1. Wetland Restoration Definitions Motivations Types and Approaches Costs Design Issues Ecological Theory Monitoring Case Studies Southern California Restoration Projects

2. Wetland Restoration Restoration - Returning a degraded wetland or former wetland to a pre-existing condition or as close to that condition as possible. Creation - Converting a non-wetland (either dry land or unvegetated water) to a wetland. Enhancement - Increasing one or more of the functions performed by an existing wetland beyond what currently or previously existed in the wetland. There may be a decrease in other functions. Mitigation - the actual restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses.

3. Restoration/Creation Motivation US - No Net Wetland Loss Policy Treating Urban Runoff (excess nutrients, contaminants) Excess sedimentation Mitigation - To compensate for loss: on site or off site in kind or out of kind banking Improve habitat quality and function, expand existing wetlands

4. Forms of Restoration Grading of upland to intertidal levels (marsh, mangrove, tidal flat) Hydrological improvement (e.g., dredging, opening lagoons to flushing) Creation of habitat via dredge spoil islands (often planted) Planting unvegetated bottom with seagrass or marsh grass Amending soils with nutrients or organic matter (e.g., peat, straw, alfalfa, kelp)

5. Restoration Costs - Louisiana examples ApproachRestoration RateSize (ha)$/ha Crevasse Splays1.1% 10-300 48 Agric. Impoundments 1300-7,0001 Backfilled canals1.51-501,000 Spoil Bank Rest.2.510-100010 Terracing510-1004,686 Dredge Mat. wetlands >50<1-1000-23,600 Excavated wetlands>201-10044,600 Thin Layer Placement ?1-100??? FROM Turner and Streever 2002

6. Who Pays? Power companies Transit Authorities Port Authorities Cities, Counties, States (taxpayers) Federal Government Attempts to value wetlands: LA salt marshes valued at 9-17K per acre (must be per year). Kendall Frost property: 1.6 million for 2.1 acres

7. Restoration Design Issues 1.Site limitations - in So. Calif. available space is limiting, especially for local mitigation. Land is expensive! 2. To plant or not. What to plant, Where to get plants from (genetic concerns) Rarely are animals introduced - it is assumed that if you build it, they will come. 3. Hydrology, creek design, edge habitat, 4. Ratios of low, mid, upper, transitional marsh Seagrass vs unvegetated 5. Need for upland and ocean end management as well. Difficult to create and manage a coastal wetland in isolation without control over adjacent habitats. 6. Incorporating science into the restoration effort (e.g., Mission Bay) Major limiting factor is knowledge about what maximizes productivity and health Prior history of habitat existence important. Failure greater where there was no historical wetland

8. DANGER THAT ABILITY TO MITIGATE WILL ENCOURAGE DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT To avoid this, we must have strict rules about loss of natural wetlands.

9. Monitoring Comparison to reference sites Frequency and duration - 5 years is not enough! Adaptive monitoring - change in response to events Community involvement What and how to monitor…. Plants, animals, fishes, birds, Increasing emphasis on function Should science be part of monitoring? Need success criteria Comparison to less disturbed reference wetlands Often these aren't available in urbanized estuaries. Standardized methods? - usually not.

10. Structure vs Function Difference between structure (who and how many are there) and function (ecological processes: productivity, nutrient cycling, trophic support, resistance to invasion). Success criteria try to incorporate both but it is difficult. Structure is easier to measure. Sometimes endangered species or top carnivores drive criteria. More often plants dominate.

11. Restoration Approaches Passive - Removing source of problem Benefits - low cost, compatibility with surrounding landscape Examples: Removing dikes, ponds Removing grazing cattle Active - Physical intervention *Recontouring to achieve desired topography and elevation *Changing water flow (e.g., inlet opening, channel construction wiers, culverts) *Planting and seeding *Non-native species control *Soil enhancement

12. Incorporating Research/Experiments (mensurative or manipulative) *Allows for development and testing of restoration theory (Zeder 2005) *Allows for Adaptive Restoration; modification of restoration plan over time.

13. Relevant Ecological Theory and Practice (Zedler 2005) Controls and Reference sites (natural variability) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (productivity, invasion resistance, nutrient cycling) (critical function species) Eutrophication effects on wetland diversity wetlands as the cure Island Biogeography/Connectivity (applications may differ among organisms)

14. Ecological Theory (con’t) Succession primary succession microbial feedbacks plant-animal interactions Facilitation Competition Predator-Prey Interactions (e.g., birds in So. San Diego Bay) Food Web Theory/ Trophic Cascades Assembly Rules Extended phenotypes/ Hybridization: genetic influences Invasion Biology: how to prevent establishment of invasives Resilience

15. Port Marsh, North Carolina Created in 1990 by grading 2.2 acre dry dredge spoil to sea level. Planting with S. alterniflora. 9 culm/m 2. Isolated from adjacent natural system by oysters, sediment and land plants. 3 blocks each with OM treatments applied to 2 x 7 m plots.

16. Spartina grew rapidly. By 1993 there were no differences in biomass or stem densities in created and adjacent natural marsh. By 1994 biomass and stem densities in created marsh were 2x those of natural marsh. Despite rapid vascular plant recovery, the animals did not recover as quickly. After 27 mo some epifauna like mussels, oysters, mud crabs and littorine snails never appeared.

