Notes from the FieldMichael Josselyn, PhD, PWS

PhD in Botany 1978

Professor at San Francisco State University 1978-2000

Initiated research on tidal wetland restoration

Founded company focused on restoration and mitigation projects

It is easy to create a marsh;it is hard to create a wetland system

Restoration is not just a science or an art; it is the practical application of knowledge

Mitigation is a regulatory outcome; its success is a function of policy decisions

Time is your friend; as long as it doesn’t run out

Clean Water ActWetlands defined by presence of obligate wetland plantsFocus on tidal marsh restoration using dredged materialsSpartina was kingLittle interest in drier end wetlands

Placement of dredged materials critical• Too high: acid soil

conditions• Too low: no vegetation

establishmentFocused on vegetation establishment as primary criteria

Tidal channels improve habitat functionTidal energy necessary to form channelsHigh marsh areas have slower channel formation

Muzzi Marsh after 20 years—natural revegetation by cordgrass after sedimentation occurred also gives rise of natural channel

configurationWilliams and Faber (2001)

Most marsh species found above 60% exposedPickleweed marsh found 80% or greater

Development and use of tidal gates can provide the same exposure frequencies so that vegetated marshes can be

established in subsided lands behind levees

FWS wetland inventory and “community profiles” of wetland types

• Recognizes seasonal hydrology subtypesCorps adopts 87 Delineation Manual• 5-12 % of the growing season for wetland hydrology

Mitigation becomes an essential element of permitting

“Nothing is working”• Race (1983) 90% of the restoration sites are failures• Kusler et al (1989) compliance vs functional success

• Vernal pools, diked wetlands; seasonal wetlands

• Mitigation needs to reflect new hydrology standard

• Most previous projects focused only on obligate wetland species

Josselyn et al 1990

Mitigation for drier wetlands needs to consider saturation over 3 month period in growing season

( development of anaerobic conditions takes longer than 7 days)

Kusler and Kentula (1990)• Partial failures common• Success varies by type of wetland and functions• Short and long-term success different• Multidiscplinary expertise required• Clear and specific goals for mitigation projects

National Research Council (1991)• Strive to restore self sustaining systems• Develop innovative methods to accelerate

restoration• Support experimental research in restoration

No net loss policy initiated by federal and state agencies• Mitigation ratios increase

Assessment methods to evaluate wetland success on functional basisComplex ecosystems being designed as mitigationVernal pool restoration technology improving

Permits issued between 1988-1994 by Corps in California total over 3100

Most required wetland mitigation/restoration

Most required 5 year monitoring

In-kind mitigation

Creation given highest priority

More acreage than impacted

Success in 5 years

Complete at low cost

National Research Council 2001 Percent Successful

Mitigation for Port Fill [650 acres mitigation]

Restoration of tidal inletDredging of fine sedimentsCreation of shorebird nesting islandsPlanting of emergent and submerged vegetation

Courtesy: Merkel and Associates, 2009

Fears that Port was destroying existing habitat for shorebirds

Dredging project was too big and would be destructive to existing coastal vegetated wetland and endangered species

Federal and State Courts ruled against ESA and CEQA challenges

Revegetationsuccessful

Cordgrassand eelgrass increase unexpected

Decline in intertidal mudflats

Courtesy: Merkel and Associates, 2009

FISH SPECIES NUMBERCOMPARED TO OTHER LAGOONS

Courtesy: Merkel and Associates, 2009

N um ber of Fish Species W ith in Batiquitos Lagoon

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1984 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006

Shorebirds

Light footed clapper rail

Photo: Monte Stinnett

Courtesy: Merkel and Associates, 2009

Courtesy: Merkel and Associates, 2009

Restoring entire ecosystems requires patience and acceptance that habitats will evolve.

Change is inevitable and management needs to be flexible.

Mitigation for commercial development in Fremont, CADegraded seasonal wetlands on former agricultural landsRequired restoration of natural vernal pool landscape

Development next to US FWS RefugeTwo listed species with restricted distribution• VPTS and CC

GoldfieldsFocused attention by conservation groups

Demonstrate feasibility of establishing tadpole shrimp habitatStrict performance standards for hydrology and vegetationImplement grazing program

INCREASED VP PLANT SPECIES IMPROVED OVER TIME

Threshold requirements as performance standards do not recognize natural variability.

Cows are your friends.

Corps adopts compensatory mitigation policiesMitigation banks become of ageStormwater andLID wetlandsClimate change affects everything

Issued by Corps of Engineers: April 2008• Sets forth regulations for mitigation compliance

Mitigation banking given preference• Followed by in-lieu fee and permittee-

responsible mitigationSets forth 12 fundamental components for mitigation plansEmphasis replacement in watershedProvides for functional assessment

BEFORE AFTER

Our knowledge of wetland systems including plants, soils, and hydrology is providing the basis for a sophisticated design and

public use of wetland systems in the urban environment

Wetland restoration can achieve successful outcomes but usually not as expected

Linkage between hydrology, soils, and plants is better known and allows for more sophisticated designs of drier wetlands

Wetland restoration will necessarily become more complex as our demand on wetland performance increases

Time is of the essence

Pressure on wetlands is increasing

Need for large scale restoration is unprecedented and immediate