Coastal Services Center

---

---

Quick Links Assessment and Characterization Development of Site Selection Prioritization Sites for Success References

Site Selection and Prioritization

Public input to the planning process for the CWPPRA program. Courtesy: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Deciding which restoration project to undertake can often be a daunting task for resource managers. However, the decision process can be made less cumbersome if it is broken down into three general steps: 1) assessment and characterization of the study area 2) development of site selection criteria, and 3) prioritization of potential sites. New technologies and methods are now being used by planners, resource managers, and permit applicants in the site selection and ranking process to make optimal choices for locating, conducting, and sustaining restoration project sites.

Figure 1. Example of historical habitat mapping for use in restoration site selection from the Lower Columbia River, Oregon. Courtesy: Battelle.

Assessment and Characterization of Study Area

Thoroughly understanding the characteristics of a particular area, including biological, physical, and socioeconomic factors, is critical to selecting the restoration site. Basically, the more accurate the information the restoration team has, the easier it will be to select an appropriate and successful site and develop a comprehensive restoration plan.

The methods for assessing and characterizing each site can vary widely, depending on the level of available information and the level of resources dedicated to characterizing the site. Data such as historical habitat extent (Figure 1), surveys on substrate and vegetation, elevation data, and physical factors controlling habitat development are all useful sources of assessment information. However, in many cases, data gaps exist and therefore it is possible that, in addition to gathering historic data, new biological or physical data may need to be collected specifically for the purpose of determining site suitability. It is also important to include socio-economic information in the characterization. Examples of important data sets include growth-management data, land use and zoning information, and future build-out scenarios, as well as the preliminary costs to complete the restoration project.

Geographic information systems (GIS) can be an invaluable tool for integrating the multi-disciplinary data into a manageable decision-making tool. GIS incorporates data that describe the elements of the landscape, such as the type and impact of land uses adjacent to the site.

Numerous projects throughout the country are using GIS to assist in identifying suitable restoration sites. For example, in New Hampshire, a GIS-based site-selection model was developed to determine the best locations for eelgrass transplanting (http://marine.unh.edu/jel/faculty/fred2/fredshort.htm). The model integrates historical environmental data, conditions required for eelgrass growth, and field measurements to provide comparable site information for each potential location (Figure 2).

The site selection process for the New Hampshire site selection model is divided into three phases:

1. A preliminary transplant suitability index (PTSI) is applied to pre-screen and eliminate unsuitable sites (Table 1).
2. Field measurements of light availability and bioturbation are conducted and survival and growth of test transplants is measured at priority test sites identified by the PTSI.
3. A transplant suitability index (TSI) score is calculated for each site based on the PTSI and the results of the field measurements. Results and conclusions from this selection process are visually supported through the GIS mapping of the data collected. Efforts are currently underway to incorporate the model into an interactive CD-ROM.

Table 1. Parameters and ratings for pre-screening and eliminating unsuitable eelgrass transplant sites (maximum possible score = 16).

Parameter (source)	PTSI rating
Historical eelgrass distribution (distribution maps)	1 for previously unvegetated 2 for previously vegetated
Current eelgrass distribution (distribution maps)	0 for currently vegetated 1 for currently unvegetated
Proximity to natural eelgrass bed (map or GIS calculation)	0 for < 100 m 1 for ≥ 100 m
Sediment (distribution map)	0 for rock or cobble 1 for > 70% silt / clay 2 for cobble free with < 70% silt / clay
Wave exposure (map or GIS calculation)	0 for > mean +2 SD a 1 for ≤ mean +2 SD a
Water depth (NOAA navigation charts)	0 for too shallow or too deep 1 for shallow edge of reference bed 2 for average of reference bed
Water quality (based on available phytoplankton pigments, DIN, TON, Secchi depth, eutrophication index, or habitat requirements)	1 for deep edge of reference bed 0 for poor 1 for fair 2 for good
a Measurements at local natural (reference) eelgrass beds

Figure 3. GIS data including wetland and soil type, satellite imagery (LandSat) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data, used by the North Carolina DCM for the restoration site selection process. Courtesy: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management.

For site selection in coastal wetlands, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) developed a method for identifying and ranking potential restoration and enhancement sites in a GIS using data on wetland type, soils, hydrography, land use, and land cover. (http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Wetlands/wetlands.htm) The watershed-based data is used by restoration project teams as a planning tool to assess potential site conditions and to evaluate the potential for success. Example data from the GIS is shown in Figure 3.

The four GIS-based mapping procedures developed by North Carolina are 1) wetland type mapping, 2) wetland functional assessment mapping, 3) potential wetland restoration and enhancement mapping, and 4) the restoration functional assessment, which estimates the levels and types of functions a wetland restoration site could perform if restored. These procedures are based on function, not acreage, i.e., they help to locate potential restoration sites that replace a wetland's function in its watershed, not just lost wetland acreage. The approach can also be used to map and classify existing wetlands and provide information on how they function.
> Return to top

Development of Site Selection Criteria

Developing selection criteria is the second step in the site selection process. Criteria can be developed before, after, or concurrently with the site assessments and characterizations, because the development of the selection criteria is an independent activity. Criteria should never be established based on the availability of information about the sites.

The selection criteria will vary and are usually very much dependent upon the goals of the restoration project and on the conditions of the study area. Examples of selection criteria for restoration sites are the costs or level of effort needed to conduct the restoration project and available funding, level of site alteration, proximity to healthy wetlands, resulting function, and whether the restoration project is closely related to an action within a larger management plan such as a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) or another watershed-based management plan. The most successful selection criteria are scientifically and quantitatively based. Developing measurable criteria helps ensure the accuracy of the prioritization process and the likelihood of success.

