Coastal Services Center

---

For the Expert: National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration

---

< Community Involvement and Education | Conclusion and Acknowledgements >

Discussion

In recent years, efforts to improve the success of coastal restoration have been increasing. Guidelines were outlined in Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration (RAE and ERF 1999) and were the basis for development of A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (RAE and NOAA 2002). Other guidance is available in the National Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Manual (Ridlington 2002) and Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands (Zedler 2001). In addition, Diefenderfer et al. (2003) put forth a systematic approach to address uncertainties related to coastal restoration. These efforts exemplify the trend in coastal restoration toward a greater understanding of restored systems, improved communication, and better coordination.

Perhaps the most important lesson of this review is that we must learn from our experiences, whether it is from deliberate experimentation or the result of problem solving. Innovation is critical to improving the science of restoration. The science has evolved from early success in planting of vegetation (e.g., Spartina marshes) to more complex and innovative methods. This development has resulted because the models for successful plant establishment did not always work. The most significant gains were the result of assessment monitoring programs that supplied an understanding of the factors affecting success. Although improving the predictability of a project's success is a critical area for research, restorationists have learned that improving success depends on a strategy that can include a multitude of facets. These components vary from improved site assessment and experimental manipulation of the site to test plantings and removal of disturbances. The importance of partnerships for project funding and long-term site stewardship is now widely recognized. Innovations are spread throughout all facets of restoration projects.

We attempted to capture examples of unique and innovative approaches to restoration across most coastal and estuarine habitat types. By doing this, we hope that others can benefit from the application of these unique and innovative approaches. Below we summarize the findings of the review in eight topics that have emerged from our coastal restoration experiences and from the experiences in the hundreds of projects evaluated in this review.

Incorporate experimentation

Several examples show that simple experiments can go a long way in improving the success of restoration projects. Experimentation does not have to be complicated and highly technical. In most cases, simple tests that help decide between two methods may be all that is needed. For example, test planting seagrass to evaluate the suitability of a site can help refine where planting should be carried out. We suspect that experimentation is a) used more often than reported because simple experiments are often not suitable for publications and b) not always used when needed to provide information that would reduce key uncertainties. Experimentation can also be incorporated as an integral feature of a project so that future projects at the site or in the region can benefit from the information. Finally, adaptive management relies on experiments and monitoring, and provides a framework within which experimentation can be incorporated into a project or restoration program.

Plan at the watershed or estuary level

In the past, the restoration site was the focus of attention, with little regard for the broader landscape. There has been a fundamental shift in approach that has proven successful in many areas where the watershed (or other larger-scale ecological unit) is considered in planning restoration at sites. The two basic reasons for this change are: 1) to maintain restoration sites in the long-term, the processes (e.g., hydrology) that control maintenance must be functional in the system; and, 2) if a site is restored to help a certain highly motile species (e.g., migratory fish and birds), but the habitat requirements are inadequate for maintenance of the population at a larger scale, the actions taken at the site will provide little or no benefit for the species. The probability of a site restoration working is improved if the landscape processes are relatively intact (Mitchell 1981; Shreffler and Thom 1993).

Choose appropriate sites

Ultimately, site selection can be summed up in the rule of real estate: "location, location, location." Often in the past, and probably into the foreseeable future, restoration project sites will be those that are presented as an opportunity rather than being selected from among a suite of potential sites using objective, science-based criteria. However, the primary factor explaining project failure is inadequate site conditions. Realizing this, site-selection methods are being developed to improve the process. The best methods appear to be those that rely on the scientific understanding of the requirements (e.g., elevation, hydrology) of habitats, and what must be done to a site to make these conditions correct for the target habitat. Using science-based criteria, the sites can be narrowed to those most likely to prove successful. Other criteria such as land ownership, public opinion, and surrounding land uses can then be factored in to choose the best possible site.

Form creative partnerships

Restoration is generally an expensive endeavor and is driven by the ability to provide adequate financial support for all phases of a project. What restorationists have realized is that to accomplish a project, funding will likely come from a variety of sources in both cash and in-kind contributions. Knowledge of what needs to be accomplished to make a project happen and who might contribute as a partner in the process is a key element of successful restoration projects. As much as scientists tend to shy away from it, politics also can play a key role in a project. Having a wide base of support helps in funding the project, can provide needed expertise and labor, and also helps provide political support.

Identify challenges and set appropriate goals

Setting a realistic and clear goal for a project, while acknowledging the uncertainties and challenges up-front, provides a guide for project success. If there is any consensus in restoration, it is that a clear goal statement is required to direct what is done on a project. A vague or unrealistic goal statement only sets a project up for failure. The simplest projects (e.g., replacing a nonfunctional tide gate with a self-regulating tide gate) that offer obvious benefits can also offer major challenges. The challenges can operate at all levels and scales of intensity from the technical to interpersonal. Realizing these challenges up-front and developing a strategy to deal with them will help smooth the planning and implementation process. Here is where technical experts, community involvement specialists, and politicians can all play a vital role. Rare is the person who can operate at all these levels, although many have tried and have encountered a high level of frustration and disappointment in the process. Although fighting for a solid project on technical grounds may seem logical and obvious to some, political and interpersonal issues are equally powerful.

Establish long-term funding for monitoring

Monitoring is the basis for improving restoration science. Monitoring in the past often has been either not done or poorly conducted. Monitoring does not need to be complex and expensive to provide critical data needed to manage the project and to help make decisions on alternative actions. Monitoring is critical to applying adaptive management as a framework for restoration. Many innovative methods are published on how to monitor key variables at restoration sites. Funding is required to conduct monitoring in most cases, and the source of funding should be reasonably assured for the long-term. Volunteers have been used successfully and very effectively to monitor routine parameters. Training volunteers, managing the data, and producing summary reports is best handled by a person or group accustomed to doing this. Support for these tasks often requires funding.

Use adaptive management to reduce uncertainty

We can no longer walk away from a project assuming it will work as expected. Most projects do not end up exactly as planned, and many end up quite different than predicted. When projects involve little funding, this may not be an issue, but for projects costing several million dollars, a failure is not acceptable. Many large programs are using adaptive management principles to try innovative and uncertain methods and to learn from these methods. As mentioned above, clear goal statements, acknowledging uncertainties and challenges, and an effective and focused monitoring program are all elements of an adaptive management program.

Involve the community

In the words of Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Community involvement and support was cited in the literature and by those interviewed as a common element leading to successful projects. The community often is the key political force supporting a project, which will drive funding and other aspects of a program (e.g., permits). In addition, the community is an excellent source of stewardship. The community is invested in its region and generally wants to see the area improved. Community members often see restoration as adding value to their property, creating educational and recreational opportunities, and enhancing the overall quality of life.