Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 73–91 | Cite as

Influence of physical processes on the design, functioning and evolution of restored tidal wetlands in California (USA)

  • J. Haltiner
  • J. B. Zedler
  • K. E. Boyer
  • G. D. Williams
  • J. C. Callaway


The performance of two intertidal wetland mitigation projects constructed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (SMNWR) in San Diego Bay was evaluated over 5 years. Most of the Sweetwater wetland complex has been altered this century, including diking (with subsequent subsidence), filling, modification of the tidal regime, freshwater inflow and sediment fluxes. The mitigation project goals included a range of functional criteria intended to support two endangered bird species (light-footed clapper rail and California least tern) and one endangered plant (salt marsh bird's-beak). While the mitigation projects have achieved some of the performance criteria established in the regulatory permits (particularly, those related to fish), vegetation criteria for one of the bird species have not been met. The initial grading (in relation to local tidal datums) should support the target plant species, but growth has been less than required. Shortcomings of the habitat include elevated soil and groundwater salinity, low nutrient levels (especially nitrogen, which is readily leached from the coarse substrate), and eroding topography (where a single oversized and overly sinous channel and the lower-than-natural marshpalin result in high velocity surface water flow and erosion). The failure to achieve a large plain at low-marsh elevations highlights the importance of a more complete understanding of the relationship between the site physical processes (topography, hydrology, climate, geomorphology), substrate conditions, and biotic responses.


Salt marsh wetland hydrology wetland restoration mitigation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baltz, D.M., Rakocinski, C. and Fleeger, J.W. 1993. Microhabitat use by marsh-edge fishes in a Louisiana estuary. Env. Biol. Fish., 36: 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness, M.D., Gough, L. and Shumway, S.W. 1992. Salt tolerances and the distribution of fugitive salt marsh plants. Ecol., 73: 1842–1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, K.E. 1994. Scale insect damage in constructed salt marshes: Nitrogen and other factors. M.S. Thesis., San Diego State University. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, K.E. and Zedler, J.B. 1996. Damage to cordgrass by scale insects in a constructed salt marsh: effects of nitrogen additions. Estuaries, 19: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coats, R., Williams, P.B., Cuffe, C.K., Zedler, J.B., Reed, D., Watry, S.M. and Noller, J.S. 1995. Design Guidelines for Tidal Channels in Coastal Wetlands. Report Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station. 45 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Covin, J. D., and Zedler, J.B. 1988. Nitrogen effects onSpartina foliosa andSalicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary. California, Wetlands, 8: 51–65.Google Scholar
  7. Haltiner, J.P. 1990. Sweetwater Marsh: Morphology and Tidal Circulation. Report Prepared for Caltrans District 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego, California 130 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Haltiner, J.P. 1993. Extreme events and coastal wetlands. Proceedings 1993 ASCE International Symposium on Engineering Hydrology, San Francisco, California, July 25–30.Google Scholar
  9. Haltiner, J.P. and Williams, P.B. 1987. Hydraulie desgin in salt marsh restoration. Proceedings National Symposium of Wetland Hydrology. Association of State Wetland Managers, Chicago, IL. Sept. 16–18.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, T. and Josselyn, M. 1986. Wetlands restoration and mitigation policies: Commnet and reply. Envir. Mgmt., 10: 567–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuhn, N. 1995. The effects of salinity and soil saturation on plants in the high intertidal marsh. M.S. Thesis. San Diego State University. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  12. Langis, R., Zalejko, M., and Zedler, J.B. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay. California. Ecol. Appl., 1: 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mclvor, C.C., and Odum, W.E. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage. Ecol. 69: 1341–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Myrick, R.M. and Leopold, L.B. 1963. Hydraulic Geometry of a Small Tidal Estuary. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 422 B.Google Scholar
  15. Pacific Esturrine Research Laboratory (PERL). 1995. Sweetwater Marssh National Wildlife Refuge: Ecosystem Assessment for Mitigation Compliance. Final Report for 1995. California Department of Transportation. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  16. Paller, M.H. 1994. Relationships between fish assemblage structure and steam order in South Carolina coastal plain streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 123: 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pestrong, R. 1965. The development of drainage patterns on tidal marshes. Stanford University Publiscations Geol. Sci. Vol. X. No. 2 87 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Race, M.S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Fransisco Bay. Envir. Mgmt. 9: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Race, M.S. and Fonseca, M.S. 1995. Fixing compensatory mitigation: What will it take? Ecol. Appl. 6: 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strahler, A.N. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks.In: Chow, V.T. (ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology, pp 436–476. McGraw-Hill. New York.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, P.B. and Florsheim, J. 1994. Designing the Sonoma Baylands Project. Coast and Ocean, Fall.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, P., Shepherd, A., and Faber, P. 1988. Monitoring a tidal restoration site in San Francisco Bay: The Muzzi Marsh.In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands '88: Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Association of State Wetlands Managers. Byrne. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Zedler, J.B. 1983. Freshwater impacts in normally hypersaline marshes. Estuaries. 6: 346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted cordgrass marshes: Selecting habitat evaluation criteria. Ecol. Appl., 3: 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zedler, J.B., Nordby, S., and Kus, B.E. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary: A National and Estuarine Research Reserve. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Zedler, J.B., Principal Author. 1996. Tidal wetland restoration: A scientific perspective and southern California focus. California Sea Grant College System. University of California, La Jolla. California Report No. T. 038.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Haltiner
    • 1
  • J. B. Zedler
    • 2
  • K. E. Boyer
    • 2
  • G. D. Williams
    • 2
  • J. C. Callaway
    • 2
  1. 1.Philip Williams & Associates. Ltd.San FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL), Biology DepartmentSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations