![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Coastal Ecosystem Restoration
For the Expert: National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration< Funding and Partnerships | Innovative Methods and Techniques > PlanningPlanning efforts range in scale from large, region-wide coastal restoration programs to individual project planning. Examples of large scale planning efforts are provided below followed by a discussion of approaches for restoration planning from different scales. Several large restoration programs are currently underway across the nation and are at various phases in the planning process. The CWPPRA program in Louisiana developed a restoration plan over a decade ago to address the need to coordinate and integrate restoration efforts in the region. Since that time, 141 projects have been authorized for funding (USGS 2003c). The Chesapeake Bay Program recently enacted the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, which will guide the next decade of restoration and protection efforts throughout the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program 2003). The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides a framework and guidance to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including coastal areas (CERP 2003). The plan was approved in 2000, will take more than 30 years to construct, and will cost an estimated $7.8 billion. More recently, the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) established a Science Team to oversee the activities involved in studying and planning for restoration in the Puget Sound region (PSNERP 2003). The document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (RAE and NOAA 2002) provides a framework for Restoration Planning and Priority-Setting and also reviews restoration plans from across the nation. The review found many common elements among successful plans including effective partnerships, education and outreach efforts, availability of funds, use of best available technology, implementation of a scientifically sound monitoring protocols, use of defined success criteria, and a standard tracking system. In addition, many of the most successful projects were those that were part of a watershed plan. Watershed-based or estuary-wide restoration planning is an approach that is applied by many of the large-scale programs discussed above, but that can also be applied to smaller watersheds or estuaries. This approach is recommended in Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration (RAE-ERF 1999) and is also discussed by numerous others (Lewis et al. 1998 ; Foote-Smith 2002;Gersib 2002). The National Estuary Program encourages estuary-wide planning in the 28 estuaries involved in the program through their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs), which often include goals for restoration (ANEP 2002). Estuary-wide planning can include both restoration required as part of compensatory mitigation (as required for unavoidable impacts to wetlands) and non-regulatory restoration (Fuss 2000;Simenstad and Thom 1992). This approach can improve the effectiveness of mitigation (NRC 2001) and increase the funds available for restoration (Hall 2003). Diefenderfer and others (2003) developed a systematic approach to coastal ecosystem restoration, which includes a 19-step method for planning restoration projects. This method was originally developed for project-scale planning, but could also be applied to large-scale restoration programs. Another project-scale planning method is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Council (WRC) six-step planning process (WRC 1983). This method is generally applied to large-scale restoration projects and incorporates analyses of alternatives and sources of uncertainty. Planning Restoration in Urban SettingsMore than 50% of the U.S. population lives on the coast, with a higher growth rate in coastal counties than in the country as a whole (NOAA 1998). The result of this development has been the loss of a high percentage of coastal habitats that were once present in urban areas. Restoration in urban areas presents the following challenges:
However, these challenges are often offset by the following benefits:
Successful restoration planning in urban estuaries requires public involvement throughout the process. The Mowitch restoration project in Tacoma, Washington, for example, included the public in every stage of the planning process from site selection to design, resulting in wide public acceptance of the project (Steger 2003). Simenstad and Thom (1992) contends that another aspect of successful coastal restoration planning is the incorporation of compensatory mitigation and non-regulatory restoration into an estuary-wide restoration plan. In urban estuaries, this may be particularly challenging because of the number and diversity of jurisdictional entities (e.g., local governments, private organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and federal and state agencies). If achievable, advantages of this approach include stakeholder approval, identification of ecologically significant areas for conservation and restoration, and funding for restoration through mitigation. Finally, urban restoration represents perhaps the most critical and challenging situation to use the principles of landscape ecology for choosing a restoration site. A study by Shreffler and Thom (1993) contends that these principles provide the critical link between restoration ecology theory and