Examples of criteria used for restoration site selection are listed in Table 2. Details regarding these criteria can be found in the restoration plans from Fidalgo Bay, Washington (Antrim and others 2003); the Columbia River Estuary, Oregon (Johnson and others 2003); and the Peconic Estuary, New York (Peconic Estuary Habitat Restoration Workgroup 2000).

Table 2. Examples of evaluation criteria for use in selecting restoration sites.

Peconic Estuary Restoration Evaluation Criteria	Fidalgo Bay Restoration Evaluation Criteria	Lower Columbia River Restoration Evaluation Criteria
Ecological Lost habitat value Level of degradation Historical justification Proposed project size Habitat contiguity/adjacent land use Target restoration functions Promoting landscape habitat diversity Providing benefit to state-listed species Proximity to state/local designated areas Logistical Type of ownership Relationship to broad planning efforts Current stage of planning achieved Committed/leveraged funds Probability of success Support from community/user groups Level of post-restoration maintenance Enhancing public access and awareness Enhancing commercial and recreational uses Benefit to commercial recreational species	Feasibility Opportunity to improve ecosystem function Site protection Potential for sediment deposition/transport processes to support sustained function Potential to benefit threatened and endangered species Probability of success Habitat connectivity Restore or replace limited habitat Sustainability of habitat functions Type of habitat replacement Timing of implementation	General Criteria Habitat connectivity Areas of historic habitat loss Linkages to reference sites Passive habitat restoration over creation Monitoring and evaluation Community support and participation Specific Criteria Existing Conditions Size Complexity Accessibility Habitat connectivity Potential Conditions Potential to conform to natural habitat structure, processes, and functions Potential for self-maintenance Potential benefit to nearshore-dependent threatened and endangered species Potential to improve ecosystem functions substantially

> Return to top

Prioritization of Potential Sites

Figure 4. Public input to the planning process for the CWPPRA program. Courtesy: US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

Once the assessment and characterization and the selection criteria processes have been completed, site prioritization can begin. Site prioritization defines the order in which projects will be completed. It is an important step for guiding the yearly action plan for the restoration team, identifying necessary resources, and defining the need for potential partners. Approaches to prioritizing projects often include a quantitative or semi-quantitative ranking protocol for each potential site based on the selection criteria the team have established.

In many cases, the prioritization process is conducted among a larger group of stakeholders throughout the community. Stakeholder involvement can assist in developing public support and can also assist in identifying potential project partners.

Within the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program, annual priority lists for restoration projects are formulated with interagency and public involvement (Figure 4). Proposed projects are assessed on a number of criteria, including cost effectiveness, longevity/sustainability, risk/uncertainty, supporting partnerships, public support, conflict with other projects within the basin, and support for the Breaux Act 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 (more information available at: http://www.lacoast.gov/ and in "The 2000 evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects").
> Return to top

Choosing Sites for Success

Ultimately, site selection can be summed up in the rule of real estate: "location, location, location." Often in the past, the selection of restoration project sites was not based on objective scientific criteria but rather simply because the opportunities presented themselves – the sites were available. However, the primary factor explaining project failure is inadequate site conditions. Having an opportunity to use a site for restoration should be only one criterion among many for selecting the site. Realizing this, site-selection methods are being developed to improve the process. The best methods appear to be those that rely on a 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. By using tools such as GIS more fully to characterize potential restoration sites; developing evaluation criteria that take into account ecological, socioeconomic, and ownership and maintenance factors; and involving the public in the site selection process, potential restoration sites can be narrowed to those most likely to succeed.
> Return to top

References

Antrim, L.D., and others. 2003. Plan for habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement: Fidalgo Bay and Guemes Channel. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Richland, WA.

Dean, T., and others. Skagit Estuary Restoration Assessment: Identifying and prioritizing areas for habitat restoration in Puget Sound's largest rural estuary. http://www.pugetsound.org/blueprints/skagit_assessment.pdf.

Fuss, J.D. 2000. Identifying potential wetland restoration sites for estuary-wide restoration planning in Oregon: A pilot project in the Coos estuary. College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Covallis, OR.

Gersib, R.A. 2002. The Need for Process-driven, Watershed-based Wetland Restoration: The Washington State Experience. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. Berne, NY. http://www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/pdf/tiner_2002_wshed.pdf.

Johnson, G.E., and others. 2003. "A plan for ecological restoration of salmon habitat in the lower Columbia River estuary, 90% draft submittal." Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, and Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2001. The 2000 evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/program/program.asp?r=206.

NOAA. 1992. C-CAP - Changes in Land Cover in the Columbia River Estuary: 1989-1992 (CD-ROM). NOAA Coastal Services Center. Charleston, SC.

Peconic Estuary Habitat Restoration Workgroup. 2000. Habitat restoration plan for the Peconic estuary. Peconic Estuary Program. Riverhead, NY.

Short, F.T., and others. 2002. Site-Selection Model for Optimal Transplantation of Eelgrass Zostera Marina in the Northeastern US. Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 227253-267. http://www.int-res.com.

Thomas, D.W. 1983. Changes in the Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Columbia River Task Force. Astoria, OR.

Williams, B.W., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and A. Bailey. 2003. Historic nearshore habitat change analysis: Fidalgo Bay and Guemes Channel.

Williams, G.D. and R.M. Thom. 2001. Development of Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Protection and Restoration: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, WA.

Williams, K.B. 2002. The Potential Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Site Identification Procedure: A geographic information system for targeting wetland restoration and enhancement. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.

Additional information and citations are available in:

Borde, A.B., and others. 2003. National Review of Successful and Innovative Restoration Projects. Prepared for NOAA Coastal Services Center, by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, WA
> Return to top