation. Restoration Ecology 7: 139-144. DeLaune, R.D., S. R. Pezeshki, J.H. Pardue, J.H. Whitcombe and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1990. Some influences of sediment addition to a deteriorating salt marsh in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain: A pilot study. Journal of Coastal Research 6: 181-188. Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency 1990. Memorandum of Agreement between The Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency concerning The Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (http:// www.epa.gov/OWOW/ wetlands/regs/mitigate.html) Dick, T.M. and W.J. Streever 2001. Decomposition of Avicennia marina on an iron-smelting slag substrate. Austral Ecology 26: 127-131 Dreyer, G., and W.A. Niering (Eds.) 1995. Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, History and Restoration. Bulletin 34. Connecticut College Arboretum, New London, CT. Emmer, R.E. 1968. Crevasses of the lower Mississippi River delta. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Farber, S., and R. Costanza 1987. The economic value of wetland systems. Journal of Environmental Management 24: 41-51. Feyerabend, P. 1993. Against Method. 33rd Ed. Verso. London. Fillenham, L.F. 1963. Holmes Fen Post. Geographical Journal 129: 502-503. Ford, M.S., D.R. Cahoon and J.C. Lynch 1999. Restoring marsh elevation in a rapidly subsiding salt marsh by thin-layer deposition of dredged material. Ecological Engineering 12: 189-205. Gagliano, S.M. 1973. Canals, dredging and land reclamation in the Louisiana coastal zone. Hydrologic and geologic studies, Rep. 14. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 104 pp. Gagliano, S.M., P. Light and R.E. Becker 1973. Controlled diversions in the Mississippi delta system:

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

130

29-11-2001, 23:22

Literature Cited

131

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

An approach to environmental management. Revised. Louisiana State University, Coastal Resource Unit, Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. Gilmore, R.G., D.W. Cooke, and C.J. Donohoe 1981. A comparison of the fish populations and habitat in open and closed salt marsh impoundments in east-central Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 5: 2537. Greener, G.E., and G. Hartman 1994. Comparing dredging costs across projects. pp. 1325-1334 In: E.C. McNair (Ed.), Dredging ’94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Guinon, M., and D. Allen 1990. Restoration of dune habitat at Spanish Bay. pp. 31-33 In: W. R. Jordan, III, M. E. Gilpin and J. D. Aber (Eds.), Restoration Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Haltimer, J., J.B. Zedler, K.E. Boyer, G.D. Williams, and J.C. Callaway 1997. Influence of physical processes on the design, functioning and evolution of restored tidal wetlands in California (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 73-92. Hambright, K.D. 1998. Lakes Hula and Agmon: Destruction and creation of wetland ecosystems in northern Israel. Wetlands Ecology and Management 6: 83-89. Hamilton, L.S. 1990. Restoration of degraded tropical forests. pp. 113-123 In: J. J. Berger (Ed.), Environmental Restoration: Science for Restoring the Earth. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hammer, D.A. 1997. Creating Freshwater Wetlands, 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Harrington, R.W., Jr. and E.S. Harrington 1982. Effects on fishes and their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent breeding by salt marsh mosquitoes. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 523-531. Harrison, R.W., and W.M. Kollmorgen 1947. Past and prospective drainage reclamations in coastal marshlands of the Mississippi River Delta. Journal of Land Public Utility Economics 23: 297-320. Holle, C.G. 1952. Sedimentation at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Coastal Engineering, Houston, TX. Published by the Council on Wave Research, Berkeley, CA. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54: 187-211. Jackson, L.L., N. Loupoukhine, and D. Hillyard 1995. Commentary; Ecological restoration: A definition and comments. Restoration Ecology 3: 71-75. Jordan, W.R., III, R.L. Peters III, and E.B. Allen 1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environmental Management 12: 55-72. Josselyn, M., and R. Perez 1982. Salt marsh restoration from salt evaporation ponds: Vegetation establishment and sediment properties. p. 100 In: M. Josselyn (Ed.), Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. California Sea Grant Program, University of California, La Jolla. Rep. T-CSGCP007. 110 p. Joyner, S. 1988. An innovative marsh creation technique on Delta Wildlife Refuge. US Fish and Wildlife Service files. unpublished. Kamps, L.F. 1962. Mud Distribution and Land Reclamation in the Eastern Wadden Shallows. Report from the Chief Engineer of the Land Reclamation Works in the Provinces of Friesland and Groningen at Baflo. Rijkswaterstaat, The Hague, The Netherlands. Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Bescheta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 22: 12-24. Keddy, P.A. 2000. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge Studies in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kelley, S. 1996. Small sediment diversions (MR-01), Progress Report No. 2. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. unpublished Close-out report. 10 pp. Kent, D. M.(Ed.) 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 436 pp. Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos 1992. Wetlands: An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. Island Press, Washington, DC. 151 pp. Kentula, M.E. 1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16: 109-119. King, D.M. 1991. Costing out restoration. Restoration and Management Notes 9: 15-21. King, D.M. and C. Bohlen 1994a. Estimating the costs of restoration. National Wetlands Newsletter 6 (May/June): 3-5, 8.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