effective, practical restoration in urban estuaries. In particular the study highlights the need for emphasis on habitat size, shape, accessibility, connectance, and self-maintenance. In addition, restoration site location can also be critical in urban areas. For example, in the highly urban Duwamish estuary, located in Seattle, Washington, habitat restoration has focused around salinity transition zones in the estuary, which provide places for juvenile salmon to acclimate to the changes in salinity as they make the transition from freshwater to saltwater (Simenstad 2003). While the challenges of urban restoration are many, the importance of habitat restoration in these settings is monumental from an ecological and societal perspective. The ecological importance of projects in urban areas can be disproportional to the size of the project because of the lack of ecological habitat in the surrounding areas. These projects are also highly visible and can influence the public perception of restoration, therefore successful restoration projects in urban settings can increase support for future restoration efforts. Goal Setting and Success CriteriaA special issue of the journal Ecological Engineering compiled invited papers presented at a symposium on "Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration" (Wilber et al. 2000). This issue provides information from a diversity of habitats, has a nationwide scope, and covers many parts of the restoration process. Evaluation of urban coastal restoration success requires criteria that balance both ecological parameters and the urban context (Ehrenfeld 2000). Ecological functions may be secondary to human values, in which case, the functional capacity must be assessed within a framework of social expectations, ecosystem capacities, needs for active management, and values particular to the urban area (Ehrenfeld 2000). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has conducted an exercise to test the utility of various success criteria for the restoration and creation of salt marshes and mangroves for compensatory mitigation, with the goal of providing a set of criteria that is both ecologically meaningful and can be implemented within the existing regulatory environment (Redmond 2000). The language describing these "objective, meaningful, and enforceable" success criteria was further refined to ensure its utility in a legal setting (Redmond 2000). The permit timelines are typically short relative to ecosystem development. Covenants, placed on the land as a condition of the permit, are tools that Redmond (2000) recommends to ensure that complex ecosystem functions ultimately develop. The covenant is a document that accompanies the title of the land stating the long-term responsibilities of the permittee and is established by the permittee prior to permit approval. The goals of mangrove restoration projects have evolved from establishing "persistent vegetative cover," to establishing "functional equivalency," to "ecological restoration" and "ecosystem restoration" (Lewis 2000). Lewis suggests that to achieve greater success, mangrove restoration projects will depend on providing training for all those involved in the planning process, formalizing specific ecologically-based project goals, and developing individual projects within the framework of regional ecosystem-based conservation and restoration plans. Broad criteria for judging success have been summarized as the rate of recruitment of flora and fauna, the closeness to which the new mangrove ecosystem meets the goals, and the efficiency of the project in terms of labor and other resources (Field 1998). Given the absence of generally accepted criteria for goal setting, it is critical that experts be involved throughout the planning and permit process to ensure that ecologically sound goals are set and appropriate restoration design technology is selected to give the project the highest chance of success (Lewis 2000). A study identifying the potential effects of various coastal restoration measures on fish assemblages found that although the increase in organic inputs associated with mangrove restoration positively affects estuarine and coastal fish assemblages, it has no effect on the continental fish assemblage, which occupies the upper estuary and wetlands (Baran and Hambrey 1998). The findings are important in cases in which target fish species have been identified in restoration goal setting. In another example, the more mobile estuarine front associated with dam removal would negatively affect the coastal assemblage, while favoring both the fish of continental origin through the intensified flood and the estuarine assemblage through increased area of brackish and turbid waters. The study by Baron and Hambrey (1998) shows that with respect to the restoration of fish populations, it is critical to associate the species or assemblage with habitat requirements, yet also to question whether it is individual fish species or multiple species that should be the target. ModelingModeling is a tool that has been used extensively in coastal restoration planning to predict physical, biological, and hydrological changes resulting from restoration efforts. Both numerical models and conceptual models are powerful planning tools which can be used as part of the adaptive management process where field data are fed back into the models to provide verification and a means of evaluating progress toward the goals. In Louisiana, modeling has been used to determine