Coastal Services Center

---

For the Expert: Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration

---

< Introduction | Planning >

Components of a Restoration Project

The five components of a systematic approach to a restoration project are planning, implementation, performance assessment, adaptive management, and dissemination of results (Figure 1). Specific features of each of these components are detailed throughout this paper. They are not new, but represent a convergence of techniques that is evident in a national coastal restoration strategy (RAE & NOAA 2002), guidelines of the Society for Ecological Restoration (Clewell et al. 2000), a national techniques manual (Sea Grant 2002), and major coastal restoration efforts across the country: Rhode Island (University of Rhode Island 2003), Chesapeake Bay (Batiuk et al. 2000, 1992), Florida Everglades (USACE & SFWMD 1999), Louisiana coastal wetlands (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2001), Tijuana Estuary (Zedler 2001a), San Francisco Bay Delta (Josselyn and Buchholz 1984), and the more recent Columbia River estuary (Johnson et al. 2003) and Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem (Fresh et al. 2003), which are still in the planning stages. These techniques are applied to projects in large regional programs such as these, as well as to more isolated projects such as eelgrass restoration at the Clinton ferry terminal in Puget Sound (Southard et al. 2003). The eelgrass transplantation at Clinton, Washington is coordinated with ferry system operations and expansions, which provides opportunity for directed experimentation within a robust monitoring and management program (Borde et al. 2003). The Louisiana coastal wetlands and Clinton ferry terminal are examples of a large program and a relatively small project, respectively, in which those components that are often neglected in favor of implementation – planning, monitoring for performance assessment, and adaptive management – were included and funded early on.

1. Planning
Planning includes the establishment of goals, objectives, and performance criteria for the project. Factors to consider in setting goals and performance criteria include time scale, spatial scale, structural conditions, functional conditions, self-maintenance, and the potential resilience of the system to disturbance. The type of system to be restored is determined, and the site is selected. Site selection involves examination of historical or predisturbance conditions, degree of present alteration, present ecological conditions, and other factors. Determining the level of physical effort, producing engineering designs, costing, scheduling, and producing contingency plans are all part of project planning. Stakeholders and the interested public should be identified and included in project planning.

2. Implementation
The implementation phase begins with any required assessments, such as an assessment of on-site contamination, though these may also be conducted in the planning phase. To avoid commonplace mistakes during construction, the operation must be monitored by someone who is aware of the project goals. As partners in the success of the project, engineers and contractors play a key role in ensuring that decisions during construction result in improvement of the system toward the goals. Also critical is the communication of those engineering aspects of the program that might necessitate a revision of goals or performance criteria.

3. Performance Assessment: Development of the Monitoring Program
The monitoring program provides direct feedback on the development of the restored system with respect to performance criteria, using measurements of monitoring parameters. Field-sampling methods are selected for each parameter. The selection of appropriate reference or control sites in the vicinity of the restoration project is critical to analysis of monitoring data in order to identify trends that are not project-related.

4. Adaptive Management
The monitoring program is used as a tool to assess project success and identify any problems that might affect progression toward the project goals. Broadly speaking, the options available to the manager are no action, maintenance of the system, and modification of the project goals. If the monitoring program identifies deviation from the predicted trajectory of ecosystem development, adjustments can and should be made. Adaptive management of this kind has been recommended at a national level and is in use on many major restoration projects.

5. Dissemination of Results
It is important for complete information about the project to be disseminated as widely as possible (Hackney 2000). Yet, our national review of restoration projects (Shreffler et al. 1995) and a recent review of wetland mitigation projects in New England (Minkin 2003) indicated that record-keeping was given low priority in many projects. All aspects of the project should be documented, to show the effect of decisions, and progress toward goals. Planning for future projects requires such information to help minimize costs and maximize the probability of success.

Though the five components are displayed separately in Figure 1, in practice, coastal restoration is an iterative process, as represented by the arrows. Beginning in the planning phase, as new information is generated, it is incorporated into the conceptual model and plans are revised accordingly. Then during implementation, conditions on the ground may dictate reevaluation and possible alterations of plans. Through performance assessment and adaptive management, the development of the system is monitored and evaluated, and additional restoration measures are implemented as necessary. Management goals for the system may evolve based on information generated at the site or on the evolving state of the science. The dissemination of results facilitates information sharing by practitioners, which enables restoration practices to advance, makes restoration science more robust, and improves the chances of success at future projects.