Environmental Management

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 71–81 | Cite as

Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the united states based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay

  • Margaret Seluk Race
Research

Abstract

A detailed evaluation of past wetland restoration projects in San Francisco Bay was undertaken to determine their present status and degree of success. Many of the projects never reached the level of success purported and others have been plagued by serious problems. On the basis of these findings, it is debatable whether any sites in San Francisco Bay can be described as completed, active, or successful restoration projects at present. In spite of these limited accomplishments, wetland creation and restoration have been adopted in the coastal permit process as mitigation to offset environmental damage or loss of habitat. However, because the technology is still largely experimental, there is no guarantee that man-made wetlands will persist as permanent substitutes for sacrificed natural habitats. Existing permit policies should be reanalyzed to insure that they actually succeed in safeguarding diminishing wetlands resources rather than bartering them away for questionable habitat substitutes. Coastal managers must be more specific about project requirements and goals before approval is granted. Continued research on a regional basis is needed to advance marsh establishment techniques into a proven technology. In the meantime, policies encouraging or allowing quid pro quo exchanges of natural wetlands with man-made replacements should proceed with caution. The technology and management policies used at present are many steps ahead of the needed supporting documentation.

Key words

Marsh restoration Man-made marshes Coastal zone management Mitigation Coastal wetlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. ASLA. 1979. Creekside Park. ASLA awards issue, July 1979.Landscape Architecture 69:380–382.Google Scholar
  2. Beeman, O., and A. Benkendorf. 1978. Productive land use of dredged material areas.In Coastal zone '78. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Cuneo, K. 1982. Natural invasion and establishment ofSpartina foliosa Trin. on the site of a San Francisco Bay salt marsh restoration at Hayward, Ca.In Pacific estuaries: recent research in science and management. Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the Pacific Estuarine Research Society, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. Faber, P. 1979. Report on the current status of the Muzzi Marsh, 1979. Prepared for Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District by Phyllis Faber, 212 Del Casa, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Faber, P. 1980. Report on the current status of the Muzzi Marsh, September, 1980. Prepared for Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District by Phyllis Faber, 212 Del Casa, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Faber, P. 1983. Marsh restoration with natural revegetation: a case study in San Francisco Bay.In Coastal zone '83. Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on coastal and ocean management, San Diego.Google Scholar
  7. Floyd, K., and C. Newcombe. 1976. Marsh development study, phase two, pilot study. Inclosure 2in Dredge disposal study, Appendix K. US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  8. Garbisch, E. 1977. Recent and planned marsh establishment work throughout the contiguous United States: a survey and basic guidelines. DRMP contract report D-77-3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.Google Scholar
  9. Harvey, H. T. 1975. Memo to Dr. Curtis L. Newcombe, November 14, 1975.In Dredge material disposal study, appendix K. US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, H. T. 1979. Anza Pacifica Lagoon marsh restoration study. Draft report submitted by H. T. Harvey to John Briscoe, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  11. Harvey, H. T. 1983. Personal communication. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, H. T., P. Williams, J. Haitiner, and BCDC Staff. 1982. Guidelines for enhancement and restoration of diked historic baylands. A technical report prepared for San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 30 Van Ness Street, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  13. Josselyn, M. 1983. Personal communication. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, PO Box 855, Tiburon, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Josselyn, M., and J. Buchholz. 1982. Summary of past wetland restoration projects in California. Pages 1–10in Wetland restoration and enhancement in California, California Sea Grant report T-CSGCP-007.Google Scholar
  15. Kingsley, R. B., and F. C. Boerger. 1976. Experimental marsh planting programs, Marin Country Day School and Muzzi Marsh. Prepared for Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District by Madrone Associates, Environmental Consultants, Pamaron Way, Novato, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Knutson, P. L. 1977. Planting guidelines for marsh development and bank stabilization. Coastal Engineering technical report 77-3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  17. Knutson, P.L., and W. Woodhouse. 1983. Shore stabilization and salt marsh vegetation. Report 9. US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  18. Madrone Associates. 1978. Open file: Hayward shoreline marsh restoration project. Prepared by Madrone Associates, Environmental Consultants, Pamaron Way, Novato, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Morris, J. H., C. L. Newcombe, R. T. Huffman, and J. S. Wilson. 1978. Habitat development field investigation, salt pond no. 3, marsh development site, South San Francisco Bay. Summary report. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.Google Scholar
  20. Newcombe, C. L., J. H. Morris, P. L. Knutson, and C. S. Gorbics. 1979. Bank erosion control with vegetation, San Francisco Bay, CA. Misc. report 79-2. US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  21. Newcombe, C. L., and C. Pride. 1976. Marsh development study, phase three, final investigation. Inclosure 3in Dredge disposal study, Appendix K. US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  22. Niessen, T., and M. Josselyn (eds.). 1981. The Hayward regional shoreline marsh restoration: biological succession during the first year following dike removal. Technical report 1. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Tiburon, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Race, M. S., and D. R. Christie. 1982. Coastal zone development: mitigation, marsh creation, and decision-making.Environmental Management 6:317–328.Google Scholar
  24. Royston, R., A. Hanamoto, E. Beck, and K. Abey. 1976. Creekside Park, phase II, marsh planting plan, June 1, 1976. Prepared by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck, and Abey, Landscape Architects and Planners, 225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Saucier, R. T., C. C. Calhoun, R. M. Engler, T. R. Patin, and H. K. Smith. 1978. Executive overview and detailed summary. Dredge Material Research Program, US Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.Google Scholar
  26. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Dredge disposal study. San Francisco Bay and Estuary. Appendix K: marsh development. Available from US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  27. Zedler, J. 1983. Salt marsh restoration: the experimental approach. Pages 2578–2586in Coastal zone '83. Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on coastal and ocean management, San Diego.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Seluk Race
    • 1
  1. 1.Program in Human BiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations