A NATIONAL STRATEGY to RESTORE COASTAL and ESTUARINE HABITAT Dear Friend

Home , Cambria (yacht), FourQ, Grand Bay (Georgia)

A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO RESTORE COASTAL AND ESTUARINE HABITAT Dear Friend,

The rich interplay between the land and the sea creates one of America’s most valuable natural, economic, and cultural res o u r ces—its estuaries and coasts. In this unique nexus— characterized by the dynamic blending of salt and fresh water during tidal cycles—abundant life is created and nurtu re d .

Estuaries nurtu r e not only shellfish, fish, and wildlife, but also nourish the human spirit. We ar e from the sea, and we are continually lured back to its edge, rei n f o r cing the kinship we sh a r e with this place as we sail, fish, swim, and relax near a glistening bay or a rocky shore.

And yet, no place on earth more directly embodies the challenge of balancing human needs and the needs of other species than estuaries. By 2025, 75 percent of our population will live within 50 miles of the coast. We must learn how to develop our own habitat while also protecting and restoring the very essence of what binds us to our coasts.

Re s t o r e America’s Estuaries and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are pleased to present A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat, and we are grateful to the scores of scientists, restoration practitioners, program managers, and others who contributed their expertise and insights. This National Strategy takes a major step to w a r d reclaiming losses of the past 200 years. We look forwa r d to continued collaboration as we move forwa r d and reinvest in our coastal and estuarine habitats.

Best Regards ,

Mark Wol f - A rm s t ro n g Scott B. Gudes Pre s i d e n t Deputy Under Secret a r y Re s t o r e America’s Estuaries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n

COV E R PH O T O S , clockwise from top left: Steve Delaney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center; photographer unknown. BAC K CO V E R : NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center. A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO RESTORE COASTAL AND ESTUARINE HABITAT

April 2002

Restore America’s Estuaries Contents

Ex e c u t i v e Summary ...... 1

Chapter 1: In t ro d u c t i o n ...... 7

Chapter 2: Ob j e c t i v e s ...... 13

Chapter 3: Fra m e w o r k for Restoration Planning and Priority-S e t t i n g ...... 19

Chapter 4: Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning ...... 31

Pa r t I - Pacific North w e s t ...... 32

Pa r t 2 - California and the Pacific Islands ...... 47

Pa r t 3 - Gulf of Mexi c o ...... 68

Pa r t 4 - Southeast Atlantic ...... 83

Pa r t 5 - Northeast Atlantic ...... 10 9

Pa r t 6 - Great Lakes ...... 12 6

Chapter 5: Co n c l u s i o n s ...... 14 9

Ap p e n d i x : Fed e r al Restoration Pro g ra m s ...... 15 3 C H A P T E R 1

Introduction

stuaries and coasts are among America’s most valuable ocean, are linked biologically, chemically and physically. res o u r ces, providing a wide range of services that benefit humans and other species. However, like so many For the purposes of this document, coastal and estuarine habi- Enatural environments, estuaries and coastal habitats tat includes the Great Lakes, which contain many estuarine-like have been stressed and degraded by decades of human use and habitats. When the term “estuary” is used here, it generally development. As our population continues to be drawn to refers to the geographic area between the head of tide and the coastal areas, we struggle to find ways to pres e r ve and res t o r e do w n s t r eam terminus struc t u r e. Estuarine watersheds are divid- the qualities that attract us. Habitat restoration offers grea t ed into sub-watersheds, which extend upstream to the headwa- pr omise for reversing the trend of lost and degraded habitat ters of the system. The term “region” is used to denote a large r functions. Citizen’s groups, private organizations, universities or multi-state area identified for purposes of restoration plan- and governments are already conducting restoration activities ning. “Restoration” is defined here as the manipulation of the th r oughout the nation. While there are countless examples of physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site with successful restoration, it has become apparent that we are not the goal of ret u r ning self-sustaining natural or historic struc t u r e keeping up with the rate of habitat degradation and loss. We and functions to former or degraded habitat. need to develop a strategic approach to refocus our human and financial res o u r ces to establish priorities, set realistic expecta- SE RV I C E S PROV I D E D BY EST UA R I N E tions and work together to achieve greater benefits. A N D COA STA L HA B I TAT Estuaries and coastal areas are home to many ports and indus- In response to this need, a collaboration of scientists, commu- trial areas and the communities that depend on them. They nity leaders, organizations, and government at all levels built va r y in nature from the extensive sounds of North Carolina to on previous effo r ts to produce A National Strategy to Restore the urbanized shores of the San Francisco Bay, but all play vital Coastal and Estuarine Habitat. The Strategy serves to coordi n a t e roles in supporting our nation’s economy and the well-being of the various federal and non-federal coastal and estuarine habi- local citizens. In addition to providing access to maritime tat restoration effo r ts, to provide a comprehensive approach to trade, essential habitat for fisheries and rec r eational opportu n i - pr oject implementation, and to encourage partnerships for new ties, estuaries improve water quality and serve as buffers for restoration effo r ts. This document supplies an approach to coastal upland prop e rt y . restoring function to estuarine and coastal habitat; prov i d e s guidance on planning, selecting, and implementing res t o r a t i o n Estuaries are among the earth ’ s most productive natural sys- pr ojects; and describes the status of restoration planning tems. The nation’s estuarine and coastal waters provide critical ar ound the country. By implementing the approach prov i d e d habitat for various life stages of commercial fish and shellfish. he r e, we can recover and sustain the benefits that estuaries and Habitats such as marshes and mangroves provide refuge, forage coasts provide for us all. and rep r oductive opportunities for fishes, crustaceans, wading bi r ds and a variety of mammals. Estuaries are essential for the EST UA R I E S A N D COA STA L HA B I TAT su r vival and rep r oduction of many species of fish, shellfish and Estuaries are the vibrant zones where rivers mix with the sea. seagrasses. Shallow ponds and seed-producing vegetation are This mixing of freshwater and saltwater creates a mosaic of used by millions of migratory waterfowl every winter. Riparian habitat types, from mangroves and forest-fringed marshes to fo r ests are vital habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife. seagrass meadows and brackish sloughs. These connected coastal ecosystems work together to support a rem a r k a b l e Healthy estuaries and coastal areas help maintain clean water. diversity of flora and fauna and provide a myriad of other serv- Healthy and intact tidal wetlands significantly improve water ices and functions. quality by storing and filtering sediments, and assimilating or trapping nutrients which are taken up by wetland plants. Wit h - Coastal habitats provide an indispensable part of the nation’s out wetlands, no filter would exist for water making its way significant natural res o u r ces and sustain much of its economy. fr om the nation’s rivers and tributaries to the oceans. These habitats, from the headwaters of rivers to the open

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Coastal and estuarine habitats protect local communities from Total Estuaries Assessed Estuaries flooding, either by damping storm surges from the ocean or 99,465 square miles 28,687 square miles pr oviding storage for floodwaters coming downriver. In addition, riparian and wetland vegetation stabilize shorelines and pr event erosion. 68 % 32 % 16 , 2 0 5 12 , 4 8 2 No t As s e s s e d sq u a r e Go o d Im p a i re d sq u a r e Healthy estuary habitats make an important contribution to As s e s s e d mi l e s 56 % 44 % mi l e s local and national economies through tourism, commercial and rec r eational fishing, aquaculture and other income-prod u c i n g business sectors. With careful stewardship, these benefits for humans and wildlife can continue from generation to genera- Leading Pollutants/Stressors of Estuary Impairment ti o n . Pathogens (bacteria) 47 % TH E NE E D F O R COA STA L A N D EST UA R I N E Oxygen-Depleting Substan c e s 41 % A B I TAT E STO R AT I O N H R Me ta l s 27 % The coastal population of the United States is currently grow - ing faster than the nation’s overall population, a trend that is Nu t r i e n t s 23 % pr ojected to continue. People are flocking to our shorel i n e s , Thermal Modific a t i o n s 18 % putting more pres s u r es on estuarine and coastal habitat while PC B s 11 % requiring more ecosystem services from them. Coastal counties Priority Toxic Organic 6% make up only 11 percent of the land area in the lower 48 Ch e m i c a l s states, but density in coastal counties is nearly five times that in 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 the rest of the country. By 2010, 75 percent of the United Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles States population is expected to live within 50 miles of the coast. Leading Sources of Estuary Impairment

U.S. Population Municipal Point Sources 28 % Distribution Urban Run o f f/Storm Sewer s 28 % Atmospheric Deposition 23 % Industrial Discharges 15 % Agr i c u l t u r e 15 % Land Disposal of Was t e s 12 % Combined Sewer Over flo w 12 % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1990. 50 Yea r s of Pop u l a t i o n Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles Change Along the Nation’s Coasts, 1960-2010.

Good water quality is imperative for human health and for the pathogens and toxic algal blooms routinely infect commerci a l - pr oper functioning of the wetlands, marshes and riparian area s ly valuable shellfish beds, resulting in threatened human health that make up the nation’s coasts and estuaries. Impaired water and lost rev e n u e . quality can alter or destroy the intricate balance within these ecosystems. Direct impacts of polluted waters on estuarine Another major threat to coastal and estuarine habitat is direc t or ganisms include the clogging of gills and filter-f e e d i n g alteration. Scientists estimate that the nation has lost more or gans by suspended solids, impaired growth and rep ro d u c t i o n than half the wetland area in the lower 48 states between the and the bioaccumulation of toxic contaminants up the food 1600s and the present (Mitch and Gosselink, 1993). National chain, concentrating in top predator species and human food. Es t u a r y Programs consistently identify direct alteration of habi- In d i r ect impacts include eutrophication due to excess nutrients tat as a high-priority concern. In most cases, degradation and that can result in low dissolved oxygen, fish kills, algal blooms loss in each of the nation’s estuaries results from an accumula- and limiting growth of seagrasses. In addition, waterborne tion of small development activities. Collectively, actions such as dredging and/or filling for development, mineral extraction, coastal watersheds to res t o r e 100,000 acres of wetlands and altering hydrologic connections by diking or installing tide- uplands; protect 1,000,000 acres of coastal habitats; re- o p e n gates or dams, paving, run o f f, sewage discharges, subsidence 3,330 miles of stream for anadromous fish; and res t o r e 800 and erosion are affecting coastal areas. miles of riparian corri d o r .

Estuarine habitat restoration is req u i r ed for ecological, cultural ❖ U.S. Department of Agriculture and aesthetic reasons, but also for the benefits that direc t l y The United States Department of Agriculture’ s Wet l a n d relate to the everyday existence of United States citizens. Re s e r ve Program encourages voluntary wetland pres e rv a t i o n Restoring their functions will not only pres e r ve our ecological and rehabilitation on agricultural land. The program has heritage, but will financially sustain the nation by allowing en r olled 5,000 subscribers, with many more waiting to par- economic activities that depend on healthy coastal environ - ticipate. ments to continue. A healthy economy is dependent on healthy estuarine habitats and the good water quality these ❖ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and habitats provide and req u i r e. We must find ways to res t o r e Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) habitat that has been lost and degraded. NOAA has a number of coastal and estuarine res t o r a t i o n pr ograms. The Damage Assessment Restoration Prog r a m RE L AT I O N S H I P TO O T H E R EF F O RTS rehabilitates coastal habitat affected by waste sites, oil or A National Strategy builds on previous effo r ts to organize and ha z a r dous material spills or vessel groundings. The Coastal im p r ove restoration of coastal and estuarine habitat. For exam- Pr otection and Restoration Program improves and res t o re s ple, working together in a year-long effo r t, Restore America’s habitat affected by contaminated sediments and waste sites. Estuaries and the Estuarine Research Federation developed a set The Community-Based Restoration Program implements of principles to guide national estuarine habitat res t o r a t i o n . local, state, and regional restoration projects and partn e r - Th r ough a series of workshops, scientists, managers and practi- ships. The National Estuarine Research Reserve Prog r a m tioners from federal, state and local governments, academic establishes protected areas in cooperation with states. The institutions, nongovernmental organizations and the private Marine Sanctuary Program manages and res t o r es marine pro- sector reached consensus on the formulation of res t o r a t i o n tected areas, and the Coastal Wetlands Planning Prot e c t i o n principles. A set of fourteen comprehensive principles to guide and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program addresses wetland habitat restoration was adopted in 1999. loss in Louisiana. The National Sea Grant program funds res e a r ch and provides extension agents that specialize in The Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration (see page 10) habitat restoration. NOAA programs are involved in the cr eated a foundation for the development of a national res t o r a - restoration of more than 500 sites nationwide. tion strategy. The principles provide guidance useful in res t o r a - tion res e a r ch, community-based restoration, mitigation driven ❖ En v i r onmental Protection Agency by reg u l a t o r y req u i r ements and projects funded by federal, Mo r e than 300,000 acres have been res t o r ed through the state and local government agencies. En v i r onmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Pro- gram. Through this program, restoration is implemented by Many coastal states and regional organizations have effe c t i v e a variety of partners at the state and local level with prog r a m restoration programs. Under the Coastal Zone Management assistance in stakeholder coordination, technical experti s e , Act, states conduct coastal planning, which often includes pr oject funding and other activities to facilitate the proc e s s . restoration of coastal and estuarine habitat. Regional orga n i z a - tions in the San Francisco Bay area, the Chesapeake Bay area , ❖ U.S. Department of Defense, the Great Lakes region, and other areas have developed Ar my Corps of Engineers restoration programs. Also, a number of federal agencies are The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has working with public and private partners at the state and local several authorities that may be used to res t o r e estuaries. levels on projects that will res t o r e estuarine habitat. These include individually authorized studies, beneficial use of dredged material related to operation of navigation chan- ❖ U.S. Department of the Interior, nels, and several programmatic authorities. Some examples Fish and Wildlife Service of the types of estuary restoration activities the Corps is Since 1994, the United States Fish and Wildlife Servi c e ’ s involved with include installation of fish ladders, dam Coastal Program has worked with its partners in 15 priority removal, restoration of tidal flows to previously used dispos-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat PR I N C I P L E S O F EST UA R I N E HA B I TAT RE STO R AT I O N

Co n t e x t Principle #1: Pre s e r vation and enhancement of existing habitat are critical to the success of estuarine habitat res t o ra t i o n . Principle #2: Estuaries can be res t o r ed only by using a long-term stewardship appr oach and developing the constituencies, policies and funding needed to suppo r t this. Principle #3: The size, scale and amount of res t o r ation activity must increase substantially to have a signific a n t ef fect on over-all estuarine functioning and health. Principle #4: G re a ter public awareness, underst anding and involvement in estuarine habitat res t o r ation are ne c e s s a r y to the success of individual projects and achieving national res t o r ation goals.

Pl a n n i n g Principle #5: Re s t o r ation plans should be developed at the estuary level to set a broad vision, arti c u l a t e clear goals, and inte g ra te an ecosyst em persp e c t i v e . Principle #6: Estuarine res t o r ation plans should be developed through open regional processes that incorpo - rat e all key stake h o l d e r s and the best scientific thinking available.

Project Design Principle #7: Pr oject goals should be clearly stat ed, site specific, measurable and long-term (in many cases gre a t er than 20 years) . Principle #8: Success criteria for projects need to include both functional and structural elements and be linked to healthy, local re fe rence habitat s . Principle #9: Si t e plans need to address off- s i t e considerations like potential flooding, salt water intrusion into wells, and damage to existing septic syst ems, to be sure projects do not have negative impacts on nearby people and pro p e rt y. Principle #10: Sc i e n t i f ically based monitoring is essential to the effectiveness of res t o r ation projects and over-a l l estuarine res t o ra t i o n .

Im p l e m e n ta t i o n Principle #11: Engineering practices should be applied using all available ecological knowledge, maximizing the use of natural processes to achieve goals. Principle #12: Adaptive management should be employed at as many res t o r ed sites as possible, so they continue to move toward desired endpoints and self-sustainability wherever possible. Principle #13: Lo n g - t erm site prot ection is essential to effective estuarine habitat res t o ra t i o n . Principle #14: Public access to res t o r ation sites should be encouraged wherever appro p r i a t e, but designed to minimize impacts on the ecological functioning of the site. al areas, and restoration with dredged materials. Activities tion for Louisiana’s threatened coastline. Under CWPPRA, cover a number of geographic areas, including restoration on federal agencies and the state of Louisiana design, develop Grand Ter re Island in Louisiana’s Barataria Bay Wat e rw a y and implement diverse projects to protect, create and res t o r e and the removal of Smelt Hill Dam in Maine’s Penobscot wetlands threatened by erosion, subsidence and hydrol o g i c a l Bay estuary. alterations.