17. Levin et al. 1996, MEPS Natural Unplanted Planted DensitySpp. number Port Marsh Infauna

18. Organic Amendments - Straw Alfalfa, Peat, plus inorganic N. Initially killed plants and reduced animal densities in NC (figure). Effects disappeared after 6 months, except for straw treatments which exhibited reduced densities for several years. Levin et al. 1997 Macrofaunal density Straw Natural

19. Macrofauna Succession Early opportunistic polychaetes (S. benedicti, Capitella, Polydora cornuta) Total macro density and species richness reached ambient (natural) levels at 6 mo. For first few years these and turbellarians were 75-95% of fauna At year 4 diversity higher but sediments remained different. No oligochaetes (coarser and lower OM in created marsh). Levin et al. 1996, MEPS

20. BUT species composition and functional groups did not resemble natural marsh. Species without dispersive stages (lecithotrophs/direct developers) were slow to recover. Species with dispersive stages (planktotrophs, swimmers) overshot natural marsh Levin et al. 1996, MEPS NaturalUnplantedPlanted Planktotrophs Direct Developers Lecithotrophs Swimmers

21. Oligochaetes were 50% of natural marsh fauna but rare in the created marsh. Instead of a subsurface deposit- feeder dominated fauna, the created marsh was surface-feeder dominated. Levin et al. 1996, MEPS Natural Unplanted Planted Surface Feeders Subsurface Feeders Carnivores & Omnivores

22. Recommendations from Port Marsh study Connections with natural marsh/direct contact desirable Seeding animals may help, particularly for non-dispersers Attention to sediment properties (Grain size, OM)

23. Craft & Sacco 2003 Marsh restoration sites in North Carolina

24. Dill’s Creek Created from upland pine forest

25. Craft & Sacco 2003 Surface feeders recover more quickly than subsurface feeders.

26. Craft & Sacco 2003 MEPS Soil organic matter is correlated with faunal density.

27. Craft& Sacco 2003 MEPS Created marshes may overshoot natural ones.

28. Zedler 1996 Southern California has 29 small embayments, many with restoration projects planned or in progress.

29. Southern California Restoration Projects Zedler 1996 - Ecol. Applications Goleta SloughRemove obstructions to increase tidal flows Carpinteria MarshExcavate adjacent site to increase area of tidal influence Balona WetlandOpen tide gates, increase tidal flow to salt marsh Los Cerritos WetlandIncrease access to tidal flow in diked marshes Seal Beach NWRMaintain tidal systems Bolsa Chica WetlandEntrance tidal access to diked marshes and mudflats Santa Margarita EstuaryDredge mouth to extend periods of tidal influence Agua Hedionda LagoonDredge mouth periodically to sustain tidal influence Batiquitos LagoonDredge mouth to change nontidal to tidal wetland San Elijo LagoonDredge mouth to change nontidal to tidal wetland San Dieguito lagoonRestored wetland, enhance hope water areas, open mouth Los Penasquitos LagoonDredge mouth to extend periods of tidal influence Famosa SloughEnlarge culverts to extend tidal influence Mission BayDredge to create salt marsh Sweetwater Marsh/So. Bay Excavate to create salt marsh/ Restore salt ponds Tijuana EstuaryExcavate upland to create salt marsh and tidal creeks

30. Diversity is lower in lagoons that close periodically.

32. Zedler

34. Macrofaunal Recovery - Salicornia marshes in southern California Talley & Levin 1999

35. Talley & Levin 1999 Comparison of macrofaunal composition in created and natural Salicornia marshes

36. Created marsh Natural marsh Crown Point Mitigation Site, Mission Bay CA Graded and Restored to tidal flushing Dec. 1995 Crown Point Mitigation Site, Mission Bay

37. Southern California - Crown Point Mitigation Site

38. Crown Point Mitigation Site - Opened Dec. 1995 Summer 2001 ( 5 yr 6 mo) January 1996 (1 mo) April 1998 (2 yr 4 mo)

39. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Detritus (grams/18 cm 2 core) 19961997199819992001 Belowground Plant Detritus Natural NWP) Created (CPMS)

40. Levin & Talley 2002 CPMS = created average NWP = natural average

41. Levin & Talley 2002

42. ------------------April------------------

43. 0 25 50 75 100 Percent 199619971998199920012001 (fall) Mission Bay Macrofauna-Natural marsh Other Tubificid Enchytraeid Nadid Peracarid Mollusc Polychaete Insect -----------------April------------------

44. Levin & Talley 2002 MDS indicating similarity of macrofaunal composition. Created Natural Marsh During the El Ni ñ o (98) the created and natural marsh macrofauna were most similar

45. Tijuana Friendship Marsh 20 acres Opened in Feb. 2000 Constructed creeks, Planted Spartina

46. 3 tidal creeks kelp amendments 2 plant densities

47. 0 25 50 75 100 Percent Spring 2000Fall 2000Spring 2001 Fall 2001 Other Insects Crustacea Gastropods Polychaetes Oligochaetes data from Moseman et al. Friendship Marsh Macrofauna

48. Upcoming Restoration Projects San Dieguito Lagoon Permanent inlet opening Wetland grading, planting Tijuana Estuary 380 additional acres salt marsh San Elijo and Los Penasquitos Lagoon Episodic inlet openings South San Diego Bay Wildlife Refuge Pond conversion to tidal habitat Grading of fill Kendall Frost - ? Frost Property, Campland Acquisition - 2017?