the optimum amount of freshwater and sediment to divert from the Mississippi River to restore the coastal system (Clairain 2003). Over the next 20 years, diversion projects are expected to create or stabilize over 400,000 hectares of wetlands (WaterMarks 2003). One project designed to divert water from the Mississippi River to restore wetlands in the Maurepas Basin led to concern that increased nutrient inputs would lead to downstream eutrophication and associated phytoplankton blooms (Lane et al. 2003). Flow distribution from a hydrodynamic UNET model was used to calculate nutrient loadings and retention, to determine if the Maurepas swamps were a suitable location for restoration. The analysis predicted that 90-95% of introduced nitrate – the nutrient of concern – would be assimilated in the wetlands and would therefore not impact downstream water quality. A geographic information system (GIS) can provide a useful tool in the restoration planning process. To guide a joint federal and state project to restore a 300-ha coastal wetland on western Lake Erie, an historical analysis was conducted to determine factors that had contributed to the degradation of the wetland as well as physical conditions to be recreated during the restoration process (Kowalski and Wilcox 1999). Large-scale aerial photographs dating from 1940 through 1994 were interpreted to delineate major wetland vegetation types and boundaries of a pre-existing protective barrier beach. These data were digitized using a geographic information system (GIS). The geospatial data were supplemented by paleoecological and sedimetological analyses to identify the relationships between wetland vegetation, water levels, and sediment supply from littoral drift. This enabled project planners to identify the need to construct a dike to replace the protective function of the historical barrier beach, because near term natural reestablishment was unlikely. In New England, researchers developed the Marsh Response to Hydrological Modifications (MRHM) model as a predictive tool to evaluate various restoration alternatives in restricted tidal marshes (Boumans et al. 2002). The model output provides expected tidal ranges, water discharges, and flood potential for various culvert installation alternatives. The results of the model can be used to determine the correct tidal regime for salt marsh vegetation establishment. In San Francisco Bay, hydrological modeling was conducted as part of a feasibility study to restore approximately 4,000 hectares of inactive salt ponds and associated remnant sloughs and wetlands. Modelers employed one-dimensional and two-dimensional models to characterize existing physical conditions and to simulate the complex flow field in large open ponds, small slough channels, and rivers (Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. and DHI Water and Environment 2002). This information provided information to compare project alternatives in subsequent phases of the study. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) proposes to increase freshwater inputs from upland sources to re-establish historical estuarine conditions in Florida nearshore environments. A seagrass model modified to include a short-term salinity response function was used to evaluate the effect of various freshwater inputs and the associated decrease in salinity on seagrass species (Lirman and Cropper 2003). The results indicated that Thalassia testudinum would continue to be a dominant component of the nearshore except under drastically lower salinity regimes. The multiple benefits of using ecological models in the planning process for mangrove restoration are described and applied in a recent case study (Twilley et al. 1998). Models can describe expected trajectories of mangrove development under variable conditions at site and regional levels. Thus, models support the establishment of realistic goals with realistic time frames and the selection of critical monitoring variables (Twilley et al. 1998). Models can improve the understanding of the relative effects of ecological and geophysical processes operating at different scales, helping to improve the design, implementation and adaptive management of the project (Twilley et al. 1998). However, the authors stress that models cannot replace field studies and should be considered a complementary tool. Site SelectionWhenever possible site selection should be carried out as part of an estuary-wide or watershed restoration plan. The Hudson-Rariton Estuary Project uses an iterative process for identifying problems and ecological restoration opportunities in the highly urban estuary (HRE Project 2004). The Comprehensive Restoration Improvement Plan addresses habitat fragmentation by identifying combinations of restoration opportunities in the context of watershed and regional needs rather than just site specific needs and benefits. Site selection and prioritization in the restoration planning process involve three general steps: 1) assessment and characterization of the study area or region, 2) development of site selection criteria, and 3) prioritization of potential sites. Assessment and Characterization Site assessment involves the collection of information about an area as necessary in order to adequately characterize or describe the past, present, and future conditions. This process can be done over a broad region to determine the best possible locations for restoration sites or the assessment might be at a smaller site-specific scale to determine