131

29-11-2001, 23:22

132

Literature Cited

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

King, D.M., and C.C. Bohlen 1994b. A technical summary of wetland restoration costs in the continental United States. University of Maryland CCEES Technical Report UMCEES-CBL-94-048. EPA 230-R-94-023. Kneib, R.T., and S.L. Wagner 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different stages of tidal inundation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 106: 227-238. Knutson, P.L., J.C. Ford, M.R. Inskeep, and J. Oyler 1981. National survey of planted salt marshes (vegetative stabilization and wave stress). Wetlands 1: 129-156. Krishnamohan, R. 1995. Managing dredged material via thin-layer disposal along coastal marshesReview of recent projects. Proceeding of the 16th Annual Technical Conference, Western Dredging Association, pp. 313-337. Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula (Eds.). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC. 591 pp Landin, M.C. (Ed.) 1997. Proceedings: International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial Uses. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Landin, M.C., J.W. Webb, and P.L. Knutson 1989. Long-term Monitoring of Eleven Corps of Engineers Habitat Development Field Sites Built of Dredged Material, 1974-1987. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report D-89-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. LaSalle, M.W. 1992. Effects of thin-layer disposal of dredged material in Louisiana coastal marshes (Unpublished report). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 32 pp. LaSalle, M.W. 1996. Assessing the functional level of a constructed intertidal marsh in Mississippi. Technical Report WRP-RE-15, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lewis, R.R. (Ed.). 1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 219 pp. Lewis, R.L. 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal plain wetlands in Florida. pp. 73-102 In: J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration; The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lewis, R.L. III 1990. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: Suggestions for standardization. pp. 417-427 In: J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration; The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lindau, C.W., and L.R. Hossner 1981. Substrate characterization of an experimental marsh and three natural marshes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45: 1171-1176. Louda, S.M. 1988. Insect pests and plant stresses as considerations for revegetation of disturbed ecosystems. pp. 51-67 In: J. Cairns (Ed.), Rehabilitation of Damaged Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Mathews, D. 1983. Checking up on Louisiana’s wetlands. Exxon USA 22: 12-15. Mathies, L.G. 1994. Beneficial uses of dredged material: Part of the solution to restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. pp. 626-630 In: E.C. McNair (Ed.), Dredging ’94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Mattson, D.J. 1996. Ethics and science in natural resource agencies. BioScience 46: 767-771. McKee, K.L., and I.A. Mendelssohn 1989. Response of a freshwater marsh plant community to increased salinity and increased water level. Aquatic Botany 34: 301-316. Mendelssohn, I.A., K.L. McKee, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1981. Oxygen deficiency in Spartina alterniflora roots: Metabolic adaptation to anoxia. Science 214: 439-441. Middleton, B.A. 1999. Wetland Restoration: Flood Pulsing and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 338 pp. Minello, T.J., R.J. Zimmerman, and R. Medina 1994. The importance of edge for natant macrofauna in a created salt marsh. Wetlands 14: 184-198. Minello, T.J., and J.W. Webb 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by fishery species and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 151: 165-179. Mitsch, W.J. and J. G. Gosselink 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 722 pp. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink 2000. Wetlands. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 920 pp. Mock, C.R. 1967. Natural and altered estuarine habitats of penaeid shrimp. Proceedings Gulf Caribbean Fisheries Institute 19: 86-98.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

132

29-11-2001, 23:22

Literature Cited

133

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Montalvo A.M., S.L. Williams, K.J. Rice, S.L. Buchman, C. Cory, S.N. Handel, G.P. Nabhan, R. Primack, and R.H. Robichaux 1997. Restoration biology: A population perspective. Restoration Ecology 5: 277-290. Monte, J.A. 1978. The impact of petroleum dredging on Louisiana’s coastal landscape: a plant biogeographical analysis and resource assessment of spoil. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 334 pp. Moy, L.D., and L.A. Levin 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14: 1-16. National Research Council 1991. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 552 pp. National Research Council. 1994. Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 193 pp. National Research Council 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 320 pp. Neill, C., and R.E. Turner 1985. An evaluation of backfilling canals as a means of mitigating the environmental impact of canals in south Louisiana: Atlas of backfilled canals. Report to the Coastal Management Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 192 pp. Neill, C., and R.E. Turner 1987a. Backfilling canals to mitigate wetland dredging in Louisiana coastal marshes. Environmental Management 11: 823-836. Neill, C., and R.E. Turner 1987b. Comparisons of fish communities in open and plugged backfilled canals in Louisiana coastal marshes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 57-62. Nichols, L.G. 1959. Rockefeller Refuge Levee Study. Louisiana Wildlife Fisheries Commission. Refuge Division Technical Report. 17 pp. Okey, C.W. 1918a. The subsidence of muck and peat soils in southern Louisiana and Florida. Transaction American Society of Civil Engineers 82: 396-422. Okey, C.W. 1918b. The wet lands of southern Louisiana and their drainage. U.S.D.A. Bulletin 652. 67 pp. Penland, S., I.A. Mendelssohn, L. Wayne, and L.D. Britsch 1996. Natural and human causes of coastal land loss in Louisiana. Coastal Studies Institute and Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. PENSCO 2000. Little Vermilion Bay Sediment Trapping Project; Engineering Summary Report. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service, Lafayette, LA. Perkins, E.J., W.J. Streever, E. Davis, and H. Fredrickson 2000. Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) analysis of Spartina alterniflora transplanted for wetland restoration. Aquatic Botany (In review). Peterson, G.W., and R.E. Turner 1994. The value of salt marsh edge vs. interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh. Estuaries 17 (1B): 235-262. Pezeshki, S.R., R.D. DeLaune, and J.H. Pardue 1992. Sediment addition enhances transpiration and growth of Spartina alterniflora in deteriorating Louisiana Gulf Coast marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 1: 185-189. Poach, M.E., and S.P. Faulkner 1998. Soil phosphorus characteristics of created and natural wetlands in the Atchafalaya Delta, LA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46: 195-203. Proffitt, C.E. and J. Young 1999. Salt marsh plant colonization, growth, and dominance on large mudflats created using dredged sediments. pp. 218-228 In: Rozas, L.P., J.A. Nyman, C.E. Proffitt, N.N. Rabalais, D.J. Reed, and R.E. Turner (Eds.), 1999. Recent Research in Coastal Louisiana, 3-5 Feb. 1998, Lafayette, Louisiana. Louisiana Sea Grant Publication. Pyle, V. (Ed.) 2000. The Long Island Sound Conservation Blueprint. Save the Sound, Inc. Stamford, CT. Race, M S. 1986. Wetlands restoration and mitigation policies: Reply. Environmental Management 10: 571-572. Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation 1999. Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration. Report of the RAE-ERF Partnership, Year One, Published by Restore America’s Estuaries and the Estuarine Research Federation. Printed by the New Jersey Sea Grant College Program, Fort Hancock, NJ. Reed, D.J., and L.P. Rozas 1995. An evaluation of the potential for infilling existing pipeline canals in Louisiana coastal marshes. Wetlands 15: 149-158. Roberts, T.H. 1991. Habitat value of man-made coastal marshes in Florida. Technical Report WRPRE-2. Vicksburg, MS. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

133

29-11-2001, 23:22

134

Literature Cited

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Roman, C.T., W.A. Niering, and R.S. Warren 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restrictions. Environmental Management 8: 141-149. Rozas, L.P. 1992. Comparisons of nekton habitats associated with pipeline canals and natural channels in Louisiana salt marshes. Wetlands 12: 136-146. Rozas, L.P., and D.J. Reed 1994. Comparing nekton assemblages of subtidal habitats in pipeline canals traversing brackish and saline marshes in coastal Louisiana. Wetlands 14: 262-275. Rozas, L.P., and T.J. Minello 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating fishery habitat. Wetlands 21: 327-341. Schneider, C.B., W. Streever, and R. Medina 2000. Salt marsh planting: Example contract specifications. WRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRP-WG-RS-3.4). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. (www.wes.army.mil/el/wrp) Schumacher, E.F. 1989. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Matter. Harper Collins, New York. Seneca, E.D., S.W. Broome, W.W. Woodhouse, L.M. Cammen, and J.T. Lyon 1976. Establishing Spartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina. Environmental Conservation 3: 185-188. 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 Ecology and Management 8: 353-366. Sifneos J.C., E.W. Cake, and M.E. Kentula 1992. Effects of Section 404 Permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Wetlands 12: 28-36 Simenstad, C.A., and R.M. Thom 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-HiTe estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6: 38-56. Siry, J.V. 1984. Marshes of the Ocean Shore. Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX. 216 pp. Smith, J.B. 1907. The New Jersey salt marsh and its improvement. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 207: 1-24. Snowden, J.O., W.B. Simmons, E.B. Traugher, and R.W. Stephens 1977. Differential subsidence of marshland peat as a geologic hazard in the greater New Orleans area, Louisiana. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 27: 169-179. St. Amant, L.S. 1972. The petroleum industry as it affects marine estuarine ecology. Journal of Petroleum Technology April: 288-289. State Geologist of New Jersey 1895. (cited in Smith, 1907). Steyer, G.D. 1993. Sabine Terracing Project Final Report. DNR project number 4351089. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. Strader, R.W., C. Stewart, J. Wessman, and B. Ray 1994. Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Report. Streever, W.J. (Ed.). 1999. An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 338 pp. Streever, W.J. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged material: A critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 295-316. Streever, W.J., and T.L. Crisman 1993. A comparison of fish populations from natural and constructed freshwater marshes in central Florida. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 8: 149-153. Streever, W.J., K.M. Portier and T.L. Crisman 1996. A comparison of dipterans from ten created and ten natural wetlands. Wetlands 16: 416-428. Streever, W.J., and E. Perkins 2000. Importing plant stock for wetland restoration and creation: Maintaining genetic diversity and integrity. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-0003). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. (www.wes.army.mil/ el/wrap) Swenson, E.M., and R.E. Turner 1987. Spoil banks: Effects on a coastal marsh water level regime. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 24: 599-609. Thayer, G.W. (Ed.). 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Maryland Sea Grant Program, College Park, Maryland. 716 pp. Traugher, E.B., J.O. Snowden, and W.B. Simmons 1979. Differential subsidence on reclaimed marshland peat in metropolitan New Orleans, Louisiana. In: S.K. Saxens (Ed.), Evaluation and Prediction of Subsidence. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. Travis, S.E., C.E. Proffitt, R.C. Lowenfield, and T.W. Mitchell 2001. A comparative assessment of genetic diversity among differently-aged populations of Spartina alterniflora on restored versus natural wetlands. Restoration Ecology (in press). Trepagnier, C.M., B. Good, G.D. Steyer, and W B. Sutton 1992. Evaluation of three crevasse splay projects at the Mississippi River delta. pp. 115-119 In: M.C. Landin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

134

29-11-2001, 23:22

Literature Cited

135

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Annual Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, Louisiana. Society of Wetland Scientists South Central Chapter, Utica, MS. Trepagnier, C.M., M.A. Kogas, and R.E. Turner 1995. Evaluation of wetland gain and loss of abandoned agricultural impoundments in South Louisiana from 1978 to 1988. Restoration Ecology 3/4: 299-303. Turner, R.E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 411-416. Turner, R.E. 1987. Relationships between canal and levee density and coastal land loss in Louisiana. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(14). Turner, R.E. 1991. Tide gage records, water level rise and subsidence in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries 14: 139-147. Turner, R.E. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Multiple working hypotheses. Estuaries 20: 1-13. Turner, R.E., and J.G. Gosselink 1975. A note on standing crops of Spartina alterniflora in Texas and Florida. Contributions in Marine Science 19: 113-118. Turner, R.E., and C. Neill 1984. Revisiting impounded wetlands after 70 years. pp. 309-322 In: R. J. Varnell (Ed.), Water Quality and Wetland Management Conference Proceedings. New Orleans, LA., August 4-5, 1983 (sponsors: Louisiana Environmental Professionals Association). Turner, R.E., and D.R. Cahoon (Eds.) 1987. Causes of Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central Gulf of Mexico. 3 Vol. Final report submitted to Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-001-30252. OCS Study/MMS 87-0119. 536 pp. Turner, R.E., I.A. Mendelssohn, K.L. McKee, R. Costanza, C. Neill, J.P. Sikora, W. B. Sikora and E. M. Swenson 1988. Backfilling Canals in coastal Louisiana. Proc. National Wetlands Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Assoc. State Wetland Managers, Inc., New Orleans, Oct. 1986 pp. 135-141. Turner, R.E., and Y.S. Rao 1990. Relationships between wetland fragmentation and recent hydrologic changes in a deltaic coast. Estuaries 13: 272-281. Turner, R.E., E.M. Swenson, and J.M. Lee 1994a. A rationale for coastal wetland restoration through spoil bank management in Louisiana. Environmental Management 18: 271-282. Turner, R.E., J.M. Lee, and C. Neill 1994b. Backfilling canals as a wetland restoration technique in coastal Louisiana. Wetlands Ecology and Management 3: 63-78. Turner, R.E., and R.R. Lewis, III. 1996. Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 65-72. Turner, R.E., and M.E. Boyer 1997. Mississippi River diversions, coastal wetland restoration/creation and an economy of scale. Ecological Engineering 8: 117-128. Turner, R.E., E.M. Swenson, and C.S. Milan 2001. Organic and inorganic contributions to vertical accretion in salt marsh sediments. pp. 583-595 In: M. Weinstein and K. Kreeger (Eds.) Organic and inorganic contributions to vertical accretion in salt marsh sediments. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Underwood, S.G., G.D. Steyer, B. Good and D. Chambers 1991. Bay bottom terracing and vegetative planting: An innovative approach for habitat and water quality enhancement. pp. 164-173 In: F.J. Webb (Ed.), Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL. U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston 1995. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway – Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas; Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Un-numbered November 1995 report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990. Wetlands: Meeting the President’s Challenge. Washington, D. C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished data in various reports and files. Slidell, LA. Van Lopik, J.R. 1955. Trafficability and navigability of Louisiana coastal marshes. Recent geology and geomorphic history of central coastal Louisiana. Coastal Studies Institute. Louisiana State University Technical Report 7. 88 pp. Warren, G.M. 1911. Tidal marshes and their reclamation. United States Department of Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin 240. 99 pp. Webb, J.W., J.D. Dodd, B.H. Kowerth, and A.T. Weichert 1984. Seedling establishment of Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens on dredged material in Texas. Gulf Research Reports 7: 325-329. Webb, J.W., and C.J. Newling 1985. Comparison of natural and man-made salt marshes in Galveston Bay complex, Texas. Wetlands 4: 75-86.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

135

29-11-2001, 23:22

136

Literature Cited

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1973. G. & C. Merriam Co., New York. Weinstein, M.P., J.H. Balletto, J.M. Teal, and D.F. Ludwig 1996. Success criteria and adaptive management for a large-scale wetland restoration project. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 111-127. Welder, F.A. 1955. Deltaic processes in Cubits Gap area, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 119 pp. Welder, F.A. 1959. Processes of deltaic sedimentation in the lower Mississippi River. Technical Report No. 12, Louisiana State University, Coastal Studies Institute. Baton Rouge, LA. White, D.A. 1993. Vascular plant community development on mudflats in the Mississippi River delta, Louisiana, USA. Aquatic Botany 45: 171-194. White, I., M.D. Melville, B.P. Wilson, and J. Sammut 1997. Reducing acidic discharges from coastal wetlands in eastern Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5: 55-72. White, W.A., T.R. Calnan, and R.A. Morton 1998. Evaluation of Marsh Creation and Restoration Projects and their Potential for Large-scale Application, Galveston-Trinity Bay System. Unnumbered report from The University of Texas at Austin (Bureau of Economic Geology) and Texas General Land Office (Coastal Division), Austin, TX. Wicker, K M. 1980. Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Ecological Characterization: A Habitat Mapping Study. User’s Guide to the Habitat Maps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/07. Slidell, LA. 45 pp,, appendices, 464 maps. Wilber, P. 1993. Managing dredged material via thin-layer disposal in coastal marshes. Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-01-32. Wilber, P., J.J. Luczkovich, and D.B. Knowles 1992. The long-term environmental effects of thin-layer disposal on a salt marsh, Lake Landing Canal, NC. pp. 170-185 In: Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Dredging Seminar, Mobile, AL, May 26-29, 1992. The Center for Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University and The Western Dredging Association. CDS Report No. 323. Wilsey, B.J., K.L. McKee, and I.A. Mendelssohn 1992. Effects of increased elevation and macro- and micro-nutrient additions on Spartina alterniflora transplant success in salt-marsh die-back areas in Louisiana. Environmental Management 16: 505-511. Wilson, R.R., J.M. Oliver, D.J. Twedt, and W.B. Uihlein III. In press. Bottomland hardwood restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Looking Past the trees to see the Forest. In L. Fredrickson, (ed.) Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of our Understanding. Memphis, TN. Zedler, J.B. 1996. Tidal Wetland Restoration: A Scientific Perspective and Southern California Focus. Report T - 038, California Sea Grant College System, Univ. California, La Jolla, CA. 129 pp. Zedler, J.B., and R. Langis 1991. Comparison of created and natural salt marshes of San Diego Bay. Restoration and Management Notes 9: 21-25. Zedler, J.B., and J.C. Callaway 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: Do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7: 69-73. Zedler, J.B (Ed.) 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. Marine Science Series, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Zemansky, G.M. 1996. Ethical tensions in technical consulting. BioScience 46: 778-782 Zimmerman, R.J., and T.J. Minello 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7: 421-433. Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, and G. Zamora 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat by brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in a Galveston Bay salt marsh. Fisheries Bulletin (US) 82: 325-336.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

