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