The Corps also serves as the chair of the CWPPRA intera- In November 2000, following the prog r ess made by the Princi- gency task force. CWPPRA was passed in 1990 in res p o n s e ples of Estuarine Habitat Restoration and by various federal, state, to severe and rapid loss of wetlands in the State of Louisiana. local and nongovernmental activities, the Estuary Restoration The CWPPRA program specializes in designing large - s c a l e Act of 2000 was signed into law. This law, originally sponsored pr ojects that reverse wetland loss and provide future prot e c - by the late Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island and Repres e n - tative Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, encourages the res t o r a - tain effective partnerships; set restoration priorities and con- tion of estuarine habitats through enhanced coordination of duct restoration planning; apply the best science and technolo- federal and non-federal effo r ts and financing of efficient and gy; monitor and evaluate habitat restoration effo r ts; increa s e innovative local, state and regional projects. Subject to annual public awareness of coastal and estuarine restoration issues; and ap p r opriations by Congress, the legislation authorizes $275 obtain sufficient funding to res t o r e function to coastal and million over five years to implement a comprehensive approa c h estuarine habitat. that will call upon public-private partnerships to reverse the deterioration of estuaries by restoring degraded habitat. Framework for Implementation This section of A National Strategy pr ovides a framework for Co n s e r vation and restoration of coastal and estuarine habitat planning and prioritizing coastal and estuarine habitat res t o r a - also is of international interest. Several regions of the U.S. are tion. It provides planners and practitioners with a framework collaborating with their Canadian and Mexican neighbors to for comprehensive and inclusive planning to identify res t o r a - res t o r e coastal areas that span borders. Examples of successful tion needs and opportunities on the watershed, estuary or in t e r national cooperation to res t o r e habitat can be found in the regional level. Information is provided to assist with establish- Gulf of Maine, the Great Lakes and southern California. On a ing restoration priorities, designing scientifically sound proj - global scale, the United Nations Development Prog r a m ’ s ects, and implementing plans and selecting projects that con- Water Strategy, a Strategic Initiative for Ocean and Coastal tribute to the goals of estuary or regional plans. Management calls for international cooperation in managing fr eshwater and coastal systems. The program is documenting Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning best management practices and lessons learned with the intent Analyses of existing estuarine habitat restoration plans have of integrating coastal management and sustaining coastal been developed for six regions within the United States. res o u r ces. Since the prosperity of people who live in the coastal zone is dependent on the quality of coastal and ocean COA STA L RE G I O N S STAT E S management, investing in healthy coastal habitats will prod u c e No r theast Atlantic Maine, N.H., Mass., R.I., Conn., global benefits. N. Y ., N.J., Del., Md., Va.

CO N T E N TS O F A NAT I O NA L ST R AT E GY Southeast Atlantic N.C., S.C., Ga., Fla. (including A National Strategy is comprised of three primary components: south Florida, the Everglades, objectives, a framework for implementation and regional analy- Florida Bay and the Florida ses of restoration planning. Tog e t h e r , these components will Ke y s), Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin advance the nation’s effo r ts to res t o r e estuarine habitat on a Islands br oad and coordinated scale. Gulf of Mexico The Gulf Coast of Florida (e xcluding the Everglades, Ad d i t i o n a l l y , a web site for this national strategy has been Florida Bay and the Florida Keys), established to serve as a public interface. The web site Miss., Ala., La., Tex. (h t t p : / / r estoration.nos.noaa.gov) provides an inventory of exist- Ca l i f ornia and the Calif., Hawaii, Pacific ing restoration plans, a searchable database of funding opportu - Pa c i f ic Islands Pro te c t o ra t es nities related to habitat restoration projects and other tools to No r thwest Pacific Or e., Wash., and Alaska assist estuarine habitat restoration practitioners and decision- makers across the nation. Gr eat Lakes Minn., Mich., Wis., Ind., Ill., Oh i o , N.Y. Ob j e c t i v e s This section of A National Strategy pr esents objectives to Each regional analysis includes: res t o r e function to coastal and estuarine habitat. These objec- ❖ in f o r mation on original acreage and acres lost, conserve d , tives will be useful in meeting the goal of the strategy req u i re d pre s e r ved and res t o re d ; by the Estuary Restoration Act to res t o r e one million acres of ❖ key habitats and species in need of protection and res t o r a - es t u a r y habitat by 2010, and will also be valuable for the tion such as wetlands, marsh, riparian areas and various fish implementation of other restoration programs and proj e c t s . sp e c i e s ; These objectives are presented to encourage projects that ben- ❖ key threats to habitats and species of concern such as subsi- efit coastal and estuarine habitats and species; create and main- dence, filling, draining and invasive species;

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ❖ restoration goals such as protection of fish and wildlife habi- dinated response to the problems of habitat loss and degrada- tat, and improvement of water quality; tion has been developed. As a nation, we stand ready to build ❖ successful restoration methods and techniques such as res t o r - on our previous restoration successes and take advantage of the ing tidal flow and planting vegetation; tr emendous energy offe r ed by volunteers in coastal communi- ❖ key elements of successful restoration planning effo r ts in the ties, the promise of recent scientific advances, newly developed region such as site selection criteria, ref e r ence sites, adaptive technical abilities of the private sector and coordinated plan- management and funding strategies; and ning emerging from government at all levels. ❖ needs for further res e a r ch and development for res t o r a t i o n , such as project evaluation and success criteria, and methods By applying the approach outlined in A National Strategy, we for beach renourishment and beneficial use of dred g e d can focus our ongoing effo r ts more efficiently and plan for ma t e r i a l . mo r e effective future restoration programs. Working together, we can balance human and ecological needs and achieve sus- EX P E C T E D OU TC O M E tainable, productive and diverse coastal and estuarine habitats Although estuarine and coastal habitats are threatened by and for future generations. under stress from a variety of human activities, a strategic coor-

RE F E R E N C E S

Mitsch, W.J., J.G. Gosslink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New Yor k . C H A P T E R 2

Objectives

he purpose of this chapter is to outline TH E EST UA RY RE STO R AT I O N AC T O F 2 0 0 0 an approach to res t o r e function to The Estuary Restoration Act was signed into law in November 2000 coastal and estuarine habitat. The objec- with strong bipartisan suppo r t. The Act makes a strong fe d e ra l Ttives described below, along with the commitment and encourages public-private partn e r ships to res t o r e planning and prioritization framework and reg i o n a l ha b i t at in America’s estuaries. The Act: analyses presented in later chapters, support habitat ❖ Ma k es restoring America’s estuaries a national priority. restoration programs and activities implemented ❖ Cre a t es the fed e r al Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. over a variety of geographic scales. They also sup- ❖ Re q u i r es development of an Estuary Habitat Restoration Strate g y . po r t the Estuary Restoration Act goal to res t o r e one ❖ Sets a goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by million acres by 2010. These objectives were devel- 20 1 0 . oped in a year-long collaborative process with par- ❖ Authorizes $275 million over five years for restoration proj e c t s . ticipants from local, state and federal governm e n t ❖ Re q u i r es enhanced monitoring, data sharing, and res e a r c h agencies, nonprofit organizations, and scientific ca p a b i l i t i e s . and academic communities.

OBJECTIVES OF A NATIONAL STRATEGY

1. Habitat Restoration: Implement res t o r ation proj - 5. Monitoring and Evaluation: Ev a l u a t e the effec t i v e - ects to provide healthy ecosyst ems that suppo r t ness of coastal and estuarine habitat res t o ra t i o n wi l d l i f e, fish and shellfish; improve surface water ef for ts on both the project and estuary leve l . and grou n d w a t er quality; enhance flood control ; and increase oppo r tunities for outdoor rec re a t i o n . 6. Outreach and Education: In c r ease government, co rp o ra t e, community, and individual awaren e s s 2. Restoration Partnerships: C re a te and maintai n of, suppo r t for , and involvement in coastal and ef fective public-private res t o r ation partn e r ships to estuarine res t o r ation and prote c t i o n . maximize res t o r ation effor ts at the fed e r al, stat e and local leve l s . 7. Funding: Ob t ain sufficient funding, both public and private, to implement res t o r ation planning 3. Restoration Planning and Priority Setting: activities, complete on-the-ground projects, con- En c o u r age priority setting and res t o r ation planning duct monitoring at estuary and project scales, and in the coastal United Sta te s . implement outreach measures .

4. Science and Technology: Ap ply the best appro p r i - at e res t o r ation science and technology in proj e c t design and implementat i o n .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ■ OB J E C T I V E ON E: HA B I TAT RE STO R AT I O N Actions ❖ Encourage government and non-government partners to Implement restoration projects to provide healthy support the Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration. ecosystems that support wildlife, fish, and shellfish; improve surface water and groundwater quality; enhance The Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration present 14 flood control; and increase opportunities for outdoor essential elements for restoration planning, design and recreation. implementation. These principles can provide the foundation for both formal and informal partnerships among public Healthy coasts and estuaries provide irreplaceable ecosystem agencies and private organizations, facilitate the coordi n a - se r vices and are critical to economic and ecological pros p e r i t y . tion of habitat restoration programs and budgets, and accelerate the achievement of restoration goals. Actions ❖ Encourage all coastal and estuary restoration projects in the ❖ Increase private sector participation in restoration of coastal United States to be consistent with relevant restoration plans. and estuarine habitat.

The regional analyses in chapter four provide an overview of Habitat restoration programs should encourage the parti c i - restoration plans currently available. The National pation of private organizations, companies and individuals St r a t e g y Restoration Plan Database, available at A National (such as private landowners) in restoration activities. Private Strategy Web site, includes a synopsis of major habitat su p p o r t can take a number of forms, from engaging volun- restoration planning effo r ts. Developing and funding proj - teers in implementing projects to providing in-kind servi c e s , ects that are consistent with regional or estuary-level res t o r a - materials or funding. Broad community support helps ensure tion plans will improve effectiveness of restoration on a larg- lo n g - t e r m success of restoration effo rt s . er scale and result in prog r ess toward strategic goals. Pro- jects also should be scientifically sound and have a good ❖ Provide examples of effective program coordination at the chance of being successfully implemented. estuary level.

❖ Fund and implement habitat restoration projects based on Pr oject planners and designers can avoid potential pitfalls by regional priorities and best planning efforts. le a r ning from the successful coordination experiences of other programs. Initial project coordination should be car- Pr ojects based on regional or estuary-level priorities will ried through into project design and implementation and maximize the benefits of coastal and estuarine habitat consider issues such as community outreach, funding and restoration. Funding decisions should be consistent with stakeholder responsibilities. Early and consistent coordi n a - regional priorities and address issues of importance to coastal tion can minimize duplication of effo r t and misunderstand- communities and other stakeholders. ing of rol e s .

■ OB J E C T I V E TWO: RE STO R AT I O N PA RT N E R S H I P S ❖ Establish a national advisory mechanism, such as a working group on coastal and estuary restoration. Create and maintain effective restoration partnerships that include diverse private and public organizations and A working group with rep r esentatives from federal agencies, agencies to maximize effectiveness at the federal, state, academia, scientists, state organizations and nonprof i t and local levels. gr oups should be created in order to ensure maximum coordination between the various sectors engaged in coastal and Pa r ticipation by and coordination with diverse public and pri- estuarine restoration, and encourage a spirit of cooperation vate groups are necessary components of successful res t o r a t i o n . in all aspects of restoration, from setting regional priorities Mo r e than 70 federal programs are equipped to play a role in to constructing individual proj e c t s . habitat restoration, and scores of state and local programs and no n - g o v e r nmental organizations are actively restoring habitat. ❖ Develop awards that recognize the contributions of partners New and continued partnerships will bring greater benefits for involved in coastal and estuary restoration. coastal and estuarine habitat. Aside from financial incentives, another way to encourage cr eative, energetic partnerships is to support annual awards coastal and estuarine habitat. Priority should be given to recognizing successful restoration effo r ts. These awards pr ojects that are most likely to successfully res t o r e critical should be given to a wide variety of groups, including non- functions and services provided by the habitat. By consider- go v e r nmental organizations, members of the public, busi- ing both human and ecological services, a broader level of nesses and government agencies, and should recognize local su p p o r t for restoration activities will result. Improved plan- and national effo rt s . ning also will allow benefits to be accrued over a larger scale and enhance the overall effectiveness of restoration effo rt s . ■ OB J E C T I V E TH R E E: RE STO R AT I O N PL A N N I N G A N D PR I O R I T Y- SE T T I N G ❖ Produce and implement a framework for restoration project design and evaluation. Encourage priority-setting and restoration planning in the coastal United States. Restoration practitioners should use a project-level framework based on the Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restora- Th e r e are substantial gaps in restoration planning on reg i o n a l tion developed by Restore America’s Estuaries and the Estu- and estuary-wide scales in every region of the United States. arine Research Federation. The framework should include Although approaches to coastal and estuarine habitat res t o r a - lo n g - t e r m goals, partnerships, consideration of off-site fac- tion will vary according to local needs and priorities, proj e c t s tors, effective monitoring and success criteria. Incorporating will be more effective at restoring habitat function if they are these elements into every project will help ensure that developed as part of a larger planning process. The framework investments in restoration are achieving maximum benefits. pr ovided in chapter three and the regional analyses pres e n t e d The project-level information provided in chapter three pro- in chapter four provide useful information in moving to the vides a starting point for this framework. next step of planning and establishing goals and priorities for restoration. Undertaking planning activities should not pre- ❖ Conduct regional workshops in estuarine and coastal habitat clude or delay restoration activities in coastal and estuarine restoration. habitats. While more strategic planning is needed, the knowledge, skills and technologies exist to make substantial improv e - To promote regional approaches to restoration planning and ments in the near term. evaluate the success of existing regional restoration planning eff o r ts, rep r esentatives from agencies and orga n i z a t i o n s Actions engaged in restoration are encouraged to participate in ❖ Identify gaps in restoration planning and baseline conditions. regional workshops. Workshops could focus on identifying existing gaps in restoration planning, determining mecha- The level and sophistication of planning for estuarine and nisms for improved coordination, and evaluating case studies coastal habitat restoration varies significantly among the of lessons learned from prior restoration effo r ts. regions and watersheds of the United States. In some coastal ar eas only broad, coastal management planning has been ■ OB J E C T I V E FO U R: SC I E N C E A N D TE C H N O LO G Y completed. In other areas sophisticated planning effo r ts with st r ong community and stakeholder participation have deter- Apply the best appropriate restoration science and mined specific habitat restoration goals and priorities. Quan- technology in project design and implementation. titative information about baseline habitat conditions should be developed and assembled to assist planning effo r ts. The Re s e a r ch on restoration science and technology is ongoing, regional analyses in chapter four provide a starting point for and restoration planning and projects should reflect the chang- this effo rt . ing body of knowledge. Coastal regions also have much to of fer one another in innovative and successful approaches and ❖ Complete planning for coastal and estuarine habitat techniques. Mechanisms are needed to distribute and share restoration. in f o r mation on restoration methods, monitoring techniques and success criteria at the project and estuary scales. Habitat restoration planning that identifies goals and priorities should be completed in all coastal areas of the United States. Identifying regional or estuary-level restoration priorities will help projects address the most critical needs for

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Actions focus on scientific and technical merit as well as the feasibili- ❖ Conduct periodic review of restoration science and technology. ty of achieving project goals.

A national science and technical advisory committee should ■ OB J E C T I V E FI V E: MO N I TO R I N G A N D be created that provides balanced and inclusive rep re s e n t a - EVA LUAT I O N tion from all fields of study associated with restoration of coastal and estuarine habitat. This committee should be Evaluate effectiveness of coastal and estuary habitat ch a r ged with establishing the current state of res t o r a t i o n restoration efforts. knowledge; identifying significant information gaps; selecting priorities for res e a r ch and development of new technolo- By tracking prog r ess at both the project and estuary level, the gies or applications; and providing periodic review of new success of individual techniques can be determined as well as science, technology and implementation practices to deter- whether the goals of regional or estuary-scale plans are being mine relative effectiveness and limitations. met. Monitoring information can be used to alter strategies wh e r e necessary. Monitoring new technologies will encourage ❖ Make information on restoration science and technology wide- their future use. It is just as important to document failures as ly available. successes in order to improve techniques in the future.

The findings of the science and technical advisory commit- Actions tee should be transmitted to universities, colleges, govern- ❖ Convene a national task force to determine how to measure ment agencies, nonprofit organizations and others interes t e d progress toward the one-million-acre goal of the Estuary in restoration activities. The information should be used to Habitat Restoration Strategy in the Estuary Restoration Act. develop evaluation criteria to identify projects that include the best appropriate science and technology. Results could Habitat restoration projects are diverse. Some projects can be provided through periodic rep o r ts, a database of findings me a s u r e success in terms of acreage res t o r ed, but many can- and periodic dissemination of case studies highlighting suc- not. A national task force should be convened to define a cess factors. baseline comparison and recommend methods for tracking pro g r ess toward the one-million-acre goal. The task force ❖ Encourage development and use of innovative restoration should consider regional and local perspectives on quantify- technologies. ing project successes.

To advance the state of restoration science, new approa c h e s ❖ Produce a report to the nation about estuarine trends in and applications must be tested. Funds should be set aside 2003 and 2005 and periodically thereafter. for the purpose of supporting the development and application of innovative restoration technologies. The findings A rep o r t should be produced to track prog r ess toward the fr om a science and technical advisory committee and annual on e - m i l l i o n - a c r e goal (and other habitat trends) using the assessments of res e a r ch needs could provide criteria for the success metrics recommended by the task force. Key find- use of these funds. New techniques and applications should ings should be widely disseminated. be monitored to evaluate their effectiveness and res u l t s should be widely distributed. ❖ Determine baseline conditions.