136

29-11-2001, 23:22

Literature Cited

137

APPENDIX 1 A LEXICON OF WETLAND RESTORATION

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

The jargon associated with wetland restoration can be a source of confusion. Although different people use the same terms or phrases, the intended meaning of the terms or phrases can be very different. For example, Louda (1988) defines “ecological restoration” as an acceleration of the reestablishment of balanced plant communities, while Kauffman et al. (1997) use the same phrase to represent a more complex idea that includes reestablishment of processes and linkages between aquatic and riparian ecosystems. This is a collection of terms and phrases, along with their definitions. The purpose of this collection is to promote consideration of the many possible meanings of terms and phrases related to wetland restoration, with the hope that serious consideration of the many meanings of these terms and phrases will lead to improved communication among wetland professionals involved with restoration. For most of the terms or phrases presented, more than one definition is offered; when this is the case, the various definitions have been arranged subjectively from simplest to most complex. Whenever possible, direct quotes have been used, but in some cases information has been paraphrased. No attempt was made to defend or advocate any of the definitions presented. Definitions evolve with usage, and because of this evolution there is no objective manner in which definitions can be assessed. However, footnotes provide comments on current trends in usage, wherever this is appropriate. Definitions Constructed wetlands Constructed wetlands are “wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites for the sole purpose of wastewater or stormwater treatment” (Hammer 1997).1 Wetland creation is “the construction of wetlands where they did not exist before and can involve engineering of hydrology and soils” (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).

Creation

“[Wetland creation is] establishing an ecosystem that did not originally occupy the site” (Middleton 1999). “[Creation is the bringing] into being a new ecosystem 1 In the United States, the distinction between created wetlands and constructed wetlands appears to have become widely accepted over the past decade, but the older literature in the United States and literature from abroad may not distinguish between these terms.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

137

29-11-2001, 23:22

138

Appendix 1 that previously did not exist on the site” (National Research Council 1992). “[Wetland creation is] the establishment of a wetland where no wetland had existed in the past” (Streever 1999). “[Creation refers] to attempts to construct a wetland in an area that never has contained a wetland” (Kentula et al. 1993). “[Creation refers to the] conversion of a persistent nonwetland area into a wetland through some activity of man” (Lewis 1990).2 “[Created wetlands are] wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites to produce or replace natural habitat” (Hammer 1997).

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

“[Creation is the simulation] of natural wetland features and functions by topographic and hydraulic modification of nonwetland landscapes. Typical objectives of artificial marsh creation include ecosystem replacement or storm water management” (National Research Council 1992).3 Designer wetland

“[The concept of a designer wetland emphasizes] the life history strategy of species as the important factor in developing vegetation on a restoration site. The view favors engineering and replanting strategies directed at producing a wetland type with no fixed endpoint” (Middleton 1999).4

Enhancement

“[Enhancement is] improving5 the structure or function of an already existing wetland” (Middleton 1999). “In the context of restoration ecology, [enhancement is] any improvement of a structural or functional attribute” (National Research Council 1992). “[Enhancement is the] increase in one or more values of all or a portion of an existing wetland by man’s activities, often with the accompanying decline in other wetland values” (Lewis 1990).

2 Note that this definition and the following two definitions refer to non-wetland areas, which might include mined lands or other areas where wetlands had been destroyed, while previous definitions of creation referred to sites that were never wetlands. 3 Unlike other definitions of wetland creation presented here, this definition suggests that creation can include wetlands intended for water quality improvement or water quantity management (storm water management). See “constructed wetlands” definition and footnote 1. 4 In contrast, see the definition of “self-design.” 5 Obviously, “improvement” is a subjective term.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

138

29-11-2001, 23:22

Appendix 1

139

Mitigation

“[Mitigation is] the actual restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses” (Lewis 1990).6 “[Wetland mitigation is the replacing of] wetland areas destroyed or impacted by proposed land disturbances with artificially created wetland areas” (National Research Council 1992). “The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined mitigation in its regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20 to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts” (Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency 1990). “[Mitigation is actions] taken to avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects of environmental damage. Among the broad spectrum of possible actions are those that restore, enhance, create, or replace damaged ecosystems” (National Research Council 1992).7 “[Ecological restoration as reclamation8 is] any deliberate attempt to return a damaged ecosystem to some kind of productive use or socially acceptable condition short of restoration” (Jordan et al. 1988).

Reclamation

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

“[Reclamation is] an alteration in an ecosystem that creates another type of ecosystem of value to humans” (Middleton 1999). Reclamation is a “process designed to adapt a wild or natural resource to serve a utilitarian human purpose. Putting a natural resource to a new or altered use. Often used to refer to processes that destroy native ecosystems and convert them to agricultural or urban uses” (National Research Council 1992).

6 This definition and the following definition of mitigation are not in agreement with the 1990 Department of the Army/Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum of Agreement. 7 This definition of mitigation seems to be based on the 1990 US Army Corps of Engineers/ Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum of Agreement, described in the previous definition. 8 The term “reclamation” is itself used in at least three ways, referring to 1) conversion of mined or other disturbed lands into economically productive properties, such as grazing land or orchards, 2) filling in of wetlands or shallow coastal waters to create land, usually for housing or urban infrastructure, but also for agriculture in some parts of the world, and 3) conversion of disturbed lands to natural or semi-natural habitat. Because of dramatic differences in possible meanings, use of the term should probably be avoided.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

139

29-11-2001, 23:22

140

Appendix 1 “[In reforestation,] specific components (e.g., trees) are restored such that structural replication of the previous ecosystem is achieved; with an implicit assumption the restoration will succeed reforestation” (Wilson et al. in press).9

Reforestation

Objectives of reforestation include 1) using native species to restore forested habitat, 2) creating habitat for the promotion of biodiversity, 3) developing habitat for wildlife, especially endangered species, and 4) producing a sustainable timber harvest (Strader et al. 1994). “[Rehabilitation can be used as] an umbrella term that includes both ‘restoration’ and ‘creation’” (Streever 1999).

Rehabilitation

“[Rehabilitation is used] primarily to indicate improvements of a visual nature to a natural resource; putting back into good condition or working order” (National Research Council 1992). “[Restoration is the] return of a system to some previous condition” (Streever 1999).

Restoration

“[Restoration is the return of a] damaged system to predisturbance condition[s]”10 (Cairns 1990).

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

“[Restoration is] any manipulation of a site that contains or has contained a wetland” (Kentula et al. 1993). Restoration is the process of intentionally altering a site to establish a defined indigenous historic ecosystem (Aronson et al. 1993). Restoration requires recreating both the structural and functional attributes of a damaged ecosystem (Cairns 1991). “[To return an area from] a disturbed or totally altered condition to a previously existing natural, or altered condition by some action of man. Restoration refers to the return to a pre-existing condition” (Lewis 1990).

9 Terms such as “reforestation” and “revegetation” are sometimes applied to situations in which vegetation has not been previously established on the substrate in question, such as mine overburden sites, but many wetland professionals prefer terms such as “forestation” and “vegetation” in these situations, to avoid implying that vegetation had been present in the past. 10 Of course, it can be difficult to agree on what is meant by “predisturbance,” since human disturbance of one kind or another has occurred throughout most of the world since the late Pleistocene.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

140

29-11-2001, 23:22

Appendix 1

141 “[Restoration is] returning a site to approximately its condition before alteration, including its predisturbance function and related physical, chemical, and biological characteristics; full restoration is the complete return of a site to its original state” (Middleton 1999). “[Restoration is the] return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance . . . [through] reconstruction of antecedent physical hydrologic and morphologic conditions; chemical cleanup or adjustment of the environment; and biological manipulation including revegetation and the reintroduction of absent or currently nonviable native species.” Paraphrasing further information, restoration involves repair of ecological damage, as well as recreation of structure and functions, all with the goal of emulating “a natural, functioning, self-regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it occurs” (National Research Council 1992). 11 “[Restoration is] measures undertaken to return the existing fish and wildlife habitat resources to a modern historic condition. Restoration then includes mitigation as well as some increments of enhancement” (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990).12

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

“Restored wetlands are areas that previously supported a natural wetland ecosystem but were modified or changed, eliminating typical flora and fauna and used for other purposes but then subsequently altered to return poorly drained soils and wetland flora and fauna to enhance life support, flood control, recreational, educational, or other functional values” (Hammer 1997). “[The ultimate goal of ecological restoration is perhaps] the achieving of a status something very close to the ecosystem’s original conditions” (Hamilton 1990). “[Wetland restoration is] the rehabilitation of wetlands that may be degraded or hydrologically altered and often involves reestablishing the vegetation” (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).13 11 Obviously, terms such as “functioning,” “self-regulating,” and even “natural” are subject to interpretation and contribute little to clarifying the definition of “restoration.” 12 This definition refers to a “modern historic condition,” apparently in an attempt to recognize the difficulty of restoring systems to a condition typical of the distant past; i.e., it recognizes that it would be difficult to restore systems to, for example, precolumbian conditions. 13 In contrast to previous definitions of restoration, this definition and the restoration definitions that follow it are less dependent on the concept of returning a system to past conditions.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

141

29-11-2001, 23:22

142

Appendix 1 “[Restoration is] recreation of entire communities of organisms, closely modeled on those occurring naturally” (Jordan et al. 1988). Ecological restoration is the acceleration of “the reestablishment of natural plant communities” (Louda 1988). Ecological restoration is long-term maintenance and management to ensure integrity, stability, and natural beauty (Guinon and Allen 1990). “[Restoration is] the reestablishment of processes, functions, and related biological, chemical, and physical linkages between the aquatic and associated riparian ecosystems; it is the repairing of damage caused by human activities” (Kauffman et al. 1997). “[Restoration is] the process of repairing damage caused by humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems” (Jackson et al. 1995).

Riparian Reforestation “[Riparian reforestation is the replanting] of the banks and floodplains of a stream with native forest and shrub species to stabilize erodible soil, improve both surface and ground water quality, increase stream shading, and enhance wildlife habitat” (National Research Council 1992). [Self-design is] “the idea that over time a restored wetland will organize itself around and eventually alter its engineered components…it is the environmental conditions there that determine the vegetative outcome” (Middleton 1999).14

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Self-design

14

In contrast, see the definition for “designer wetlands.