whether a site would be suitable for restoration. The methods for conducting this phase of site selection can vary widely, depending on available information and the level of effort afforded to characterization. The more information collected for an assessment leads to a more detailed characterization, resulting in better-informed site selection. Useful assessment information includes historical habitat extent, surveys on substrate and vegetation, elevation data, and physical factors controlling habitat development (Dean et al. 2001;Williams and Thom 2001;Williams et al. 2003;Williams 2001). Data may need to be collected specifically for the purpose of determining site suitability. For example, seismic equipment and remotely operated vehicles were used in site selection for coral reef restoration off the coast of Florida (Japp 2003). If possible, socio-economic information should be included in the characterization. This data can include growth-management data, land use and zoning of surrounding areas, and future build-out scenarios. The extensive resources spent on restoration warrant a complete evaluation of these data sources to ensure that the restored area will not be degraded by future development. The San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999) identifies numerous socioeconomic studies to evaluate potential restoration sites including economic analysis, aesthetic considerations, cultural investigations, and real estate studies. The use of geographic information systems (GIS) is instrumental in integrating dissimilar data into a manageable decision-making tool. GIS also incorporates elements of the landscape, such as the type and impact of land uses adjacent to the site and the position of the site within the watershed. Numerous entities throughout the country are using this method for determining suitable restoration sites. For example, in New Hampshire, a site-selection model was developed to determine the best locations for eelgrass transplanting (Short et al. 2002). The model synthesizes available historic data, conditions required for eelgrass growth, and field measurements using GIS. Efforts are currently underway to incorporate the model into an interactive CD-ROM (Short 2003). The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources developed a method for identifying potential restoration and enhancement sites (Williams 2002) using data on wetland type, soils, hydrography, land use, and land cover. The information was developed in layers using GIS to determine locations where conditions existed for restoration. A similar method was described by Gersib (2000) in Washington using wetland inventories and hydric soil data to determine potential sites. The sites were then overlayed on aerial photos to confirm the sites potential. This information was used in conjunction with other information such as wetland function potential, ecological problems in the study area, and community needs. Criteria Development The second step in the site selection process is the development of specific criteria for restoration sites, such as level of site alteration, proximity to healthy wetlands, and target functions. The criteria will vary depending on the goals for restoration. In addition, conditions of the study area can contribute to criteria development depending on the level of urbanization and types of land uses in the area. Examples of criteria used for restoration site selection can be found in most restoration plans and in A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2002). Table 2 shows examples of restoration site evaluation criteria from Fidalgo Bay, Washington (Antrim et al. 2003), the Columbia River Estuary (Johnson et al. 2003), and the Peconic Estuary, New York (Peconic Estuary Habitat Restoration Workgroup 2000). Developing measurable criteria helps ensure the accuracy of the prioritization process and the likelihood of success. Prioritization Site prioritization approaches often include a quantitative or semi-quantitative ranking protocol based on site-selection criteria (e.g., see Table 2). The document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2002) provides a four step approach for prioritizing sites and recommends that separate lists should be prepared for each estuary or region. Within the CWPPRA program, annual priority lists for restoration projects are formulated with interagency and public involvement (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2001). Proposed projects are assessed and ranked on a number of criteria, including cost effectiveness, longevity, sustainability, risk and uncertainty, supporting partnerships, public support, and support for the CWPPRA Restoration Plan. Projects are also evaluated for environmental benefits using the Wetland Value Assessment, a quantitative, habitat-based assessment that uses historical wetland-loss data and scientific models. Prioritization is critical to make certain that limited funds for restoration are spent on the best possible sites. The site-selection process helps ensure that sites meet decided upon criteria, are ecologically sound, fit within region-wide plans, and benefit the community.
|
|||||||||
NOAA Coastal Services Center
2234 South Hobson Avenue • Charleston, SC 29405-2413
843-740-1200 (phone) • 843-740-1224 (fax)
Directions to the NOAA Coastal Services Center
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Serivice
Privacy Policy
Link Policy
Contact the NOAA Coastal Services Center
Updated on July 24, 2007