❖ Encourage peer review of project proposals to determine their Evaluating prog r ess toward restoring one million acres of scientific and technical merit. es t u a r y habitat by 2010 will req u i r e a national inventory to accurately document habitat restoration effo r ts. On a local A science and technology advisory committee and a peer level, project managers should document pre- p r oject condi- review network are two mechanisms for determining the tions, especially those aspects of an estuary that make it quality of project proposals in a peer review process. Proj e c t unique and in need of restoration. This effo r t should use reviews by experts with local knowledge can help ensure available data to establish a baseline for all relevant physical, that project proponents take full advantage of available chemical, hydrological and biological parameters. If existing in f o r mation, methods and technologies. Reviews should data sources are inadequate, supplemental data collection eff o r ts should be supporte d . ❖ Ensure that each estuary restoration project has a monitoring ■ OB J E C T I V E SI X: OU T R E AC H A N D ED U CAT I O N component and measurable goals. Increase government, corporate and individual aware- De t e r mining the effectiveness of a restoration proj e c t ness of and support for coastal and estuary restoration req u i r es clear, measurable goals and a monitoring plan that and protection. focuses on the applicable attributes of the ecosystem. The restoration project design should outline specific environ - The restoration and maintenance of healthy coasts and estuar- mental factors targeted for improvement, how they will be ies will req u i r e the long-term support of a broad cross section im p r oved, and how monitoring will document changes. Pro- of the public, including those who live inland, as well as those jects should identify appropriate ref e r ence sites for compari- who live on or near the coast. Successful restoration req u i re s son. Where appropriate, monitoring project designs should an informed public willing to support the policies, funding and incorporate results of fieldwork under other programs to lifestyle changes necessary to maintain healthy and prod u c t i v e maximize efficiency of data collection and minimize duplica- ecosystems. Local stewardship facilitates long-term conserva - tive effo r ts. tion and res t o r a t i o n .

❖ Determine standard data formats for reports and comparison Actions of project data. ❖ Develop a coordinated education and outreach campaign for A National Strategy, including a method to measure its Data standards should be developed to allow for consistent success. comparison between projects and tracking of prog r ess in habitat restoration. Creating data standards at the beginning Education and outreach strategies should build on materials of this nationwide effo r t will facilitate creation of a central and ideas developed by successful coastal and estuary man- database containing relevant coastal and estuarine habitat agement programs. For example, universities and educational restoration project data. The standards should build on exist- or ganizations could be consulted for strategies for including ing interagency effo r ts to develop monitoring protocols and lessons on estuaries in school curricula; advertising agencies other relevant protocols. This objective is not intended to could provide assistance in developing promotional materials limit the types of information gathered by project prop o - for use in the media; and professional polling firms could be nents, but rather to ensure that data will be useful to other used to determine the success of the program. pa r ties. ❖ Increase public awareness of restoration efforts and ❖ Establish a centralized database to track habitat changes on accomplishments. local, watershed and national levels. In c r eased public awareness will help promote and crea t e A consolidated Web-based database should be created to su p p o r t for restoration effo r ts throughout the coastal United en s u r e widespread dissemination and use of restoration proj - States. Examples of ways to increase awareness include Web - ect and monitoring data. Information should include all per- based virtual tours, educator’s guidebooks and interpret i v e tinent data, including information on changes from baseline signs at restoration project sites. Existing coastal and estuar- conditions. ine management programs with outreach effo r ts could be expanded to accomplish this objective. ❖ Create periodic updates evaluating restoration and monitoring techniques, especially new and developing technologies. ❖ Facilitate community and volunteer involvement in planning, construction, maintenance and monitoring of restoration A variety of restoration techniques for an array of habitats projects. ar e used throughout the country. Periodic rep o r ts would allow restoration practitioners to learn from the experience Al re a d y , tens of thousands of community volunteers parti c i - of others. Reports should detail the use of innovative tech- pate in restoration effo r ts, and successful models for engag- nologies and applications and include information about ing volunteers are plentiful. Continued local stewardship of implementation costs and project benefits. es t u a r y restoration projects will facilitate long-term conservation of res t o r ed areas. As stewards, local community members can be alert to improvements in and threats to the

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat res t o r ed area and the surrounding watershed. When appro- tiveness of restoration effo r ts. This provides an excellent priate, volunteers should be used to facilitate monitoring and op p o r tunity to improve the quality of our coastal environ - maintenance—activities that often prove challenging for ments. Because coastal and estuarine habitats provide substan- agency partners. tial local benefits, governments at all levels should demonstrate st r ong support for res t o r a t i o n . ❖ Encourage corporate partnerships for habitat protection and restoration. Actions ❖ Ensure that federal agencies include consistent budget Many corporations and businesses may be willing to prov i d e language and policies in support of restoration. su p p o r t to restoration effo r ts including project funds and materials and even food for volunteers. Working with orga n - Federal agency support of A National Strategy will facilitate izations such as the National Corporate Wetlands Restora- eff o r ts to pres e r ve, protect and res t o r e our nation’s coastal tion Partnership (CWRP) is one way to reach potential and estuarine habitat. Federal agencies should work together sp o n s o r s . to ensure that budget requests are consistent with the ap p r oaches outlined in this strategy. Agencies also could ❖ Encourage agencies and organizations to increase public co o r dinate rules, policies and programs to improve prot e c - awareness of restoration efforts by organizing publicity events tion and restoration of coastal and estuarine environ m e n t s . and providing signage for projects that contribute to coastal and estuarine health. ❖ Ensure that states support coastal and estuarine habitat restoration activities. Simple signs can provide recognition of the partn e r s involved in a project and inform visitors of the project pur- Because estuaries provide substantial benefits to the states in pose. Signs convey to the public an understanding of which they are located, state governments should demon- restoration effo r ts and may inhibit vandalism and illegal strate strong support for restoration of their coasts and estu- dumping of trash at project sites by providing a positive aries. In addition to dedicating funds for restoration, state message about restoration. Signage may also promote public pr ograms to treat upstream sources of pollution or prot e c t su p p o r t for estuary restoration prog r a m s . st r eamside buffer zones indicate a positive commitment to restoring habitat function. ❖ Increase agency involvement by officially recognizing agency policy and actions that benefit coastal and estuarine health. ❖ Encourage transfer of information about public and private sources of funding through development and maintenance of Federal agency activities may affect the health of the nation’s an on-line guide. coasts and estuaries. Agencies should be aware of the critical need to maintain and res t o r e coastal and estuarine habitat. Existing Web sites that provide information on sources of Federal, state and local agency effo r ts to benefit coastal and restoration project funding should be maintained and estuarine habitat are important for the long-term health of expanded. Databases that are created to track projects fund- these vital systems, and should be recognized as an essential ed under the Estuary Restoration Act should be linked to component of restoration activities. Web sites that demonstrate restoration prog re s s .

■ OB J E C T I V E SE V E N: FU N D I N G ❖ Ensure funding is used efficiently and effectively.

Obtain sufficient funding, both public and private, to Restoration projects that are cost effective, technically feasi- implement restoration planning activities, on-the-ground ble, scientifically sound and address priorities expressed in projects, monitoring at estuary and project scales, and local, regional and national plans should receive adequate outreach measures to restore function to coastal and fu n d i n g . estuarine habitat.

The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 authorizes $275 million over five years for estuarine habitat restoration projects and calls for leveraging existing res o u r ces to maximize the effe c - C H A P T E R 3

Framework for Restoration Planning and Priority-Setting

his chapter of A National Strategy pr ovides a frame- Several factors have been identified that result in effe c t i v e work for planning and setting priorities for coastal restoration plans. Effective restoration planning occurs over the and estuarine habitat restoration. It provides res t o r a - la r gest appropriate scale (over several state boundaries if it is Ttion program planners and practitioners with infor- ecologically appropriate); considers and is consistent with mation to support comprehensive and inclusive planning to other effo r ts to protect habitat; considers the restoration and identify restoration needs and opportunities on the watershed, pr otection goals of coastal zone management plans; includes es t u a r y and regional level. Information also is provided to diverse stakeholders as part of an open, public process; and is design scientifically sound restoration projects, help establish co n s i d e r ed part of an iterative proc e s s . restoration priorities and implement plans and select proj e c t s that contribute to the goals of estuary or regional plans. It is The steps in planning restoration at the estuary or reg i o n a l hoped that the outcome of applying this information will be an scale include evaluating conditions in the estuary or reg i o n ; in c r ease in the quality and quantity of habitat res t o r a t i o n . using the current status, historical conditions, and opportu n i - ties for restoration to identify priority areas and habitats; estab- Ad d r essing historical habitat degradation and losses req u i re s lishing realistic and measurable goals for restoration; and docu- that difficult choices be made. Although the science of res t o r a - menting this information in a restoration plan. tion has developed to be able to successfully res t o r e many habitats and there is tremendous capability and interest in EVA LUAT I N G T H E WAT E R S H E D O R EST UA RY doing so, there currently is not enough funding available to res t o r e function to all degraded habitats identified for res t o r a - Evaluating a Watershed or Estuar y tion. This framework is intended to help identify res t o r a t i o n ❖ Ev a l u a t e current status of habitat needs and to develop consensus on what restoration actions ❖ Describe causes and rat es of decline in habitat s would be most beneficial on estuary, regional and larger scales. ❖ Identify services provided by habitat — e c o l o g i c a l , Pr oviding similar information and analyses for all estuaries and social and economic regions will streamline and advance the process of setting pri- ❖ Ev a l u a t e oppo r tunities to res t o r e habitats in the orities by allowing comparisons to be based on best available sys te m local informa t i o n . Evaluating the watershed or estuary will provide information to PA RT I: FR A M E WO R K F O R EST UA RY- A N D allow planners to establish restoration priorities in terms of RE G I O N A L- SCA L E PL A N N I N G which habitat types to res t o r e, and which areas should be res t o r ed first. The current status of habitat provides a baseline abitat restoration is undertaken by a wide variety of for future analysis and measurement, and a comparison of cur- Hgr oups, from all levels of government to members of the rent conditions with past habitat distributions allows an evalua- private sector, including corporations and nonprofit orga n i z a - tion of the severity of potential threats. Knowing the causes of tions. While the recent broad interest and involvement in habitat degradation and loss helps determine whether habitat restoration is a positive development, the outcome can be can be protected and res t o r ed. The benefits currently and pre- gr eatly improved if projects are coordinated and not conducted viously provided by habitat will determine the anticipated ben- in isolation. Implementing a comprehensive plan based on efits of restoration actions. Finally, assessing opportunities for restoration needs, benefits and opportunities can reverse pat- habitat restoration will help determine whether habitat res t o r a - te r ns of system-wide habitat loss or degradation and prov i d e tion can realistically be accomplished. op p o r tunities for leveraging res o u r ces. By establishing goals and priorities for restoration within estuary and reg i o n a l Current Status of Habitat restoration plans, planners can direct funding for res t o r a t i o n Understanding the current distribution, function and condition pr ojects toward the most important needs. of habitats will allow planners to identify habitats and area s