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

142

29-11-2001, 23:22

Appendix 1

143

APPENDIX 2

EQUIVALENT UNITS

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Conversion factors from English to metric units inches (in) inches (in) feet (ft) miles (mi)

x x x x

25.40 2.54 0.3048 1.609

= = = =

millimeters (mm) centimeters (cm) meters (m) kilometers (km)

square feet (ft2) square miles (mi2) acres (A)

x x x

0.0929 2.590 0.4047

= = =

square meters (m2) square kilometers (km2) hectares (ha)

gallons (gal) (US gallons) cubic feet (ft3) cubic yards (CY) acre-feet (A-ft)

x x x x

3.785 0.02831 0.7644 1233.5

= = = =

liters (L) cubic meters (m3) cubic meters (m3) cubic meters (m3)

ounces (oz) pounds (lb) short tons

x x x

28.3495 0.4536 0.9072

= = =

grams (g) kilograms (kg) metric tons (t)

Fahrenheit degrees (F)

0.5556 * (F-32)

=

Celsius degrees (C)

Conversion factors for metric to English units millimeters (mm) centimeters (cm) meters (m) kilometers (km)

x x x x

0.03937 0.3937 3.281 0.6214

= = = =

inches (in) inches (in) feet (ft) miles (mi)

square meters (m2) square kilometers (km2) hectares (ha)

x x x

10.764 0.3861 2.471

= = =

square feet (ft2) square miles (mi2) acres (A)

liters (L) cubic meters (m3) cubic meters (m3) cubic meters (m3)

x x x x

0.2642 35.31 1.3083 0.0008110

= = = =

gallons cubic feet (ft3) cubic yard (CY) acre-feet (A-ft)

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

143

29-11-2001, 23:22

144

Appendix 2

x x x x

0.00003527 0.03527 2204.62 1.102

Celsius degrees (C)

1.8 * (C) + 32

= = = =

ounces (oz) ounces (oz) pounds (lbs) short tons (tons)

=

Fahrenheit degrees (F)

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

milligrams (mg) grams (g) metric tons (t) metric tons (t)

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn003a

144

29-11-2001, 23:22

Subject Index

145

SUBJECT INDEX Items in Bold are Chapter Subsections

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Adenia xenica 104 Additional Resources 6 applied science 3 Alligator Point (Texas) 83 Alliance site (Louisiana) 59 Apalachicola Bay (Florida) 84 Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Texas) 93 Area Available 123 Economic Efficiency 123 Aster tenuifolius 104, 108 Atchafalaya Delta/River (Louisiana) 22, 83, 86, 88-89, 93, 124 Atkinson Island (Texas) 83 Avicennia marina 105 Baccharis halimifolia 81 Background (about) Agricultural Impoundments 21 Backfilling 31 Bay Bottom Terracing 63 Crevasse Splays 11 Dredged Material Wetlands 77 Excavated Wetlands 97 Managing Spoil Banks 41 Thin-Layer Placement 115 Barataria (Louisiana) 34, 45, 59 Bayou La Branche (Louisiana) 79-80, 90, 95 Bayport Demonstration Marsh Project (Texas) 85 Big Mar (Louisiana) 22-23 Bolivar Peninsula (Texas) 83 Brant Bayou (Louisiana) 12, 19 Brownwood Marsh (Texas) 97, 101, 104, 109112, 114 brute-force engineering 123 Calcasieu Lake (Louisiana) 63-65, 81 Calcasieu River (Louisiana) 94 California 30 Chapter Outline 5 Chenier Plain (Louisiana) 22, 38 Chevron Site/Marsh (Mississippi) 93-95, 101104, 108 Clovelly Farm (Louisiana) 22 Cost (involved in) Agricultural Impoundments 30 Backfilling 42 Bay Bottom Terracing 75 Crevasse Splays 19 Dredged Material Wetlands 95 Excavated Wetlands 113 Managing Spoil Banks 60 Cubits Gap (Louisiana) 17 Cyprinodon variegates 104

Delaware Bay (East Coast, USA) 22, 30 Definitions Agricultural Impoundments 21 Backfilling 31 Bay Bottom Terracing 63 Crevasse Splays 9 Dredged Material Wetlands 77 Excavated Wetlands 97 Managing Spoil Banks 45 Thin-Layer Placement 115 Delta Farms (Louisiana) 22-23, 25-26, 29 Delta National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR; Louisiana) 12-13, 19-20, 120 deltaic plain (Louisiana) 39 direct and indirect impacts 38 Distichlis spicata 81, 104, 108, 118 Dog Lake (Louisiana) 116, 118 DNWR : see Delta National Wildlife Refuge Drake Island (Florida) 84 Echinochloa sp 15 equivalency 125-127 Escatawpa River (Mississippi) 101 Everglades (Florida) 23 failures and science 4 Federal Standard 94 Fundulus confluentus 104, 106 Fundulus grandis 104, 106 Fundulus heteroclitus 102 Fundulus similes 104, 106 Galliard Island Confined Dredging Disposal Facility (Alabama) 79, 84 Galveston Bay (Texas) 63, 70, 85, 88, 110-111 Galveston Bay State Park Terracing Project 6364, 66, 69-70, 75 Gambusia affinis 104, 106 genetic pollution 85 geotextile tubes 65, 69-70, 87, 90, 92 Geukensia spp. 104, 106 Grand Bay-Bangs Lake (Mississippi) 97, 101 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: see Intracoastal Waterway Halodule beaudettei 67-68 Heliotropium curassavicum 104 Holmes Post (England) 25 Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel (Texas) 93 Important Considerations in Planning (of) Agricultural Impoundments 29 Backfilling 41 Bay Bottom Terracing 74 Crevasses Splays 16 Dredged Material Wetlands 93

