Coastal Services Center

---

For the Expert: Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration

---

< Abstract | Components of a Restoration Project >

Introduction

Objective

The goal of this paper is to present a framework that has proven to be effective and efficient in coastal restoration projects, providing a common approach for people working together for coastal restoration and helping to bridge the gap between scientists and the interested public. It is hoped that this framework will be useful to the partnerships that have proven to be important to many restoration projects, often involving local volunteers as well as personnel from governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with varying backgrounds in restoration ecology. It is intended as a review and guide for environmental planners, regulatory personnel, engineers, consultants, college students, and others involved in coastal restoration projects or planning. It may also be of interest to researchers in the field of restoration ecology and conservation biology.

This paper presents a systematic approach to coastal restoration projects in five phases: planning, implementation, performance assessment, adaptive management, and dissemination of results. It was developed in conjunction with a companion document, a National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration(Borde et al. 2003), which focuses on methods. The systematic approach describes twenty aspects of the planning process that are important whether the project involves seagrass, coral, an estuary, kelp, salt marsh, mangrove, or other coastal habitat. The approach has been developed through direct experience in designing, implementing and monitoring restoration projects over the past 18 years, and informed by readings, discussions with colleagues, and the review of coastal restoration efforts across the United States (Borde et al. 2003). Special attention is given to monitoring, an often neglected component of restoration that is critical to the scientific process as well as to restoration success.

The lack of a systematic approach hinders the development of reliable restoration technologies, which affects our ability to design and implement successful restoration projects. Based on our restoration experience and review of projects and programs, we argue that a systematic approach will benefit most if not all types of restoration projects on all scales. There are few documented cases in which pre-project predictions of ecosystem functions and the timeline of development have been accurate (NRC 1992, 1994; Thayer 1992; Wilber et al. 2000). The National Research Council (NRC) (1992) concluded that restoration planning needs to be conducted in a more systematic and rigorous manner. The primary point of failure identified was the statement of goals for the project. Vague goals resulted in misdirected design and poorly functioning systems. Similarly, in reviewing over 200 restoration projects conducted over 15 years, Shreffler et al. (1995) identified an absence of standardized methods for establishing goals, performance criteria, and monitoring. The NRC (2001) again recommended that project goals and performance standards be made specific.

In developing this approach, we have relied heavily on recommendations from numerous sources. Key national syntheses include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Symposium on Habitat Restoration of 1990 (Thayer 1992), and the Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration symposium in 1998 (Wilber et al. 2000). Recently, a special issue of the Marine Pollution Bulletin was also devoted to the topic (Edwards et al. 2000). Three NRC studies are particularly relevant: Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems(1992), Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology(1994), and Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act(2001). Other key reports, specific to ecosystems or regions, are referenced throughout this paper.

While it may be argued that we should not try to restore ecosystems until we understand their components and long-term functioning, we maintain that the systematic planning, implementation and assessment of the restoration project is an important part of the learning process (Kusler and Kentula 1990a). Constructing a functioning system is perhaps the most complex experiment a scientist can undertake. It is analogous to engineering practices, in that the application of information gained by failed or imperfect designs will foster success.

Restoration Opportunities

Restoration opportunities are abundant in every coastal habitat type, whether nearshore or estuarine. Examples at various scales, many of which are associated with estuaries, include marine and tidal freshwater marshes; tidally-influenced river and stream corridors; unvegetated tidal flats; river deltas; deepwater swamps; coastal grasslands; maritime and riverine forests; coastal forested and unforested wetlands; coral reefs, seagrass meadows; mangroves; kelp beds or other macroalgae; marine and tidal freshwater submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in general; shellfish beds; the bottom and the water column; and rocky and soft shorelines. Innumerable local projects exist nationwide, supported to varying degrees by governmental agencies, NGOs and community volunteers. Several large-scale coastal restoration projects, each of which encompasses multiple habitats, have also been initiated in recent years: for example, Puget Sound, the Florida Everglades, the Columbia River estuary, Chesapeake Bay, and the Louisiana coastal wetlands.

The goal of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA) (33 USC 2901) is to restore one million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010 (Federal Register 2002). In contrast, less than 20 years ago, the restoration of a 10-acre wetland was considered a relatively large project (Simenstad and Thom 1996). Coastal America, a partnership for coastal protection, has to date helped restore 28,000 acres of wetlands (Vogt 2002). Other national programs, such as the NOAA Community Based Restoration Program, also support large networks of projects. Projects that are small in size can, of course, be of large significance within the landscape. The systematic approach to coastal habitat restoration described in this paper is applicable to projects at all scales.