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat that are under intense threat of degradation or loss. Habitat needs and functions should include a broad cross-section of and land use maps provide information to assess the curren t in t e r ests. Habitats that sustain remaining populations of endan- state of res o u r ces and can provide a foundation for pred i c t i n g ge r ed species can be defined as critical, as can habitats experi- fu t u r e loss. Providing a synthesis of available data on habitat encing a particularly rapid loss rate, and those that have been distribution and its use by important species for feeding, ref u g e significantly depleted over time. Habitat that provides impor- and rep r oduction will help define scarce habitats and provide a tant biological functions and services, such as foraging, spawn- st a r ting place to assess the functions various habitats serve. ing and nursery areas, should be considered critical. The pres - ence of keystone species or other indicators of healthy habitat Causes and Rates of Decline function should also be identified and included in the evalua- An estimate of historical or baseline conditions is needed to tion of priorities based on potential benefits for natural de t e r mine rates of loss, evaluate threats and predict future res o u r ces. tr ends for various habitat types and areas within the system. Although loss rates are more difficult to assess than the curren t It also is important to consider the restoration of an estuary or status of habitat, they are necessary to identify critical habitats watershed within the economic and social context of nearby within a system. The availability of historical informa t i o n communities. The economies of coastal cities and towns are varies greatly from place to place. For some estuarine systems, linked to their ports and fishing fleets, as well as tourism and historical maps with reliable habitat information that goes back other forms of rec r eation. When identifying critical habitats decades, along with anecdotal information on previous cen- and res o u r ces within a system, exploitable res o u r ces such as turies, may be available. For other systems, only limited anec- shellfish beds should be considered, as should habitat for com- dotal information may be available. me r cial, rec r eational and subsistence fisheries species. Potential conflicts and impediments to restoring valuable species and Some habitat losses are easy to identify because they occur in habitats should be identified early in the planning proc e s s . highly visible areas or because changes are dramatic. Long- te r m or more gradual change can be just as damaging to the Opportunities to Restore Habitat function of the ecosystem, but may be more difficult to track. Identifying opportunities for restoration also will be useful in Common habitat types may be undergoing rapid loss or degra- setting priorities. Where factors such as land ownership, dation, while less common habitats might be stable. By identi- development patterns and ongoing restoration activities are fying loss rates, the common habitat could be identified as a favorable, it may be easier to res t o r e habitat. For example, higher priority for restoration. Where limited historical infor- degraded habitat that is publicly owned or owned by a corpo- mation exists, best professional judgment will need to be ration receptive to restoration goals may provide an opportu n i - applied and more emphasis will have to be placed on benefits ty to take actions to benefit the ecosystem. Abandoned indus- that the habitat provides. trial facilities present opportunities to improve habitat or in c r ease public access to the shoreline as the prop e r ties are Compiling information on likely causes of habitat decline or redeveloped. Considering habitat needs in the context of loss will help identify restoration priorities. The threat of future op p o r tunities for restoration will improve chances for success- losses or degradation due to changing land use patterns or ful res t o r a t i o n . other causes might make a certain habitat a higher priority for restoration, or identify factors that must be controlled before ESTA B L I S H I N G PR I O R I T I E S F O R T H E WAT E R S H E D restoration could be successful. For example, the major cause of O R EST UA RY decline of seagrass beds might be nutrient enrichment. Wit h - out a plan in place to control nutrient run o f f, effo r ts to res t o r e Establishing Restoration Priorities seagrass beds could be ineffe c t i v e . 1. Severity of need (scarceness of habitat and threat to species or habitat) Services Provided by Habitat 2. Ecological benefits provided by the habitat or species Documenting the functions and services provided by habitat 3. Chances of successfully restoring the habitat or types within the estuary is important for identifying res t o r a t i o n species priorities. Both ecological needs (functions and services prov i d - 4. Public suppo r t for res t o r ation of the habitat or ed to the ecosystem) and human needs (social and economic) species must be considered. To develop support for restoration plan- 5. Social and economic benefits provided by the habi- ning, the approach to developing a list of important ecological tat or species Establishing priorities for restoration req u i r es an evaluation of habitat may contribute significantly to ecosystem health. For the greatest habitat needs based on severity of past losses, example, fish may need to pass through more urbanized down- expected benefits, chances of success and public support. Iden- st r eam areas to reach upstream spawning habitat. Theref o re , tifying current habitat distributions and the services they pro- restoring a portion of the urbanized watershed might prov i d e vide allows for definition of habitats that could be expanded or valuable refuge needed to ensure the survival of the species, im p r oved, and determination of benefits that would accrue if while also benefiting estuarine function. habitat were res t o r ed. Historical information, causes of decline and opportunities for restoration provide information on what Su r rounding land use and other conditions of the landscape might be possible to achieve (if surrounding land use does not must be considered in terms of implications for restoration suc- pr ohibit ret u r ning to former habitat patterns) and can prov i d e cess as well as for the benefits provided by restoration activi- in f o r mation about the components of an intact ecosystem. Pri- ties. If the area is subsiding, restoration may not be successful orities should be expressed in terms of specific habitat types to unless processes that compensate for the subsidence are set in be res t o r ed and priority areas for restoration. Using the infor- place. The presence of impermeable surfaces, altered or hard- mation developed in the evaluation of the watershed or estu- ened shorelines, dikes or tide gates will affect the chances for ar y, these priorities should be ranked according to need and a successful restoration. If contaminant sources are not con- realistic assessment of the probability of restoring the desired tr olled, restoration may not be successful. It is essential to fu n c t i o n . en s u r e that the problems of the past will not threaten the res t o r ed system, and to continue to develop new approaches to To help identify realistic restoration goals for the estuary, bene- solving ongoing restoration challenges. fits of restoration activities must be balanced against factors that influence the chances of success of restoration. Restoration Sc a r ceness of habitat, benefits provided by the habitat and of the biodiversity and functional ecology of the area must be chances for successful restoration should be considered in a attempted within the context of the needs of the multiple users public forum to identify those watershed or estuary res t o r a t i o n of the system. Undisturbed areas of estuaries support tourism priorities that will have broad public support. The priorities and/or provide aesthetic and cultural benefits to both local should specify habitat types to be res t o r ed and priority area s communities and society as a whole. In these areas it is rel a - for restoration within the estuary or watershed. tively easy to res t o r e habitat to support native wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, migratory birds and res i - ESTA B L I S H I N G RE STO R AT I O N GOA L S dent species of the estuary. In some areas, the dominant servi c e Once priority habitat types and areas have been identified, pr ovided to society might be to support economically impor- measurable goals for restoration should be selected. Measurable tant harvest or culture of estuarine-dependent species. Restora- st a n d a r ds with realistic expectations should be identified that tion of these functions would be more feasible in less disturbed clearly outline the problems that the restoration plan is pa r ts of the estuary. In industrial, commercial and urban por- attempting to address. Where possible, spatial and temporal tions of estuaries, navigation, marine transportation, industry scales should be identified. For example, the Chesapeake 2000 and commercial activity might be the dominant uses of the plan includes a goal to increase, by 2010, native oyster popula- en v i r onment. The ecosystem functions of such areas are often tions in the Chesapeake Bay to ten times the 1994 population se v e r ely degraded and subjected to pres s u r es and stresses from le v e l s . urban run o f f, wastewater, physical disturbance associated with dr edging or marine traffic and direct rec r eational pres s u r es. In The process of establishing restoration goals should be closely these areas, restoring complete natural habitat functions would linked to the res o u r ce evaluation and prioritization proc e s s . be more challenging. Regardless of the degree of alteration, it This allows the multiple stakeholders within a region to con- is important to establish a realistic vision of the conditions of sider the critical res o u r ces and patterns of loss for a system and res t o r ed habitat. When realistic goals are established, it is pos- to develop a course of action in which they can make optimal sible to res t o r e highly altered systems to contribute to ecosys- use of opportunities and leverage res o u r ces to maximize the tem function. benefits of their restoration effo r ts. It is critical to this proc e s s for a broad spectrum of stakeholders to be involved in goal set- Although degraded areas might be more difficult to res t o r e, in ting. Similarly, the process needs to be open and easily accessi- some instances, the benefits of restoring degraded habitat ble to members of the public. If wide spread support for might be greater than restoring more pristine environ m e n t s . restoration goals does not exist, the effo r t may not reach its full Restoring even a relatively small area of severely degraded po t e n t i a l .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat TH E RE STO R AT I O N PL A N PART II: FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING The information that was compiled on the status and trends of RESTORATION PROJECTS habitat in the watershed or estuary should be combined with the analyses of priorities and restoration goals to create a estoration projects should be developed within the con- restoration plan. A restoration plan sets a context for the goals, Rtext of estuary or regional plans and priorities. This will links the process to conservation and protection effo r ts, and help ensure that the project will improve estuarine or coastal pr ovides groups undertaking restoration work with a clear view health and produce broad cumulative benefits. The guidelines of what they are trying to accomplish. A restoration plan off e r ed in this section are intended for project planners, man- should be considered a “living document.” For successful imple- agers and practitioners. Projects should follow the Principle of mentation, the plan should be reassessed regularly at a freq u e n - Estuarine Habitat Restoration and use the most efficient meth- cy determined by the pace at which change is occurring in the ods available to achieve restoration goals, quantify the success system. Prog r ess toward the goals should be evaluated using of restoration effo r ts and adapt projects as necessary during metrics developed for the plan, measured on an ecosystem or implementation. Project results and information also should be regional scale. Factors to evaluate include whether res t o r a t i o n sh a r ed to help improve the effectiveness of future projects. eff o r ts are advancing the goals of the plan; whether the most im p o r tant restoration needs are being met; and whether human Developing Restoration Projects and ecological needs are being balanced. Without an effe c t i v e feedback process, the plan may become out of date and lose its 1. Determine project goals fo c u s . 2. Determine and describe methods appro p r i a t e for the si t e and goals 3. Identify monitoring methods and success criter i a SU M M A RY O F PL A N N I N G PRO C E S S 4. Implement the project and conduct monitoring 5. Use adaptive management Evaluating a Watershed or Estuar y 6. Share findings and lessons learned 1. Evaluate current status of habitat 2. Describe causes and rat es of decline in habitats 3. Identify services provided by habitat DE T E R M I N E T H E P RO J E C T G OA L S 4. Evaluate oppo r tunities to res t o r e habitats in the syst em The first step in planning a restoration project is to clearly state the goals of the project independently of the means that Establishing Restoration Priorities will be used to implement them. A goal should be site-specific, 1. Severity of need (scarceness of habitat / t h r eat to habitat measurable and long-term. Ideally, a quantitative, measurable or species) goal to achieve within a specified time frame would be prov i d - 2. Ecological benefits provided by the habitat or species ed. A vague, generic goal such as “improving ecosystem health” 3. Chances of successfully restoring the habitat or species can mean many things and is difficult to evaluate. 4. Public suppo r t for res t o r ation of the habitat or species 5. Social and economic benefits provided by the habitat Realistic goals should consider causes of decline and the cur- or species rent and potential future status of the habitat to be res t o re d . Es t u a r y or regional restoration plans can provide the back- Establishing a Plan for Restoration gr ound information needed to justify and describe quantitative 1. Consider multiple stak eholder viewpoints pr oject goals. “Creating and maintaining at least 25 acres of 2. Establish an open and public process stable emergent wetlands at y cove in z bay by 2005” is a clear 3. Make a strong link to conservation and prote c t i o n goal because it is measurable and site-specific. Goals that speci- ef for ts fy functions to be res t o r ed also provide clear direction for 4. Document res t o r ation goals—identify areas, habitat s monitoring and documenting project success. For example, a and species in the region for priority res t o r ation and pr oject “to increase juvenile salmon presence in x bay to levels pro t ection (identify how ongoing res t o r ation prog ra m s statistically similar to that of ref e r ence area y by year z” can be and effor ts can be linked together) easily monitored to determine whether the goal is being met. 5. Revisit and revise the plan as needed after monitoring Some ref e r ences provide suggestions on setting project goals (W ilber et al., 1998; Thayer, 1992; Murphy, 1995; Weinstein et al., 1997; Japp, 1998). DE T E R M I N E A N D D E S C R I B E M E T H O D S ments in habitat condition. To be scientifically valid, ref e re n c e A P P RO P R I AT E F O R T H E S I T E A N D G OA L S and control sites should be as similar as possible to the areas to Various methods of altering the environment should be consid- be res t o r ed. Project managers should plan for contingencies in er ed to reach project goals. The relationship between habitat the event that perfo r mance standards are not met within targe t st ru c t u r e and function should be understood well enough to time frames. For example, in seagrass restoration projects, it is identify specific physical attributes that can be altered to pro- common for 30 percent of the planted area to die within one duce the desired outcome. For example, if the goal is to year (Fonseca et al., 1998). This does not necessarily mean that achieve a certain acreage of emergent wetland, the substrate the project is a failure or req u i r es major modification. However, characteristics, site elevation, salinity ranges and other parame- expectations for remedial planting and future monitoring of ters necessary to produce stable vegetation must be known. replanted areas should be included in project monitoring plans. Although restoration proposals used for similar habitat prov i d e Pr oject plans also should address off-site considerations and in f o r mation on available technologies, they do not contain include monitoring to ensure projects do not have negative in f o r mation useful to judge the success of the technique. impacts (for example, flooding) on nearby people and prop e rt y . Reviewing monitoring data from completed projects will provide useful information that can be incorporated into future Less intensive monitoring may be needed for projects that use pr ojects to improve their potential success. techniques with a long history of success in the target environ - ment. Similarly, less extensive monitoring may be req u i r ed for Pr oject proposals should include detailed descriptions of the pr ojects that directly manipulate habitat than for those that chosen methods. Once funding becomes available, a plan in d i r ectly manipulate habitat by altering ambient conditions. describing engineering designs and specifications should be For example, if the project goal is to res t o r e native vegetation developed. In addition to reviewing monitoring rep o r ts, other and the method used is restoration of tidal exchange, variables ref e r ences are available that may be useful in selecting proj e c t associated with tidal exchange, such as salinity, should be methods (Thayer, 1992; Fonseca et al., 1998; Clarke et al., me a s u r ed in addition to mapping vegetation before and after 1999; Kusler and Kentula, 1990; Koski, 1992; Matthews and pr oject implementation. Likewise, if the project goal is to Minello, 1994; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Salmon et al., res t o r e submerged aquatic vegetation and the method used is 1982; Schiel and Foster, 1992; Stauble and Hoel, 1986; Zedler, restoration of water clarity, variables associated with water clar- 1995; Zedler, 1996). A web-based guide to monitoring rep o rt s it y , such as algae and nutrients, should be measured in addition can be found at www.l a c o a s t . g o v / p ro g r a m s / c w p p r a / p ro j e c t s / to mapping the vegetation before and after project implemen- pro j - s u m - b a s i n . h t m . tation.

ID E N T I F Y M O N I TO R I N G M E T H O D S A N D A few areas of the country have established guidance for moni- S U C C E S S C R I T E R I A toring restoration projects. For example, the state of New Yor k Monitoring methods should be directly linked to project goals. pr oduced guidelines for restoring and monitoring salt marsh The specific project goals will determine how complex the (Niedowski, 2000). The Global Programme of Action Coali- monitoring measurements should be. Monitoring may be as tion for the Gulf of Maine produced regional standards to simple as using aerial photographs to quantify the acreage of identify and evaluate tidal wetland restoration in the Gulf of ma n g r ove swamp that exists before and five years after proj e c t Maine (Neckles and Dionne, 1999). Other ref e r ences may be implementation, or as complex as making hourly observa t i o n s useful in selecting monitoring methods and success criteria of water level and salinity to infer that the project red u c e s (A l b r o et al., 1998; Aronson and Swanson, 1997; D’Ava n z o , plant stress in the project area. Monitoring the quality and 1990; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; Fonseca et al., 1998; Lugo et al., function of res t o r ed habitat can req u i r e a suite of biological 1999; DuBowy, 1997). A Web-based guide to monitoring me a s u r ements over many years. rep o r ts can be found at www.l a c o a s t . g o v / p ro g r a m s / c w p p r a / pro j e c t s / p r oj-sum-basin.htm. Monitoring guidelines for the Monitoring data should be used throughout the life of the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act pr oject to guide project operations and maintenance. Quantita- Monitoring Program can be found at www.lacoast.gov/ pro- tive perfo r mance standards for projects should include func- gr a m s / c w p p r a / re p o rt s / m o n i t o r i n g p l a n / i n d e x . h t m . tional and structural elements and be linked to suitable, local ref e r ence habitats that rep r esent “target conditions” where IM P L E M E N T T H E P RO J E C T A N D C O N D U C T ap p r opriate. It also may be useful to compare the project site to M O N I TO R I N G degraded, non-res t o r ed “control” sites to document improv e - Th r ough proper design, construction, monitoring and adaptive

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat management, restoration projects can contribute to rec o v e r y of pr oject staff would recommend with the knowledge they now en t i r e systems. Proper oversight of project implementation and po s s e s s . monitoring includes actions to address permitting issues; selection of qualified contractors and oversight of field work includ- PART III: IMPLEMENTING PLANS AND ing remedial planting; inspection of completed field work to SELECTING PRIORITY PROJECTS en s u r e compliance with the plan; review and evaluation of monitoring rep o r ts; and alterations to the plan to ensure that it his section identifies issues to be considered in allocating meets project goals. Sufficient funding should be available to Tlimited restoration funds among the many worthy candi- ca r ry out all phases of project implementation and monitoring. date projects. A strategic approach to restoration is req u i r ed in or der to ensure that projects that receive support are addres s - US E ADA P T I V E MA N AG E M E N T ing the most important regional needs first. A reg i o n a l Adaptive management acknowledges that the environment is ap p r oach should build on estuary restoration plans and identify un p r edictable and applies monitoring data to guide future proj - those ecosystem goods and services that are of greatest impor- ect management and modifications. With adaptive manage- tance to coastal communities, and where restoration is needed ment, the knowledge obtained through monitoring is translat- to improve the functions on which they rel y . Proposed proj e c t s ed into program redesign. Using adaptive management to should clearly define the specific problem they seek to addres s allow for mid-course correction, as circumstances req u i re , within their estuary and region. Project plans also should con- in c r eases the possibility that goals of estuary or regional plans tain clear goals, methods and evaluation techniques as specified can be met. Monitoring results might dictate the redesign of in Part II of this chapter. the project, alteration of methods or adjustment of proj e c t goals if it becomes clear that the conditions at the site are not ESTA B L I S H I N G RE G I O N A L O R LA RG E R SCA L E suitable to achieve the original project goals. Adaptive manage- RE STO R AT I O N PR I O R I T I E S ment does not rep r esent project failure. Once priorities are identified on the watershed or estuary scale (see Part I), watershed and estuary restoration planners should Adaptive management req u i r es clear project goals, a conceptu- be brought together to identify priorities across a given reg i o n . al model of the environment and a decision framework (Thom, The same issues evaluated on the scale of the estuary (needs, 2000). The conceptual model includes parameters of both causes for decline, opportunities, values and services) should be habitat struc t u r e and function, and evaluates how they are discussed on this larger scale. Additional data and informa t i o n related to other perfo r mance and development characteristics. may be req u i r ed to conduct this evaluation. Pe rf o r mance criteria and monitoring data provide input to the decision process for actions to be taken to improve the out- Regional needs can be ranked according to the following come of the project (Thom, 1997). Other ref e r ences prov i d e fa c t o r s : in f o r mation on the process and benefits of adaptive manage- 1. severity of need (scarceness of habitat threat to species or ment (Weinstein et al., 1997; Haney and Power, 1996; Holling, habitat 1978; McLain and Lee, 1996; Wal t e r s , 1 9 8 6 ) . 2. ecological benefits provided by the habitat or species 3. chances of successfully restoring the habitat or species SH A R E F I N D I N G S A N D L E S S O N S L E A R N E D 4. public support for restoration of the habitat or species Monitoring data should be provided in a standard format that 5. social and economic benefits provided by the habitat or makes it easy to share with other planners and practitioners. sp e c i e s Pa r ticularly if the methods used were new or innovative, providing sufficient documentation will allow them to be used by Restoration programs should be based on the broadest scale others. Tra n s f e r ring results of monitoring to coastal decision plans available. Publishing regional priorities will help res t o r a - makers will build long-term support for habitat restoration as tion practitioners design the most useful projects. Following a successes are documented. Information should be widely dis- la r ge-scale restoration plan allows practitioners to build on tributed in a form that allows evaluation of success at the existing programs and implement projects that address a vari- watershed or estuary level. ety of habitat problems, and thus provide a diverse array of ecosystem goods and services. Restoration programs should be Monitoring rep o r ts also should document any changes to the closely coordinated with other programs that influence envi- original construction specifications, including what prob l e m s ronmental quality in the estuary and the region. This will we r e encountered, reasons for modifications and changes the en s u r e that programs are not operating at cross-purposes. By co o r dinating with other programs that provide funding for Consistency with estuary or regional restoration plans habitat protection and restoration, maximum results can be and priorities obtained with scarce funding. A res o u r ce that identifies proj e c t Pr ojects that are components of a comprehensive regional or funding is Funding for Habitat Restoration Projects – A Citi- es t u a r y-specific restoration plan should be given higher priori- ze n ’ s Guide is available on-line at www.e s t u a r i e s . o rg / ty , and projects that address the highest priority habitat needs fu n d i n g . h t m l . for the estuary or region should be funded first.

MO N I TO R I N G A N D OU T R E AC H O N A Long-term chance for success at meeting stated goals LA RG E R SCA L E (technical quality and feasibility) In addition to monitoring at the project level, prog r ess in Th r ee factors can be identified that contribute to the likeli- attaining the goals of restoration projects should be monitored hood that a project will successfully meet its goals. The first is over the largest appropriate scale. Restoration programs should scientific merit, which can be ascertained through peer rev i e w consider establishing regional ref e r ence (unaltered “targe t ” fr om restoration scientists and practitioners. A project with sci- sites) and control areas (nonres t o r ed or impacted sites) for entific merit has a high potential to benefit habitat function im p o r tant habitat types, and take advantage of remote sensing using the proposed methods. The second factor is technical data for tracking habitat trends on larger levels. Monitoring on fe a s i b i l i t y , which can be judged through review by res t o r a t i o n a watershed or regional scale can indicate whether reg i o n a l scientists and practitioners with appropriate expertise. The restoration goals are being met by gauging the synergistic ben- th i r d factor influencing long-term success of a project is the efits of multiple projects. For example, wetland res t o r a t i o n potential for the project area to be destroyed or degraded in eff o r ts conducted in Louisiana under the Breaux Act are the future. This can be minimized if existing plans will prot e c t req u i r ed to monitor the cumulative effects of all projects in the res t o r ed and surrounding habitat. restoring, enhancing and protecting the landscape (Steyer et al., in press). To address this concern, a system of multiple ref - The following additional factors should be considered in evalu- er ence sites has been proposed to rep r esent a spectrum of con- ating long-term success at meeting project goals: ditions found in the ecosystem. By sampling the ref e r ence sites ❖ soundness of project design and ecological approach; over time, trajectories can be created for environmental param- ❖ the conceptual approach; eters that can be compared to those at res t o r ed sites to evalu- ❖ the technical and procedural feasibility of the prop o s e d ate prog r ess (Steyer et al., in press). By establishing ref e re n c e pr oject; and control sites in an estuary with transects adjacent to per- ❖ potential success of any innovative techniques; manent boardwalks, restoration res e a r chers working throu g h - ❖ the project implementation potential and schedule; out the estuary can gather comparison data to judge the effe c - ❖ the proposed proj e c t ’ s long-term potential for obtaining the tiveness of restoration, while causing minimal disturbance to ta r geted results; the habitat (DuBowy, 2000). ❖ the expected length of time before success can be demonstrated; Restoration programs also should include program outrea c h ❖ pr oposed methods to monitor and evaluate success of the and information transfer mechanisms to build long-term stew- pro j e c t ; ar dship and public involvement. Using community volunteers ❖ pr oposed corrective actions; and strategies to inform the public of project status and accom- ❖ pr oject management plans; and plishments will foster long-term support for restoration effo r ts. ❖ experience and qualifications of project personnel.