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn-index

145

23-12-2001, 23:15

146

Subject Index

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

Excavated Wetlands 112 Managing Spoil Banks 51 Thin-Layer Placement 121 Infilling Index 41 Intracoastal Waterway 29, 42, 93 Israel 30 Iva frutescens 81 John M. O’Quinn I-45 Estuarial Corridor Marsh (Texas) 93, 95, 101, 109, 113-114 Jug Lake (Louisiana) 55, 57 Jumbile Cove Project (Texas) 71 Juncus roemerianus 101, 104, 108 Lake Coquill (Louisiana) 116, 118 Lake Pontchartrain (Louisiana) 22, 79-80, 95 Lake Salvador (Louisiana) 23 Larose (Louisiana) 25 Learning Curves 127 Leeville (oilfield; Louisiana) 46 Little Vermilion Bay Sediment Trapping Project (Louisiana) 63-64, 66, 70-71, 75 Littorina spp. 104, 106 Logistical limitations 94 Loomis Pass (Louisiana) 9 Lucania parva 104, 106 Major Information Sources (about) Bay Bottom Terracing 76 Excavated Wetlands 114 Dredged Material Wetlands 96 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) 28 Mus musculus 82 New England (USA) 22, 30 New Orleans (Louisiana) 25, 80 no net loss 1 North Carolina 102, 116, 119 Objectives (of) Agricultural Impoundments 21 Backfilling 31 Bay Bottom Terracing 63 Crevasse Splays 9 Dredged Material Wetlands 77 Excavated Wetlands 97 Managing Spoil Banks 41 Thin-Layer Placement 115 oil and gas field map 47 Omega Bay Project (Texas) 72 Oryzomys palustris 82 Panicum sp. 25 Pascagoula (Mississippi) 93-95, 101 Paspalum vaginatum 104 Past Experience and Research (on) Agricultural Impoundments 22 Backfilling 34 Bay Bottom Terracing 65 Crevasse Splays 12 Dredged Material Wetlands 79 Excavated Wetlands 101 Managing Spoil Banks 50

Thin-Layer Placement 116 Pawley’s Island (South Carolina) 121 Pennsylvania 97, 100 Phragmites sp. 15 Phragmites australis 120 Pierce Marsh Project (Texas) 63-64 pipeline(s) 33-34, 48 Plaguemines (parish; Louisiana) 59, 120 Pluchia spp. 104 Poecilia latipinna 104, 106 Policy limitations 94 Potential for Use (of) Agricultural Impoundments 27 Backfilling 40 Bay Bottom Terracing 73 Crevasses Splays 18 Dredged Material Wetlands 90 Excavated Wetlands 112 Managing Spoil Banks 59 Thin-Layer Placement 120 Quotations Gagliano, S.M. 51 Harrison, R.W., and W.M. Kollmorgen 22 LaSalle, M.W. 103 Meade, M. 6 Neill, C, and R.E. Turner 36 Niering, W.A. vi Odum, H.T. 3 Smith, J.B. 24 St. Amant, L.S. 51 Van Lopik, J.R. 51 Raphael Pass (Louisiana) 120 Restoration Rate 123 restoration trajectory 126 rip-rap 91 Ruppia maritime 67-68 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana) 81, 83, 85, 87, 96 Sabine Terracing Project (Louisiana) 64-69, 75 Salicornia bigelovii 104 Salicornia virginica 104, 108, 118 Salix nigra 15 Sarracenia sp. 100 SAV: see Submerged aquatic vegetation Schleswick-Holstein method 64 Scirpus deltarum 15 Sesbania macrocarpa 15 Sesuvium portulacastrum 104 Science and Restoration 3 Significant Information Sources (for) Agricultural Impoundments 30 Backfilling 43 Crevasses Splays 19 Managing Spoil Banks 60 Thin-Layer Placement 122 southern California 126 Spartina sp. 103 Spartina alterniflora 22, 65-68, 70-71, 81-82,

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn-index

146

23-12-2001, 23:15

Subject Index

147 Typha sp. 15, 100 Venice (Louisiana) 116 Virginia 85 Virgna luteola 117 Wadden Sea (Netherlands) 63 Washington 30 West Fowl River Marsh 93, 95, 101, 104, 107, 109-110, 114 Wetlands Lost 1 Wetland Equivalency 125 Wetlands Valued 2 Wheel (The Wheel; Louisiana) 55-56 Wysocking Bay (North Carolina) 118

Copyright © 2002. SPB Academic Publishing BV. All rights reserved.

8485, 101, 104, 106, 108, 117, 118-120 Spartina patens 81, 84-85, 104, 108 Spartina spartinae 70-71 St. Bernard (parish, Louisiana) 116 Suaeda linearis 104 Submerged aquatic vegetation 32, 42 Swamp Land Acts 22 Terms 4 Terrebonne (parish; Louisiana) 55, 57, 59, 116 Texas City Dike (Texas) 89 Thalassia testudinum 68 The Wheel (see Wheel) Tourle Street Bridge (Australia) 102, 105

Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration : Northern Gulf of Mexico, SPB Academic Publishing BV, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central,

turn-index

147

23-12-2001, 23:15