Present Context of Coastal Restoration

Approximately half of the population of the United States, a growing number, lives in coastal areas (NOAA 2002; EPA 2002), and coastal ecosystems are under constant pressure from development and exploitation. Coastal ecosystems have been reduced by conversion to agriculture or other development, hydrologic alterations, water quality degradation, sedimentation, erosion, damage associated with vessels, and other factors. The coastal wetlands of Louisiana, for example, have been reduced by over 768,000 acres in the last 50 years (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2001). Short of drastically curbing population growth, we see that the main challenge to coastal restoration science in this century is to balance coastal development with the maintenance of clean and functional coastal ecosystems. Although the impetus for coastal restoration is often public concern about the state of the environment, it is justified by the monetary values of ecosystem goods and services (Costanza et al. 1997; Gosselink et al. 1974), and by non-resource values such as ecosystem stabilization and environmental baseline monitoring (Ehrenfeld 1976). Although major accounting systems still do not treat ecosystems as economic assets (Repetto 1990), the need for coastal restoration and mitigation is now enacted in federal laws such as the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) ( 16 U.S.C. 3951).

How can coastal development and exploitation be continued while improving coastal ecosystems? The answer is probably best captured by the concept of sustainable development(National Research Council 1999; Urbanska et al. 1997; World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Development is the qualitative change in a system's complexity and configuration, as opposed to growth, which refers to a quantitative increase in the size of the system (Meffe et al. 1994). Sustainable development means that society conducts itself in a manner that preserves ecosystems for the future by encouraging actions that conserve what exists, and restore what has been damaged or lost (Meffe et al. 1994).

For example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the estuaries and nearshore areas of the Pacific Northwest provide critical feeding and rearing habitat for salmon populations (Simenstad and Cordell 2000; Williams et al. 2001). Salmon restoration efforts, once highly focused in the watersheds where salmon spawn, are now emphasizing the estuary and nearshore. However, it is common sense that any restoration of these latter habitats will only benefit a salmon population that is conserved through controls of stressors such as over-fishing. Conserved habitats, such as regulated marine protected areas (MPA), serve as source areas that can supply surplus recruits to a region (Hastings and Botsford 1999; Pulliam 1988; Roberts et al. 2001). To put it simply, if salmon have been totally lost from a watershed-estuarine-nearshore system, it makes little sense to restore habitats in that system without also reintroducing and protecting the salmon.

Sustainable development necessitates that restoration projects be considered in a landscape context. External influences may affect the performance of restored coastal ecosystems, even as changes brought about by restoration affect surrounding areas. Coral reefs, for example, may benefit from the restoration of nearby seagrasses or mangroves where reef species spend parts of their life cycles (Maragos 1992). The study of such interactions has intensified since the theory of island biogeography was formulated by MacArthur and Wilson (1963, 1967) and Preston (1962a, 1962b). Site-specific evaluation of the landscape in the planning phase of a restoration project is critical. Attributes such as size, shape, configuration, and connectedness, considered under the rubric of landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1981), dramatically affect the net functional habitat provided by a coastal restoration project.

For sustainable development to succeed, the goal today must not be simple maintenance of the status quo, but a net improvement of the ecosystem. Coastal ecosystems, such as coral reefs, estuaries, mangroves, kelp forests, and eelgrass beds, are shrinking from pre-colonization levels or experiencing diminished functionality (Field 1998; Fonseca et al.1998; Thayer 1992; Turgeon et al. 2002). The NRC (2001) has shown that the no-net-loss policy for wetlands is not working. Simply put, we have failed to constrain development to minimize damage; we do not compensate for damages immediately so as to offset any losses; and we do not have a high degree of predictability in the outcome of restoration efforts. This means that the size, quality, location, and viability of a restoration project meant to compensate for development must overwhelmingly and obviously compensate for the expected losses. This approach provides a cushion to account for uncertainties in the ability of combined conservation and restoration efforts to meet their goals. As the level of experience, body of knowledge, and record of success increases then the level of uncertainty decreases along with the magnitude of effort required to compensate for uncertainty.