CR I T E R I A A N D C O N S I D E R AT I O N S F O R S E L E C T I N G Benefits provided to the estuary or region as a whole P RO J E C TS F O R F U N D I N G Pr ojects that clearly demonstrate broad-scale and long-term Selecting restoration projects for funding is an objective benefits to estuarine function should receive priority. Examples pr ocess to determine which projects will provide the grea t e s t of projects with broad benefit for the ecosystem would be benefits. This section provides some considerations to assist those that are large in scope, that link currently discontinuous with difficult funding decisions. Linking funding decisions to habitat or that address limitations that degraded habitat places the restoration planning process will ensure that the goals of on providing ecosystem goods and services to local communi- es t u a r y or regional plans can be achieved. ties and society as a whole.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Innovation then be scored according to the following project attributes: To advance the science of restoration, demonstration proj e c t s 1. The benefits the project provides to the estuary and the that make use of innovative restoration methods or technolo- region, based upon regional assessments of the historic and gies, or demonstrate new applications of existing techniques to cu r rent rates of habitat degradation, and the project prop o s - make them more cost-effective, should be considered, prov i d e d al ’ s demonstration of future benefits for natural res o u r ces and that they have a reasonable chance of meeting the res t o r a t i o n socio-economic services. The project should rep r esent a ob j e c t i v e . restoration priority for the watershed, estuary and reg i o n . 2. The degree to which the approach encourages coordi n a t i o n Opportunities for partnerships and cost-sharing among state, federal and private entities. This determi n a t i o n Pr oposed projects should demonstrate a high potential for col- should be based not only on the partners contributing to or laboration and cost-sharing with others, and should advance identified in the proposal, but also on proposed mechanisms the goals of other restoration or coastal protection programs. for interaction throughout project implementation and mon- it o r i n g . Local, public and state support 3. The level of innovation shown in technological aspects of Pr oject objectives should have strong local support. If the state the proj e c t . has a dedicated source of funding to acquire or res t o r e estuary 4. The proj e c t ’ s expected success as gauged by the presence of habitat, natural areas and open spaces for the benefit of estuary pr ograms that address pollution and other stresses that have habitat restoration or protection, projects may be more likely historically degraded estuarine habitats of the type and in to receive long-term support and protection. Projects that also the area addressed by the proj e c t . ar e consistent with coastal zone management plans to prot e c t 5. The ability to cover full project costs, including monitoring and manage coastal res o u r ces should receive priority. and adaptive management. The ability to meet req u i re m e n t s for matching funds should be considered . Plans for outreach and public involvement Pr oposed projects should demonstrate a high potential for pub- Other factors such as state and local support and plans for lic outreach and involvement. Project objectives, methods and including outreach and public involvement also should be con- results should be communicated to all interested parti e s . si d e re d .

Cost Step 3. Potential funding sources should be identified for all phases of Gr oup projects according to six regions (see chapter four) and work. The justification and allocation of the budget in terms of by estuary within each reg i o n . the work to be perfo r med should be evaluated and compared to the direct benefits expected for estuarine habitat function. Step 4. Pr oposals should demonstrate cost-benefit efficiency and The outcome of the scoring process should be a ranked list of potential for cost-effective implementation. pr ojects that all meet the minimum criteria for technical feasibility and scientific soundness and are consistent with existing SU G G E ST E D AP P L I CAT I O N O F PRO J E C T planning effo r ts. A separate list should be prep a r ed for each SE L E C T I O N CR I T E R I A es t u a r y and region. Highly ranked projects should be furth e r sc r eened to ensure they are cost-effective (relative to prev i o u s Step 1. pr ojects of similar type and scope within the region). This Pr oject proposals should be prep a r ed in accordance with the selection factor should not be applied in the scoring process in pr oject guidance provided above. The project proposals should the same way as other factors because of the wide range of be evaluated for consistency with existing estuarine manage- costs and the variable nature of the benefits associated with ment plans for the area, technical feasibility and scientific estuarine habitat restoration. Projects should be selected based so u n d n e s s . on these rankings, funds available and any special opportu n i t i e s or issues considered of overriding importa n c e . Pr ojects that do not meet criteria set for these factors should be removed from consideration. CO N C LU S I O N A N D RE V I E W O F FR A M E WO R K Using a framework for planning and prioritizing habitat Step 2. restoration projects will allow us to increase the effe c t i v e n e s s Individual projects that satisfy the first three criteria should of our restoration effo r ts. Creating watershed or estuary restoration plans identifies priority habitat types or areas to be estuaries or regions, and evaluating projects for their chances res t o r ed. Projects can then be designed that have the grea t e s t of success, will improve habitat restoration effo r ts on a national chance of successfully restoring these habitats and area s . sc a l e . Fi n a l l y , implementing a process of establishing priorities among

SU M M A RY O F FR A M E WO R K F O R RE STO R AT I O N PL A N N I N G A N D PR I O R I TY- SE T T I N G

Watershed or Estuary Planning goals, determining appro p r i a t e methods, selecting ❖ Ev a l u a t e the water shed or estuary for the curren t monitoring methods and success criteria, implement- st atus of the habitats; the ecological, social and ing the project and monitoring its success, conducting economic benefits they provide; causes and rat es of adaptive management to allow for mid-course correc - decline; and oppo r tunities to res t o r e habitat. tion, and sharing project information with others. ❖ Rank needs within the water shed or estuary according to severity of loss, benefits and services prov i d e d , Selecting Priority Projects opp o r tunities for successful res t o r ation and public ❖ Consider needs across a regional scale to allow for su pp o r t. distribution of limited resources. ❖ Es t ablish and document res t o r ation goals and priori- ❖ Rank needs across the region according to severity of ties in a res t o r ation plan. Use an open and public need, ecological benefits provided by the habitat , pr ocess and link to habitat conservation effor ts. Revi s e social and economic services provided, chances of the goals and the plan as needed. successfully restoring the habitat and public suppo r t for restoring the habitat. Developing Restoration Projects ❖ Ev a l u a t e projects for consistency with plans, tec h n i c a l ❖ Th r ough proper design, construction, monitoring and quality and fea s i b i l i t y , benefits provided, time until adaptive management, res t o r ation projects can con- res t o r ation is successful, innovation, oppo r tunities for tr i b u t e to the res t o r ation of the overall ecosyst em. p a rt n e rs h i p, public and stat e suppo r t, plans to ❖ Pr oject development includes determining proj e c t include outreach and public involvement, and cost.

RE F E R E N C E S D’ A vanzo, C. 1990. Long-term Evaluation of Wetland Crea t i o n Pr ojects. In: Kusler, J.A., M.E. Kentula, eds. Wetland Creation Al b r o, C.S., H.K. Trulli, J.D. Boyle, S.A. Sauchuk, C.A. Oviatt, and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press. Was h i n g - A.A. Keller, C. Zimmerman, J. Tu rn e r, D. Borkman, J. Tuc k e r . ton, D.C. 1998. Combined Work/Quality Assurance Plan for Baseline Water Quality Monitoring: 1998-2000. Boston Wat e r Du B o w y , P.J. 1997. Assessing and Monitoring the Ecological Re s o u r ces Authority Report ENQUAD MS-48. Boston, Mass. Integrity of Restored Wetlands. Texas Restoration Notes 2:3. 121 pages. Du B o w y , P.J. 2000. The role of control and ref e r ence sites in Ar onson, R.B., D.W. Swanson. 1997. Video Surveys of Coral wetland restoration. Ecological Restoration and Management. Reefs: Uni- and Multi-variate Applications. In: Proceedings of 1: 7 4 - 7 5 . the 8th International Coral Reefs Symposium 2: 1441-1446. Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworth y , G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines Clarke, D., D. Meyer, A. Vei s h l o w , M. LaCroix. 1999. for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United Dr edged Material as a Substrate for Fisheries Habitat Enhance- States and Adjacent Waters. NO A A ’s Coastal Ocean Prog r a m . ment in Coastal Waters. In: Luckenbach, M.W., R. Mann, J.A. Decision Analysis Series 12. 222 pages. Wesson, eds. Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches. Vir ginia Institute of Marine Science Ha n e y , A., R.L. Power. 1996. Adaptive Management for Sound Pr ess, Gloucester Point, Va. Ecosystem Management. Environmental Management. 20:879- 88 6 .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Man- Salmon, J., D. Henningsen, T. McAlpin. 1982. Dune Restoration agement. John Wiley and Sons, London. and Revegetation Manual. Florida Seagrant College Publication SGR-48, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fla. 60 pages. Japp, W.C. 1998. Coral Reef Restoration. In: Wil b e r , P., G. Th a y e r , M. Croom, and G. Mayer, eds. Goal Setting and Suc- Schiel, D.R., M.S. Foster. 1992. Restoring Kelp Forests. In: cess Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration, Journal of Ecologi- Th a y e r , G.W., ed. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. cal Engineering. Invited Papers from a Symposium Held in Ma r yland Seagrant College Publication UM-SG-TS-92-06. Charleston, S.C. January 13-15, 1998. College Park, Md. 716 pages.

Koski, K.V. 1992. Restoring Stream Habitats Affected by Log- Stauble, D.K., J. Hoel. 1986. Physical and Biological Guide- ging Activities. In: Thayer, G.W., ed. Restoring the Nation’s lines for Beach Restoration Projects, Part II: Physical Engineer- Marine Environment. Ma r yland Seagrant College Publication ing Guidelines. Florida Seagrant College Publication SGR-77, UM-SG-TS-92-06. College Park, Md. 716 pages. Florida Institute of Tec h n o l o g y , Melbourne, Fla. 100 pages.

Ku s l e r , J.A., M.E. Kentula, eds. 1990. Wetland Creation and St e y e r , G.D., C.E. Sasser, J.M. Vis s e r , E.M. Swenson, J.A. Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press. Was h i n g t o n , Nyman, R.C. Raynie. In press. A Proposed Coast-Wide Refer- DC . ence Monitoring System for Evaluating Wetland Restoration Trajectories. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Lugo, A.E., M. Sell, S.C. Snedaker. 1999. Mangrove Ecosystem Analysis. In: Yanez-Arancibia, A., A.L. Lara-Dominguez, eds. Th a y e r , G.W. 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Ecosistemas de Manglar en America Tropical. Instituto de Ecologia Ma r yland Seagrant College Publication UM-SG-TS-92-06. A.C. Mexico, UICN/ORMA Costa Rica, NOAA/NMFS Beau- College Park, Md. 716 pages. fo r t, NC. 380 pages. Thom, R.M. 1997. System-Development Matrix for Adaptive Matthews, G.A., T.J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success Management of Coastal Ecosystem Restoration. Ecological in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina alterni - Engineering. 8:219-232. flora marshes in the United States. NOAA Coastal Ocean Pro- gram Decision Analysis Series No. 2. Thom, R.M. 2000. Adaptive Management of Coastal Ecosys- tem Restoration Projects. Ecological Engineering. 15 : 3 6 5 - 3 7 2 . McLain, R.J., R.G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive Management: Prom i s e s and Pitfalls. Environmental Management. 20:437-448. US EPA. 1992. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Pr ogram, Final. US Environmental Protection Agency Report Mitsch, W.J., J.G. Gosslink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand EP A 842-B-92-004. Office of Wat e r , Office of Wet l a n d s , Reinhold. New Yor k . Washington, D.C.

Mu r p h y , M.L. 1995. Fores t r y Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of US EPA. 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. An a d r omous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska— US Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA 842-B-93- Re q u i r ements for Protection and Restoration. NOAA Coastal 004. Office of Wat e r , Washington, D.C. 176 pages. Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series 7. 156 pages. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Neckles, H., M. Dionne, eds. 1999. Regional Standards to McMillan, New York. Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Gulf of Maine. Global Programme of Action Coalition for the Gulf of Weinstein, M.P., J.H. Balletto, J.M. Teal, D.F. Ludwig. 1997. Maine workshop June 2-3, 1999. Wells National Estuarine Success Criteria and Adaptive Management for a Large - S c a l e Re s e a r ch Reserve. Wells, Maine. 35 pages. Wetland Restoration Project. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 4: 1 1 1 - 1 2 7 . Niedowski, N.L. 2000. New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines. New York Department of State Wil b e r , P., G. Thayer, M. Croom, and G. Mayer, eds. 1998. and Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, N.Y. Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restora- 147 pages. tion, In: Journal of Ecological Engineering. Invited Papers from a Symposium Held in Charleston, S.C. January 13-15, 1998.

Ze d l e r , J.B. 1995. Salt Marsh Restoration: Lessons from Cali- fo r nia. In: Cairns, J., ed. Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, Se c - ond Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 425 pages.

Ze d l e r , J.B. 1996. Tidal Wetland Restoration: A Scientific Per- spective and Southern California Focus. California Seagrant System Report No. T-038. University of California, LaJolla, Calif. 129 pages.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat

C H A P T E R 4

Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

he regional analyses that comprise Chapter 4 pro- The analyses are based on an inventory of planning effo rt s vide a snapshot of the level of planning for coastal related to coastal and estuarine habitat restoration in each and estuarine habitat restoration within six regions of region. Emphasis has been placed on estuarine habitats and Tthe United States. They also provide a glimpse into those coastal habitats that directly impact estuarine areas. The fu t u r e needs and directions for restoration. The regional analy- in f o r mation provided in these analyses is not meant to be ses provide an overview of the following: inclusive of all information related to estuarine and coastal ❖ original acreage and acres lost, conserved or pres e r ved, and habitat within these six regions. Rather, it provides a picture of res t o re d ; the status of coastal and estuarine habitats based on informa - ❖ key habitats and species in need of restoration and/or pro- tion gathered primarily from restoration plans and common tection such as wetlands, marsh, riparian areas, and the vari- themes within those plans. If certain information on coastal ous species that depend on these habitats; and estuarine habitats or restoration within a region was not ❖ key threats to habitats and species of concern such as subsi- identified in any of the restoration plans inventoried, it is likely dence and sea level rise, filling, draining and invasive that it is not included in the regional analyses presented here. sp e c i e s ; ❖ common restoration goals in the areas of land-use manage- The information gleaned from the review of restoration plans is ment, protection of essential fish habitat and improv e m e n t also available in a searchable on-line database on A National of water quality; Strategy web site (http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov). Informa t i o n ❖ successful restoration methods and techniques such as res t o r - available includes basic plan data (including plan description, ing tidal flow and planting native vegetation; geographic information and contact information) as well as ❖ key elements of successful restoration effo r ts such as site technical information (for example, plan goals, partn e r s h i p s , selection criteria, ref e r ence sites, and adaptive management; public outreach and habitat information). ❖ types of restoration in need of further res e a r ch and testing, including beach renourishment and beneficial use of dred g e Several national restoration programs also were identified in material; and the review of restoration effo r ts. The U.S. Department of Agri- ❖ ar eas where more res e a r ch is needed (e.g., better under- cu l t u r e, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and standing of ecosystem struc t u r e and function, and the poten- Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tial causes and effects of habitat alterations) to better inform tration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers each have sev- restoration planning and increase the likelihood of res t o r a - eral programs that focus specifically on restoration. A description success. tion of some of these programs can be found in Appendix A of A National Strategy. Analyses of estuarine habitat restoration plans have been developed for six regions within the United States. In addition to restoration, protection, pres e r vation, acquisition ❖ No r theast Atlantic: Maine, N.H., Mass., R.I., Conn., and enhancement also are important mechanisms for conserv- N. Y ., N.J., Del., Md., Va. ing habitat. Although these issues are not discussed in grea t ❖ Southeast Atlantic: N.C., S.C., Ga., Fla. (including south detail in the regional analyses, they are critical to the success Florida, the Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys), of restoration and often occur in conjunction with habitat Pu e r to Rico, U.S. Vir gin Islands restoration activities. ❖ Gulf of Mexico: The Gulf Coast of Florida (excluding the Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys), Miss., Many other habitats were not considered here because they Ala., La., Tex. we r e outside the scope of this analysis. However, the prot e c - ❖ Ca l i f o r nia and the Pacific Islands: Calif., Hawaii, Pacific tion and restoration of these habitats in many cases benefit the Pr otectorates estuaries downstrea m . ❖ No r thwest Pacific: Or e., Wash., Alaska ❖ Gr eat Lakes: Minn., Mich., Wis., Ind., Ill., Ohio, N.Y.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat C H A P T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 1 – PACIFIC NORTHWEST

EST UA R I E S O F T H E PAC I F I C NO RT H W E S T SU M M A RY

The Pacific Northwest region is defined here as he Pacific Northwest region has experienced extensive habi- the coasts of Alaska, Washington (including tat loss in Puget Sound and other coastal estuaries of the Puget Sound) and Oregon. T No r thwest. Invasion and spread of Spartina alterniflora is a This reg i o n : gr owing concern in this region. In Alaska, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in ❖ Has more than 40,000 miles of shoreline that 1989 acted as a catalyst for intensive ecosystem res e a r ch. As a res u l t , co n t ain thousands of identified salmon an abundance of information relating to marine res o u r ces has been st r eams, hundreds of estuaries, the large s t known single stand of eelgrass in the world compiled. Significant damage to the Oregon and Washington coasts (37,000 to 39,000 acres) and the largest wet- and the Columbia River Estuary has occurred over the past years. For land complex (700,000 acres) on the Pacific example, more than 50 percent of the tidal marshland in the Columbia Coast (Ward et al., 1997; Frost and Logan, 2001; McRoy and Goering, 1974). River Estuary has been destroyed. Although regional estuarine res t o r a - tion planning is still developing in the Pacific Northwest, examples of ❖ Co n t ains more than 3,000 square kilometer s regional planning include the Salmon Recovery Plan in Was h i n g t o n (1 ,200 square miles) of tidal wetlands. and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Plan for Oregon and Was h i n g - ❖ Receives fres h w a t er flow from appro x i m a te l y ton. Plans also exist for individual estuaries and sub-basins. A national 25 percent of the land area of the United estuarine restoration strategy and federal funding would contribute Sta t es. significantly to the development and implementation of compreh e n -

These estuaries suppo r t more than 90 percent of sive, regional estuarine restoration strategies. the nation’s harvest of wild and hatchery-ra i s e d salmon, as well as rapidly growing coastal communities such as the rec r eational and seaport towns of coastal Oregon and Washington, the g re a ter Seattle area in Puget Sound and the co a s t al communities of southeast Alaska, including Anchorag e . IN T RO D U C T I O N TO T H E PAC I F I C NO RT H W E ST Coastal Oregon and Washington subregion, habitats that are pr i m a r y candidates for restoration and conservation effo rt s Description include tidal marshes and wetlands, rivers and streams, mud- The following analysis provides a brief overview of the state of flats, and eelgrass beds (Donnelley, 1994; Hoffmann, 2001; estuarine restoration planning in the Pacific Northwest. It is LC E M P , 1982; McColgin, 1979). intended to support A National Strategy by highlighting the losses of, and threats to, key Pacific Northwest habitats; the Estuarine marshes constitute a complex ecosystem that is vital cu r rent effo r ts to set and achieve restoration goals; and some of to a number of diffe r ent species. These species include the res e a r ch needs that have been identified for effe c t i v e ma c ro i n v e r tebrates (clams, oysters, sea urchin and sea stars), res t o r a t i o n . shellfish (Dungeness crab), fish (Pacific salmon, capeline, flounder and sole, gaddids, rockfish, smelt and herring), mam- For purposes of this analysis, the Pacific Northwest has been mals (seals, sea lions and whales) and birds. The estuarine habi- divided into three subregions: Alaska, Puget Sound, and the tats in the northwest are important for feeding, nesting, rea r i n g Or egon and Washington coasts and Columbia River Estuary. and migratory staging for a number of birds throughout the ye a r . In 1996, Kachemak Bay was dedicated as an interna - tional site of the Wes t e r n Hemisphere Shoreb i r d Reserve Network. An international site designation indicates that the site hosts more than 100,000 shore birds or a 10 percent fly- away population (USDOC, 1998).

The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council evaluated the rec o v e r y status of some organisms, particularly those found in the Alaska subregion. These labels designate certain species as “re c o v e r ed,” “recovering,” “not rec o v e r ed” or “rec o v e r y unknown.” Some species that are listed as recovering include Alaska Subregion clams, mussels, Pacific salmon and Pacific herring. The killer Puget Sound Subregion whale and the harbor seal are two species that have been identified as not rec o v e r ed (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trus t e e Coastal Oregon/Washington Subregion Council, 1999b). Figure 1. Pacific Northwest Region and Subregions The highest density of the large geoduck shellfish in the Pacif- Key Habitats and Species ic Northwest can be found in Puget Sound (WDH et al., A tremendous diversity of ecosystems characterizes the Pacific 1999). This species uses the sandy mud of the lower interti d a l No r thwest region. These include tidal marshes and wetlands, and subtidal habitats and has been identified as a species in in t e r tidal and mud flats, kelp beds, the largest bed of seagrass need of protection. Key fish species in the Puget Sound area , along the Pacific coast of North America and the large s t specifically mentioned for protection by the Was h i n g t o n known single stand of eelgrass in the world—located in the De p a r tment of Ecology, include sandlance (Ammodytes hexa- Izembek Lagoon (War d et al., 1997). These habitats are essen- pterus), su r f smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), Pacific herring (Clupea tial for several estuarine-dependent species and serve as spawn- harengus pallasi), gaddids (cod fishes), and rockfish (multiple ing and rearing habitat for a number of fish. In the Alaskan species) (WDE, 1993). su b r egion, habitats include intertidal flats, salt marshes, strea m s and riparian habitats, rocky substrates, mud flats, eelgrass beds In t e r tidal mudflats and beaches provide resting and feeding and kelp beds which provide rockfish habitat (USDOC, 1998). ar eas for gulls, herons, shore birds and waterfowl. Underwa t e r Intact nearshore ecosystems (including adjacent upland, inter- kelp forests shelter snails, crabs, shrimp, starfish, sea anemones, tidal and shallow subtidal habitats), riparian habitat/sloughs, sea cucumbers, brittle stars, sea squirts and many other marine gravel beds and streams (which act as tidal freshwater spawn- or ganisms. Damage to eelgrass beds affects whole populations ing and rearing areas), tidal marshes, mud and sand flats, fres h - of finfish (including threatened salmon, herring, gunnels and water wetlands, eelgrass beds, and gravel beaches are key habi- pipefish) waterfowl, shellfish, Dungeness crabs, and nudi- tats in the Puget Sound subregion (Dean et al., 2000; HRPC, branchs. Shoreline stability also is jeopardized by damage to 1998; USFWS and NOAA, 1996; USFWS, 2000;). In the eelgrass beds.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Riparian corridors are another habitat that can have beneficial tant for juvenile salmonids during the critical smoltification impacts on the estuarine environment. Because of their linear pr ocess, when they undergo behavioral, physiological and fo r m, they are able to process large fluxes of energy and materi- morphological changes to prep a r e for oceanic life. During this als (e.g., nutrients, large woody debris, gravels and fines, oxy- transition period and during residence, juvenile salmonids, par- genated water) from upstream systems and are laterally con- ticularly chum and under-yearling chinook, migrate to the nected to upslope (upland) and downslope (aquatic) ecosystems mo r e saline portions of estuaries and gain weight (USFWS, as well as upstream and downstream features. These riparian 2000). For more detailed information on habitat needs and zones become refuge for a variety of animals as they provide a th r eats for salmon species, refer to the discussion under Cali- diversity of habitat and an abundance of water that allow for fo rn i a ’ s Anadromous Fish Species section of the California and often distant migration. Primary productivity is generally higher Pacific Islands regional analysis. in a riparian corridor than in the adjacent upland community due to the diversity and abundance of res o u r ces in riparian cor- Habitat Status and Trends ridors. These ecosystems act as a nutrient sink for lateral run o f f The Pacific Northwest region has experienced extensive habi- fr om uplands and as a nutrient transformer for in-stream flows tat loss in many of its coastal estuaries. Between 50 and 90 per- (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Riparian corridors contribute to cent of riparian habitat in Washington has been lost or exten- the stability of global levels of available nitrogen, atmospheric sively modified (WDNR, 2000). Threats such as diking, drain- su l f u r , carbon dioxide and methane through nutrient cycling in ing, filling, development, pollution, and the invasion and living plant material. They also moderate the effects of floods; sp r ead of Spartina alterniflora all contribute to estuarine degra- im p r ove water quality; limit erosion by stabilizing strea m b a n k s ; dation in this reg i o n . and provide shelter and spawning habitat for a variety of wildlife species including anadromous fish, waterfowl, rep t i l e s , In the Alaska subregion, a major cause of estuarine habitat amphibians, insects and a variety of megafauna. degradation has been the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. The spill contaminated about 1,500 miles of Alaska’s coastline. The major causes of stream and estuarine habitat degradation Since then, significant effo r ts have been made to protect and have been historical fores t r y practices, impediments to fish res t o r e the Alaskan shoreline. Thousands of acres of wetlands passage (e.g., dams and other obstructions), increased shorel i n e and estuaries in Alaska also have been impacted by fill, port development and spill events. Many historical fores t r y prac- development and sewage disposal for example. tices did not take into consideration riparian management con- ce r ns in relation to fish habitat and water quality. Pres e n t l y , Puget Sound has experienced rapid estuarine habitat loss, espe- fo re s t r y practices manage for the adequate pres e r vation of fish cially in urban areas (e.g., Commencement and Elliot Bays). habitat by maintaining a short- and long-term source of large The Sound functions as vital nursing and foraging grounds for woody debris, stream bank stability, channel morphology, wildlife and fisheries res o u r ces, such as the endangered chi- water temperature, stream flows, water quality, adequate nutri- nook salmon. Restoration effo r ts in the Sound include trans- ent cycling, food sources, clean spawning gravels and sunlight- planting eelgrass and removing invasive species. Because Cana- to-shade ratio. Depending on state regulations, current res t r i c - da geese forage on eelgrass, it is often necessary to surrou n d tions may apply to forested areas within 25 to 300 feet from transplanted eelgrass with Geese Excluder Devices (GEDs) to st r eambanks and on steep slopes adjacent to riparian corri d o r s . pr otect young plants. Organizations such as People for Puget Urban shoreline development and port activities have placed Sound are developing models to engage in large-scale estuarine an increased stress upon marine res o u r ces as in- and over-w a t e r restoration projects in the Sound. st ru c t u r es, shoreline armament, accidental groundings (e.g., ba r ges, log-booms, oil tankers, personal marine vessels), wood- In the Coastal Oregon and Washington subregion, there has waste accumulation from nearshore log transfer facilities, and been extensive loss of coastal and estuarine habitat. Large the legal and illegal filling of wetlands and navigable waters expanses of tidal marshland and wetlands have been lost due to have increa s e d . diking, draining, filling and development. Regional approa c h e s to estuarine restoration are underwa y , such as the Lower The Columbia River Basin provides habitat for six species of Columbia River Estuary Plan. This plan is a multi-agency effo r t an a d r omous salmonids (chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, pink to res t o r e habitat along the Lower Columbia River. Restoration and steelhead). All of these species except the pink salmon are pr ojects will benefit endangered salmon species and other fish listed as federally threatened under the Endangered Species and wildlife res o u r ces that inhabit estuaries of the Lower Act. Saltwater transition zones in rivers are extremely impor- Columbia River. Regional Planning Efforts an ecosystem approach toward restoration, the development of Restoration effo r ts in the Pacific Northwest region occur under st r ong monitoring programs, and the inclusion of the public the auspices of federal, tribal, state and local authorities, as well th r oughout the restoration process. as through the effo r ts of nongovernmental entities such as business and industry groups, academic institutions, nonprof i t Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of or ganizations and community groups. These effo r ts have dif- 1980 and The Wil d e r ness Act of 1964, protection and res t o r a - fe r ent levels of coordination depending on whether they are tion is continually proposed to benefit watersheds and their located within National Estuary Programs or have other coor- associated marine res o u r ces. Two examples of recent prop o s a l s dinating mechanisms. A specific discussion of planning effo rt s include the Alaska Rainforest Protection Proposal for the in each subregion can be found in the sections to follow. Chugach National Forest (www.i n f o r a i n . o rg / m a p a rc h i v e / ch u g a c h _ p r oposal.htm) and the Alaska Rainforest Prot e c t i o n Pacific Northwest Subregions Pr oposal for the Tongass National Forest (www.i n f o r a i n . o rg / For purposes of this analysis, the Pacific Northwest has been ma p a rc h i v e / t o n g a s s _ f o re s t _ p ro p o s a l . h t m ) . divided into three subregions: Alaska, Puget Sound, and the Or egon and Washington coasts and Columbia River Estuary. Habitat Issues

The following sections summarize the habitat issues and high- Status and Trends light certain restoration planning effo r ts for each of the Pacific Significant damage to Alaska’s coasts and estuaries has been No r thwest subregions. Additional information and detailed caused by various threats in this subregion including the Exxon in f o r mation about these documents are available through the Valdez oil spill. Since then, effo r ts have been made to rep a i r National Strategy Restoration Plan Database at http://res t o r a - the damage done and to prevent further degradation. More ti o n . n o s . n o a a . g o v . than 1,400 miles of shoreline, including haul-out areas for harbor seals, the mouths of more than 300 salmon streams, and nesting and foraging habitat for black oystercatchers have been AL A S K A SU B R E G I O N pr otected. In Februa r y 1999, the Eyak Corporation completed a package with the Trustee Council to protect 75,452 acres in Description ea s t e r n Prince William Sound. In addition, the Large Parce l Various types of coastal and estuarine restoration proj e c t s pr ogram of the Trustee Council protects a total of 635,770 occur in Alaskan waters. These include restoration of wetland, ac r es of land in Alaska. riparian (including shoreline and riverbank stabilization) and in s t r eam (including salmon spawning) habitats; non-native Threats pr edator removal projects; water quality monitoring in rel a t i o n Within the Alaska subregion, losses and degradation of key to forest harvesting activities; and seagrass res t o r a t i o n . habitats may be attributed to the following threats: used oil, household hazardous waste and scrap metals; mass wasting Since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, much has been learne d fr om fores t r y practices; urban and port development; roads and about the marine environment of Alaska. The disaster prov i d e d roadway run o f f; wastewater and sewage disposal; oil and gas a catalyst for intense ecosystem res e a r ch and led to an abun- development, including associated pipelines and underwa t e r dance of information about res o u r ces in the waters that was utility lines; impacts associated with tourism development; pr eviously unknown. Not only did this res e a r ch assist in res t o r - gravel mining; and natural events. ing critical areas of Prince William Sound, but the event pro- moted the importance of contingency measures leading to the Restoration Plans cr eation of safer oil transportation systems. The Exxon Valdez Several planning effo r ts with a regional focus exist in the Alas- Oil Spill Trustee Council continues to work to res t o r e and pro- ka subregion. Brief summaries of these effo r ts are outlined tect affected areas. be l o w . A full listing of plans and additional information can be found on the National Strategy Restoration Plan Database In close proximity to the spill site in Prince William Sound lies (h t t p : / / r estoration.nos.noaa.gov). Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, which pr omotes education, res e a r ch and interpretation of informa t i o n Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve about estuaries. Institutions such as this may serve as rep re s e n - The Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was tative entities of restoration in Alaska, with their emphasis on established in 1999 and currently encompasses 365,000 acres

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve manage- Methods ment plan was approved by the National Oceanic and Atmos- Several methods have been used or recommended for achiev- pheric Administration in 1999. Important habitats that may be ing the subreg i o n ’ s restoration goals. Among these are rep l a n t i - useful as ref e r ence sites include upland forests, glaciers and gla- ng seagrasses, macroalgae, creating fish passes to res t o r e fish cial streams, tidal flats, brackish marshes and rocky interti d a l populations, red i r ecting hunting and fishing harvest, managing are a s . human disturbance around sensitive bird colonies, and red u c - ing marine pollution. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan This plan provides long-term guidance for restoring the Elements of Success res o u r ces and services injured by the 1989 oil spill. It contains Common principles of successful estuarine restoration are policies for making restoration decisions and describes how ap p a r ent in the planning effo r ts for the Alaska subreg i o n . restoration activities will be implemented. These include statements of clear, measurable and achievable endpoints; protection of habitat at the watershed level; desig- Alaska’s Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas and Sanctuaries nation of criteria for setting priorities for projects (e.g., cost The Alaska State Legislature has classified certain areas as ef fectiveness, likelihood of success, possible harmful side being essential to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. ef fects, etc.); and multi-disciplinary, interagency or collabora- These areas are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and tive partnerships. Game and designated as either a refuge, critical habitat area, or sa n c t u a r y. While they suffer from a variety of historical and Monitoring also has been identified as an important element of cu r rent disturbances, all of these designated areas maintain successful restoration. The Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring Pro- high floral and faunal diversity. The level at which conserva - gram for the north e r n Gulf of Alaska, to begin in October tion and/or restoration practices are applied differ from reg i o n 2002, covers Prince William Sound, lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak to region with an emphasis placed on shoreline, nearshore and Island and the Alaska Peninsula. Its mission is “to sustain a estuarine habitats. It has been largely those areas which have healthy and biologically diverse marine ecosystem in the been affected by either oil spill damage or by the threat of no rt h e r n Gulf of Alaska and the human use of those res o u rc e s co m m e r cial development and/or commerce that have rec e i v e d th r ough greater understanding of how productivity is influ- a majority of these effo r ts to date. For more information, see enced by human activities and natural changes.” Successful ww w. s t a t e . a k . u s / a d f g / h a b i t a t / g e n i n f o / re f u g e s / re f u g e s . h t m . monitoring programs focus on more than res o u rc e - s p e c i f i c investigations; they include a long-term approach to under- Plan Elements standing the physical and biological interactions that affect an in j u r ed res o u r ce or service. The System-Wide Monitoring Pro- Goals gram (SWMP) collects information on abiotic parameters, bio- Several goals were identified in the plans for the Alaska subre- diversity and land use patterns to create a system of national gion. It was emphasized that restoration should contribute to a ref e r ence sites for estuarine trends. he a l t h y , productive and biologically diverse ecosystem within the spill area that supports the services necessary for the peo- Public participation and education also can play an importa n t ple who live in the area. Another goal is to take an ecosystem role in successful restoration. Documentaries (e.g., the Alaska ap p r oach toward restoration to better understand what factors SeaLife Center anniversary exhibit), inclusion of an annual co n t r ol the populations of injured res o u r ces. Restoration goals rep o r t in school curricula, radio and newspaper rep o r ts, and also focused on full ecological rec o v e r y; a rec o v e r ed ecosystem newsletters (e.g., The Restoration Update) can increase the pr ovides the same functions and services that would have been ef fectiveness and ultimate success of a restoration effo r t. Estab- pr ovided had the spill not occurred. In this system, populations lishment of a public advisory group is an important aspect as of flora and fauna are again present at former or pre-spill abun- well. The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council has its own public dances, are healthy and productive, and rep r esent a full com- ad v i s o r y group that advises the trustees on all matters rel a t e d plement of age classes at the level that would have been pres - to planning, evaluation and allocation of funds, as well as the ent had the spill not occurred. Another goal is to prov i d e planning, evaluation and conduct of injury assessments and op p o r tunities for long-term res e a r ch, education and interpret a - restoration activities. Other key elements include community tion of trends in estuarine conditions. involvement programs, public participation in projects at all levels, and timely release of and reasonable access to informa - tion about restoration proj e c t s . Adaptive management can be an important element in a suc- Habitat Issues cessful restoration project. Restoration priorities need to embody a long-term, ecosystem view that is continually updat- Status and Trends ed as new information is acquired so that the most current eco- Puget Sound has experienced an immense amount of wetland logical, social and economic information is used in formu l a t i n g lo s s : decisions. ❖ Mo r e than 70 percent tidal wetlands were lost in the past ce n t u r y, and 33 percent of marine shorelines have been Information Needs modified (PSWQAT, 2000; Belcher, 2000). Most of the information needs in the Alaska subregion relate to ❖ In Skagit Val l e y , 37 of the original 40 square miles of wet- understanding the impact of human activity on estuarine habi- lands are estimated to have been lost, resulting in a 93 per- tats and the function of these habitats for fish and essential fish cent total loss (Belcher, 2000). habitat. Also needed is a comprehensive inventory of Alaska’s ❖ In urban areas such as Seattle and Tacoma, the loss of salt estuarine habitats. marsh is close to 100 percent (WDE, 2000). ❖ At least 35 percent of Was h i n g t o n ’ s threatened and endan- ge r ed species req u i r e healthy wetlands for survi v a l PU G E T SO U N D SU B R E G I O N (P S W Q A T, 2000).

Description Puget Sound’s shorelines have been severely altered by devel- The geographic scope of the Puget Sound subregion covers op m e n t : subestuaries and nearshore habitats of the entire Puget Sound ❖ Human activities have modified about 800 miles, or one- basin, including but not limited to the water bodies of the th i r d, of Puget Sound’s shoreline; 25 percent of these modifi- Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, Hood cations have occurred in intertidal areas (Belcher, 2000). Canal and adjacent waters. ❖ Up to 52 percent of central Puget Sound’s shoreline and about 35 percent of the shorelines of Whidbey Island, Hood Puget Sound is one of the most unusual estuaries in the United Canal and south Puget Sound have been modified (Belcher, States, in that deep marine waters invade a heavily urbanized 20 0 0 ) . lowland region to form a vast inland sea. Many economic ❖ Since the arrival of settlers in the early 1800s, at least 50 benefits are incurred from shipping, fishing, and residential and pe r cent and as much as 90 percent of riparian habitat in co m m e r cial development. Furth e rm o r e, the cultural and Washington has been lost or extensively modified (Belcher, aesthetic values we associate with the Sound and its natural 20 0 0 ) . res o u r ces are celebrated by both tribal and nontribal communities. In the Puget Sound area, specific degraded habitats need to be highlighted because of their importance to estuarine functions. Estuaries like Puget Sound embody the interface between These include eelgrass beds, shellfish beds and benthic fr eshwater and saltwater. These areas are usually sheltered from ha b i t a t s : the forces of the ocean and harbor large quantities of plant and ❖ 33 percent of eelgrass beds have been lost as a result of animal life. The Sound is used as nursing and foraging grou n d s dr edging, filling and diking (White, 1997). by many animal species. Natural regimes of tidal influence and ❖ Eelgrass in Elliott and Commencement Bays is all but absent fr eshwater input are vital to the ecology of the estuary, and (some does exist in subtidal area s ) . changes in the tidal flow or freshwater quality and quantity as ❖ The Snohomish River Delta has lost 15 percent of its origi- a result of human disturbance can alter and eradicate many nal eelgrass beds (Belcher, 2000). plant and animal communities. Drying of wetland areas can ❖ Eelgrass beds in Bellingham Bay have declined by about 50 have a dramatic effect, as can the introduction of exotic pe r cent over the past 100 years (Belcher, 2000). species. Changing conditions push out native species and upset ❖ Since 1980, roughly 25 percent of the area classified for ecosystem relationships. It is theref o r e important to maintain co m m e r cial shellfish harvesting has been downgraded and local native relationships (water, soil, plants, and animals) to taken out of production because of high water concentra- pr event the disappearance of some species or the disruption of tions of pathogenic bacteria (WDH et al., 1999). the healthy functioning of others. ❖ A focused study of urban embayments revealed that 35 percent (5,250 acres) of 15,000 acres are contaminated above state sediment quality standards (PSWQAT, 2000).

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ❖ Mo r e than 3,000 acres of Puget Sound’s sediments are so lems. The plan provides the framework for an ongoing com- contaminated that federal law req u i r es that they be cleaned pr ehensive and coordinated approach to protect and res t o r e up (Belcher, 2000). the Sound. ❖ Between 1992 and 1996, Washington discharged 1.5 million pounds of potentially cancer-causing pollutants directly into Plan Elements the water—more than any other state (Belcher, 2000). Goals The spread of invasive species presents a great threat to native The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, the National or ganisms, and their control remains a challenge in res t o r a t i o n Es t u a r y Program for Puget Sound, coordinates agencies eff o r ts. More than 52 invasive species were discovered in Puget involved in restoration and protection of Puget Sound. The Sound in 1998 (Belcher, 2000). Action Team developed and maintains a comprehensive management plan with the goal of pres e r ving, restoring and Threats enhancing the ecological processes that create and maintain Within the Puget Sound subregion, losses and degradation of marine and freshwater habitats and to achieve a net gain in key habitats can be attributed to the following threats: dred g - ecological function and area of those habitats within the Puget ing and disposing of sediments; nonpoint source pollution, Sound basin. Due to the large geographic area and the number toxic chemicals (PCBs, PAHs, etc.) metals; shellfish contami- of entities involved in restoration, this broad goal is designed nants (marine biotoxins, bacteria and viruses, chemicals); mari- to set the standard for restoration into the future but does not nas and rec r eational boating; population growth; agricultural replace the need to develop individual restoration goals that practices; aquaculture development; erosion; urban develop- ar e more geographically distinct or site specific. ment and shoreline armoring; fores t r y management practices; al t e r ed drainage patterns from filling, dredging, ditching, and Other goals that have been identified in restoration plans for diking; invasive species (Spartina, zostera japonica [e e l g r a s s ] , the Puget Sound area are to: Sargassum muticum [kelp]); culverts, dams, and tide gates; septic ❖ Im p r ove water quality. system failure; nutrient enrichment; port development, ship- ❖ Achieve no net loss of wetlands function and acrea g e . ping, and transportation; protection of newly established plants ❖ Use best shoreline development practices (erosion control ) . fr om geese and other herbivores; and discarded debris in inter- ❖ Follow holistic ecosystem management. tidal and subtidal habitat. ❖ Conduct restoration on an estuary-wide basis. ❖ En s u r e adaptability to new developments in science and Restoration Plans restoration technology. An overall management plan exists for the Puget Sound area ❖ Pr ovide for management by a panel rep r esenting federal, that contains specific tasks for federal, state, tribal and local state, tribal and local governments to maximize joint oppor- go v e r nments: the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Tea m ’ s tu n i t i e s . Marine and Freshwater Habitat Protection Program Long- ❖ Limit the amount of funding spent on planning and studies. range Plan (www.w a . g o v / p u g e t _ s o u n d / P ro g r a m s / H a b i t a t . h t m ) . ❖ Integrate and coordinate sediment remediation, habitat Additional subregional plans have been developed and some development and source control . ar e included in the discussion below. A full listing of plans and ❖ Set priorities for projects and implementation of cost-effe c - detailed information can be found on the National Strategy tive methods. Restoration Plan Database (http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov). ❖ Have a regional jurisdictional entity (e.g., port district, co u n t y , state) eventually absorb responsibility for monitor- 2000 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ing and stewardship. This plan is the state of Was h i n g t o n ’ s long-term strategy for ❖ In the long term, achieve a measurable net gain of wetlands pr otecting and restoring Puget Sound. This plan provides the function and acreage and a net gain of aquatic and riparian framework for managing and protecting the sound and coordi - habitat important to protection of water quality. nating the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, tribal and local governm e n t s . Methods Several methods have been used or recommended to achieve 1999-2001 Puget Sound Water Quality Work Plan the subreg i o n ’ s restoration goals. This plan lays out a two-year strategy to continue work to pro- ❖ Br each dikes, open dikes to res t o r e natural flood cycles, red i - tect the Sound’s health in the face of new and continuing prob - ve r t water and control drainage. ❖ Develop and implement marine protected areas (MPAs) or conditions, functional trajectories and ownership), use marine sanctuaries. “s p a c e - f o r -time substitution,” set priorities for proj e c t s ❖ Evaluate potential sites and criteria for regional management (e.g., cost effectiveness, the relative potential of the plans and provide evaluation to determine success. cleanup or restoration to benefit fish and wildlife). ❖ Pr ovide management at the local level. • Consider several ref e r ence sites as a model for res t o r a t i o n . ❖ Revegetate, retaining detritus and salmon carcasses for nutri- • Conduct thorough site planning that includes hydrol o g i c ent cycling. analysis, grading plans, soil conditioning or amendment, ❖ Install and maintain streamside fencing, bioengineering planting plans and specifications, and timetables and ap p r oaches to bank stabilization; apply fill removal, excava- schedules. tion, and for stream daylighting, create a new surface water • Collect pre- p r oject information in the context of the cur- channel and mouth to provide intertidal habitat. rent and historic landscape. Through review of a historic ❖ Maintain and/or provide large woody debris in riparian cor- and current habitat inventory, rec o n s t r uction of the cur- ridors that have been altered due to inappropriate land use rent delta may be attempted. ac t i v i t i e s . • Conduct functional assessments before and after the proj - ❖ Modify substrate; amend upland soils, import soil for estab- ect. Standardize data through hydrog e o m o r p h o l o g i c a l lishment of emergent marsh area . (HGM) assessments. ❖ Co n t r ol erosion (e.g., use logs, large rocks or other materials • Cr eate a selection process that filters proposals for accu- to protect the emergent zone from wave action; install wat- rate assessment of a proj e c t ’ s importance and feasibility. tling or shrub plantings for bank stabilization). ❖ Remove and control Spartina (use “Integrated Weed Man- Monitoring: agement approach” as suggested by Was h i n g t o n ’ s 1993 Nox- • Development of programs to monitor project effe c t i v e - ious Emergent Management Plan EIS; use herbicide, mow ness. and spray reg i m e ) . • Development of a quantitative approach for measuring ❖ Plant eelgrass in areas that have the appropriate physical pro g r ess. characteristics (salinity, depth, substrate, water clarity, etc.). • Designation of a lead entity to oversee site stewards h i p , monitoring and implementation of contingency measures. Elements of Success • Involvement of volunteers in monitoring of res t o r a t i o n A variety of elements have proven successful in res t o r a t i o n pr ojects. Volunteer stewardship groups and conserva t i o n eff o rt s . or ganizations should be tapped to carry out monitoring ❖ Define roles for stakeholders and public parti c i p a t i o n . tasks, to control program costs and foster community sup- ❖ Cr eating a panel for each project of cooperating agencies to po r t for stewardship of completed restoration proj e c t s . establish goals, rev i e w , set priorities for and rec o m m e n d Reviews by a lead agency can ensure data quality. Pro- pr ojects, collect and disseminate information, and address a grams need continual review so that as specific criteria variety of information specific to assigned area s . have been met, the associated monitoring tasks cease. ❖ Developing and implement a long-term site management • Adoption of standard protocols to which perfo r mance cri- plan after res t o r a t i o n . teria can be compared. Possible monitoring could include ❖ Building on smaller restoration projects to increase rates of be l o w - g r ound and above-ground biomass, inventory of su c c e s s . fish and amphibian res o u r ces, bird use by habitat type ❖ Designing and build projects in the context of a larger land- (point counts, breeding bird surveys), invertebrate sur- scape approa c h . veys, vegetation surveys, and channel formation. Monitor- ❖ Using adaptive management to monitor sites and make ing should be related to goals via a conceptual model. ap p r opriate changes over time; collect, evaluate, update and distribute information about ongoing programs and proj e c t s Education and public participation: to improve water quality and salmon habitat. • Educate and publicly involve all stakeholders to establish a sense of ownership in the restoration measures and edu- Site selection and planning: cate the public about how to prevent further degradation. • Evaluate site elevation, tidal flow, freshwater input, and Educational initiatives should be tailored to each specific substrate type versus the habitat req u i r ements of res t o re d audience. vegetation community. • De t e r mine the role of the public in the project. • Establish selection criteria (current and historic locations, • Develop and distribute materials for a comprehensive edu-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat cational program and maintain it through partn e r s h i p s States, Canada and Mexico. with other agencies. In Puget Sound, the Public Involve- • The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restora- ment and Education Fund supports educational programs. tion Act authorizes the director of the U.S. Fish and • Pr ovide educational workshops for landowners on imple- Wildlife Service to grant funds to coastal states (including menting best management practices that protect water states bordering the Great Lakes) to carry out coastal wet- qu a l i t y , streams, wetlands and fish habitat. At least half of lands conservation projects. the workshops will target livestock owners. • Educate the public on the need for a large-scale frame- Information Needs work for project selection and development The analysis of plans identified the following common area s • Bring all stakeholders into the process of project scree n i n g wh e r e additional res e a r ch is needed on restoration techniques and approval early to avoid problems and delays later. and methods: • Cr eate a Public Participation Committee, to allow people ❖ Estimates of rec o v e r y time for estuaries to determine what is to comment early and throughout the planning prog r a m attainable and sustainable over time (information about via meetings and workshops. Conduct interviews with th r eshold sizes equilibrium points). stakeholders to extract opinions and rec o m m e n d a t i o n s . ❖ Better tools for project evaluation and success criteria. The long-term viability of restoration projects relies in ❖ Data to create a baseline map of potential wetlands within pa r t on community understanding and acceptance of the watershed. Wetlands need to be characterized and func- res t o r ed natural features in the urban landscape. tional attributes assessed so that changes in conditions can be recognized. Funding: ❖ Baseline monitoring: information about onsite conditions • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has prov i d e d be f o r e construction of the restoration project; data collected financial assistance to tribes and local communities in the in the first year after the restoration project; informa t i o n Puget Sound basin to develop aquatic habitat prot e c t i o n fr om ref e r ence sites; information from literature reviews of plans. similar situations; and information from studies of existing, • The non-reg u l a t o r y Natural Lands Plan provides financial undisturbed estuaries. incentives to individual prop e r ty owners to pres e r ve criti- ❖ Mo r e information on the interaction between natural coastal cal areas and agricultural and fores t r y activities. It also pr ocesses and human land use as they relate to salmon pro- pr ovides for restoration and protection of degraded wet- duction. lands and stream corridors and recommends various fund- ❖ Spatial and computer models to establish links between ing strategies to augment the capacity to acquire high-pri- human activities and conditions in marine and fres h w a t e r ority lands. en v i r onments (e.g., to investigate and eliminate sources of • Local cost-share of capital improvements. pollution upstream that could affect work downstream). • The Corporate Wetland Restoration Partnership, founded ❖ Overlays of key habitats (and other types) with land use in 1999 by Gillette in Massachusetts, combines corporate zoning designations to predict areas that are likely to be contributions with federal and state funds to res t o r e degraded through addition of impervious area. degraded tidal and freshwater wetlands. ❖ The influence of upper watershed activities on lower water- • Having separate funds for construction and scientific shed work. res e a r ch aspects of restoration projects ensures that goals ❖ A sample subset of sites of diffe r ent ages where dikes have for both will be met. been breached by natural means (e.g., storms) and monitor- • The state of Was h i n g t o n ’ s Salmon Recovery Funding ing of how long natural restoration of these sites takes. Bo a r d has significant state and federal funds (tens of mil- ❖ Examination of projects in the context of the greater water- lions of dollars) available annually for habitat res t o r a t i o n shed or a landscape approach. A method is needed for scien- and acquisition, and has language in its guidelines specifi- tific classification of estuaries by their watershed characteris- cally soliciting estuarine and marine nearshore projects. tics. • Po r ts and port associations are possible sources of matching funds. Issues identified in need of further res e a r ch and testing include: • The North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 ❖ Co s t - e f fective methods to study the survival of biological pr ovides matching grants to private or public orga n i z a - populations in habitats or the changes in survival caused by tions or to individuals who have developed partn e r s h i p s lack of refuge or other limiting factors like available food to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United so u r ces. ❖ Climate change and the rise of sea level may req u i r e flexibil- in c r easing urbanization of coastal communities is resulting in ity in the estimated tidal levels incorporated into res t o r a t i o n mo r e substantial and permanent alteration of coastal lands and pr ojects. More res e a r ch is needed in this area so that plan- su r rounding estuarine waters. ning effo r ts can accurately take these issues into account. ❖ The identification of sites through mitigation plans prov i d e s Restoration of these critical estuarine habitats will be essential a potentially important res o u r ce. These plans often rep re s e n t to recover and maintain the biological productivity of the a substantial body of work, identifying a surplus of targe t Pacific North w e s t ’ s coastal waters. Restoration effo r ts are in sites beyond the scope of the proposed mitigation. Examples pro g r ess along the Washington and Oregon coasts under the of potentially useful project lists driven by mitigation management of federal, state, tribal and local authorities and req u i r ements include the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration th r ough the effo r ts of nongovernmental entities and communi- Panel, the Commencement Bay Natural Resource Damage ty groups. Some management plans include sections on Assessment Environmental Impact Statement and Restora- restoration that may not have been implemented yet; others tion Plan, and the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration al r eady have been completed. There has been considerable Plan and Salmon Overlay. eff o r t to re- c r eate habitat rather than simply mitigate damage. ❖ An information clearinghouse that collects baseline informa - tion on Puget Sound sites, including aerial photographs, soil Habitat Issues maps and project designs. This makes comparisons among sites difficult and thus complicates planning and construc - Status and Trends tion of future restoration projects. It is essential to follow the The following statistics reflect significant damage to the Ore- changes in geomorphology and ecology of restoration sites gon and Washington coasts and Columbia River Estuary. so that recommendations for future projects can be based on ❖ Mo r e than half the tidal marshland and 70 percent of the pr e-existing projects. Designation of a lead agency to com- tidal wetlands have been destroyed in the Columbia River pile these rec o r ds would be helpful. Es t u a r y since 1870. Only 10 percent of the historic anadromous fish stock remains (Jerrick, 1999). ❖ South Slough National Research Reserve contains less than OR E G O N A N D WA S H I N G TO N COA STS A N D 10 percent of the original salt marsh (Donnelley, 1994). CO LU M B I A RI V E R EST UA RY SU B R E G I O N ❖ Tillamook Bay has lost 85 percent of marshlands to diking and draining. Historical tidal wetlands covered 5.52 square Description miles; 0.3 square mile is native wetland and 1.3 square miles Or egon and Was h i n g t o n ’ s coastal estuaries are areas of high have been res t o r ed (NEP and US EPA, 1999). biological prod u c t i v i t y . They provide critical habitat for many ❖ Since the 1800s, urbanization converted 90 percent to 98 species of cultural, commercial and rec r eational importa n c e , pe r cent of Was h i n g t o n ’ s coastal wetlands (WDNR, 2000). including several species listed as endangered and threa t e n e d ❖ Only 35 percent of Was h i n g t o n ’ s estuaries have good water under the Endangered Species Act. Since colonization, many quality (WDNR, 2000). of the reg i o n ’ s estuaries have been affected by altered hydrol o - ❖ Willapa Bay’s infestation of Spartina, an exotic species, is gy , urbanization, water pollution and the introduction of exotic pr ojected to increase from 3,200 acres in 1997 to 30,000 species. This has had a negative impact on salmon and other ac r es in 2030 (WDNR, 2000). finfish and shellfish species, as well as on eelgrass beds, tidal ❖ Yaquina Bay has lost 14 percent of its tidelands to filling marshes and general biodiversity. (L C E M P , 1982). ❖ Juveniles of more than 70 species of fish use Oreg o n ’ s estuar- Wid e s p r ead agricultural and urban development of coastal low- ies to forage (Oberrecht, undated). lands in the Pacific Northwest began relatively late in the his- to r y of the United States. By the time the coastal areas of Threats Washington and Oregon were settled, our society had devel- Pr i m a r y threats in this region include modification and loss of oped clear goals for and efficient methods of converting tidal habitat through diking, draining, damming*, tide gates, cul- wetlands to other land uses via diking, dredging and filling ve r ts, filling, struc t u r es (such as sea walls, jetties and docks), activities. As a result, thousands of acres of biologically pro- water diversions and altered flow, and dredging; sedimentation ductive estuarine habitat have been lost to development. pr oblems in the estuary often caused by anthrop o g e n i c a l l y Although agricultural use of converted lands was dominant al t e r ed hydrology; loss of biodiversity, especially through inva- early in the last century and remains important in the reg i o n , sive or exotic species; degradation of water quality (e.g., elevat-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ed fecal coliform bacterial levels, non-point source pollution); that oversee estuarine res o u r ces and the people who depend on agricultural and fores t r y practices (e.g., creation of pasturel a n d , the estuaries for their livelihood. er osion, suspended sediments); and Canada geese, a res i d e n t species that feed on intertidal plant species, but in some cases Washington has two relevant statewide planning laws. The can be detrimental to the health and growth of res t o r ed wet- Gr owth Management Act req u i r es jurisdictions to locate criti- land plants. cal areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, aquifer rec h a r ge area s and important fish and wildlife habitat areas, develop ordi - *Dams are a major threat to the migration patterns of Pacific nances to protect them and incorporate them into county-wide salmon. The physical presence of dams, and the creation of co m p r ehensive land use plans. The Shoreline Management Act res e r voirs, impedes juvenile and adult migrations to and from req u i r es local jurisdictions to designate appropriate land uses the ocean. The res e r voirs behind the dams slow water veloci- along a 200-foot-wide shoreline zone and develop policies to ties, alter river temperatures and increase predation potential. pr otect the appropriate land uses for each designation, ranging Reduced water velocity increases the time it takes juveniles to fr om shoreline conservancy to shoreline industrial. Both of migrate downstream. Higher water temperatures may have these planning frameworks receive guidance and prog r a m m a t i c adverse effects on juvenile and adult behavior, and pred a t o r s oversight from state agencies and include a public parti c i p a t i o n find prey more easily in slower-moving water. Since 1991, the and appeals process. The coastal zone of Washington is furth e r National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed 12 “Evolu- managed by the state Department of Ecology through broa d , tionarily Significant Units,” of Columbia River Basin salmon co m p r ehensive coastal management policies. The coastal zone and steelhead as threatened or endangered under the Endan- contains three planning regions, the lower Columbia National ge r ed Species Act. Es t u a r y Program, the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary and Puget Sound, each with comprehensive management plans. Restoration Plans Although Oregon and Washington do not now have compre- A full listing of plans and more detailed information can be hensive estuarine restoration strategies, they have all the ele- found on the National Strategy Restoration Plan Database ments necessary to develop and implement such strategies. (h t t p : / / r estoration.nos.noaa.gov). Both states have a statewide framework for land use and estuar y or shoreline planning and management; a framework to Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan identify and provide funding for watershed restoration proj - This plan expresses decisions of the Columbia River Estuary ects; a system of grassroots organizations empowered to identi- Study Tas k f o r ce Council on estuarine management issues fy appropriate restoration sites and projects; and a prot o t y p e including restoration, land and water use, dredged material in f o r mation system that can assist in the identification of estu- management and mitigation. arine restoration sites. A national estuarine restoration strategy and federal funding would contribute significantly to the use of Lincoln County Estuary Management Plan these elements in the development and implementation of The Lincoln County Estuary Management Plan provides an co m p r ehensive regional estuarine restoration strategies. overall, integrated management scheme for estuarine aquatic ar eas in Lincoln County and contains comprehensive prov i - Activities in Oreg o n ’ s estuaries are governed largely by an ele- sions for guiding estuarine development and conserva t i o n ment in Oreg o n ’ s Statewide Comprehensive Land Use Pro- ac t i v i t i e s . gram. Oregon law req u i r es all local governments to adopt co m p r ehensive land use plans in compliance with a series of Lower Columbia River Estuary Plan “Statewide Planning Goals.” There are 19 such goals; four The Lower Columbia River Estuary Plan was developed by a apply exclusively to coastal res o u r ces, one specifically to estu- committed group of citizens participating in the Lower Colum- aries. Thus, all of Oreg o n ’ s major estuaries are governed by bia River Estuary Program. The plan focuses on a unique and “e s t u a r y management plans,” available on the interne t critical part of the Columbia River system: the Lower Colum- (w w w. i n f o r a i n . o rg / m a p s a t w o r k / o re g o n e s t u a r y/). In addition, bia River. It identifies how to best pres e r ve and enhance this the Lower Columbia Estuary Program (www.l c re p . o rg / res o u rc e . home.htm) and the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Proj e c t (w w w. c o . t i l l a m o o k . o r. u s / g o v / e s t u a ry / t b n e p / n e p h o m e . h t m l ) , Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve pa r ticipants in the U.S. EPA’s National Estuary Program, were The Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was cr eated to develop partnerships between government agencies established in Washington in 1980 and currently encompasses 10,700 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The Tillamook Bay Comprehensive Conservation and res e r ve management plan was prep a r ed in 1984 and is curren t l y Management Plan being revised. Important habitats that may be useful for investi- This Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) gation and as ref e r ence sites include tidal flats and sloughs, salt ad d r esses four priority problems in the Bay with coordi n a t e d marshes and seagrass beds. Restoration priorities include goals, objectives and specific actions. Each action details the removal of fish migration blockages and salmon rec o v e r y by steps req u i r ed to complete the action; identifies coordi n a t i n g means of restoration of riparian zones and estuarine sloughs. entities, other partners and completion dates; estimates costs; Restoration of salt marshes, mudflats and eelgrasses may acknowledges reg u l a t o r y issues; and plans for monitoring include removal of invasive species, woody debris and toxic pro g r ess toward the CCMP goals and objectives. materials such as creosote logs. Current restoration proj e c t s include Spartina alterniflora control that pres e r ves and res t o re s Plan Elements native salt marshes and mudflats. Goals Salmon Recovery Plan Analysis of plans reveals definite similarities among stated goals In May 1997, Washington Governor Gary Locke and thirte e n for habitat protection and restoration. These include: res t o r a - agency heads signed a memorandum of agreement to establish tion and protection of habitat, including restoration and pro- a forum to serve as the “formal and ongoing institutional frame- tection of physical, chemical, hydrological and biological work to promote interagency communication, coordi n a t i o n pr ocesses; re- c r eation and protection of wetlands and tidal and policy direction on environmental and natural res o u rc e marshes, no net loss of wetlands, eelgrass beds or tidal marshes, issues.” This forum is known as the Joint Natural Resource s and reversal of historic trends of degradation; maintenance of Cabinet (JNRC). To bring together a wider forum to assist or increase in biodiversity, including restoration of anadrom o u s with the review and development of a three - p a r t effo r t to and other fish populations, improvement of fish and wildlife recover salmon, the Government Council on Natural Resource s health, control and prevention of further introductions of inva- (GCNR) was developed. In order to assist the JNRC and sive or exotic species; improvement of water quality; increa s e GCNR in accomplishing their mission, the Governo r ’s Salmon in acreage of functioning tidal marshes; and conservation of Re c o v e r y Office was established by the Legislature through the existing habitat function. Salmon Recovery Planning Act (Engrossed in Substitute House Bill 2496). The Salmon offi c e ’ s role is to coordinate and pro- Methods duce a statewide salmon strategy, assist in the development of Analysis of restoration plans revealed commonly used methods regional salmon rec o v e r y plans, and submit the strategy and for restoring and managing habitat. plans to the federal government. The office also provides the Biennial State of the Salmon rep o r t to the state legislature. Restoration Methods: • Remove or breach dikes and other struc t u r es such as jet- South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve ties, sea walls and dams. The South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve was • Remove old tide gates or replace with fish-friendly tide established in Oregon in 1974 and currently encompasses 4,770 gates. ac r es of protected estuarine habitats. The res e r ve management • Remove fill or dredge material from former wetlands and plan was last revised in 1994. South Slough habitats include tidal sloughs. degraded and relatively undisturbed examples of coastal fores t s , • Re - c r eate or reconnect sloughs, streams and wetlands; re- riparian habitats, freshwater wetlands (including beaver ponds), establish natural hydrology by excavation or dynamite. salt marshes, tidal flats and eelgrass beds. Restoration priorities • Revegetate wetlands and upland buffers with native plants. include anadromous fish rearing habitat, salt marsh vegetation • Re - c r eate correct ground elevation for natural rev e g e t a - and invertebrate communities, and forest and upland habitat tion of tidal wetlands to take place. enhancement. Current restoration projects include salt marsh • Suspend maintenance of dikes (passive restoration). restoration (i.e. dike removal and restoration and creation of • Co n t r ol invasive or exotic species through mowing, herbi- tidal creeks), replanting historically harvested upland fores t s cides, biological controls, uprooting, covering, taking and stream channel restoration and enhancement. in v e n t o r y of existing populations and providing informa - tion to the public.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Strategies for Managing Habitat: • Develop public outreach, education and volunteer oppor- • Encourage restoration and protection effo r ts on private tunities. land. • Identify and set priorities for habitat to be res t o r ed. Information Needs • Ac q u i r e land for restoration purposes. Some areas in current restoration effo r ts could be more suc- • Establish and enforce shellfish closure criteria. cessful with further res e a r ch. The following is a list of factors • Establish and enforce total daily maximum loads. that have contributed to less successful restoration practices. • Sample water quality reg u l a r l y . ❖ Lack of agency coordination and lack of a designated single • Apply land use designations and zoning to direct develop- responsible person. ment away from critical estuarine habitats (e.g., natural, ❖ The newness of the implementation phase of the programs. co n s e r vation, development). ❖ Lack of res o u r ces for monitoring, public involvement or out- • Cr eate or implement relevant state laws and county ordi - reach. nances (e.g., land use, fisheries management). ❖ Lack of scientific data and tracking of changes in data. • Mitigate habitat loss in unavoidable situations. ❖ Im p e r fect results (e.g., low salt marsh ret u r ns instead of high • Su p p o r t basic scientific res e a r ch to inform management salt marsh ret u r ns). decisions. ❖ Need for updating older restoration plans. • Bring a sense of uniformity to restoration effo r ts. ❖ Mapping problems. • Implement a monitoring and adaptive management pro- ❖ Use of plugs to direct water flow. gram after restoration. ❖ Need for res e a r ch in sedimentation process, fish stranding and ecosystem relationships. Elements of Success ❖ Need for a comprehensive look at historical estuarine data A review of restoration plans revealed some elements of plan- (e.g., where, what kind and how to res t o r e). ning and implementation that have proved successful. ❖ Rate of restoration too slow to meet res o u r ce and habitat management goals. Planning: ❖ Need for res e a r ch on restoration in brackish water sloughs. • Have clear and common goals, design and data. ❖ Need for cost-effective methods to study the survival of bio- • Work within a large r -scale restoration plan (based on logical populations in habitats or the changes in survi v a l landscape, watershed or coastal ecosystem) when avail- resulting from capacity or other limiting factors, such as able. available food sources. • Develop cooperation among agencies, stakeholders and ❖ Need for res e a r ch on the effects of climate change and rising in t e r est groups such as watershed councils and “lead enti- sea level on estimated tidal levels, so that restoration plans ties.” can take these issues into account accurately. • Build on successful pilot or predecessor restoration programs. • Work within existing shoreline land use designations. • Establish a restoration advisory group that includes national science experts who will review plans. • Use existing mitigation plans to identify candidate restoration sites.

Implementation: • Monitor before and after alteration needed for restoration. • En s u r e sufficient funds (state, nonprofit sources, grants). • Cr eate and maintain a large database of relevant informa - tion. • Co n t r ol elevation when restoring vegetation to ensure that revegetation goals are met. • Involve rep r esentatives from permit-issuing agencies and funding entities in the design process and project implementation through site visits. RE F E R E N C E S Skagit Watershed. Council Habitat Protection and Restoration St r a t e g y . Be e m e r , Eric. Skagit Cooperative. Personal communication. Ho f fmann, Wayne, Mid-coast Watershed Council. Lint Slough Be l c h e r , Jennifer M. 2000. Changing Our Waterways: Trends in Restoration Project. Personal Communication. Washington’s Water Systems. De p a r tment of Natural Resource s , Olympia, Wash. Je r rick, Nancy. 1999. The Lower Columbia River Estuary Pro- gram: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Po r t- Coastal America. Corporate Wetland Restoration Partn e r s h i p . land, Ore.: LCREP, Oregon and Washington states and the In t e r net. www.c o a s t a l a m e r i c a . g o v / t e x t / c w r p . h t m l . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Co r tright, Robert, Jeffr ey Weber and Robert Bailey. 1987. The King County Department of Metropolitan Services. 1994. Oregon Estuary Plan Book. De p a r tment of Land Conserva t i o n Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program Panel- Full Concept and Development, Salem, Ore. Document. Panel Publication 7.

Dean, T. 1998. Snohomish Estuary Restoration Blueprint. Peo- Lincoln County Estuary Management Plan (LCEMP). 1982. ple for Puget Sound. Ne w p o r t, Ore.: Lincoln County.

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White and C. Tan n e r . 2000. Skagit McColgin, Ian, ed. 1979. Columbia River Estuary Regional Man- Es t u a r y Restoration Assessment. People for Puget Sound. agement Plan. Van c o u v e r , Wash.

Do n n e l l e y , Anne W. 1994. South Slough National Estuary Mc R o y , C.P. and J.J. Goering. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems of Research Reserve Management Plan. State of Oregon and NOAA, Alaska. Part III-B. In: Coastal Ecological Systems of the U.S. Charleston, Ore. H. T . Odum, B.J. Copeland, E.A. McMahan, eds. The Conser- vation Foundation, Washington, D.C., pages 124-131. Do r s e y , Geoffre y , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Trestle Bay Restoration Project. Personal Communication. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 722 pages. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. National Estuary Program (NEP) and Environmental Prot e c t i o n Agency (EPA). 1999. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project: ———. 1999a. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tillamook Update on Injured Resources and Services. Bay, Oregon. Garibaldi, Ore.

———. 1999b. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1999 Ob e r recht, Kenn. Oreg o n ’ s Salt Marshes. South Slough Status Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. National Research R e s e r ve and Tillamook Bay National Estuary Pr oject. Charleston, Ore.; Garibaldi, Ore. ———. 2000. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2000 Status Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Ecosys- Pitkin, Dave, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biologist. Siletz tem Research. River Estuary Restoration. Personal Communication.

Fr ost, S. and D. Logan. 2001. Alaska’s Copper River Delta: A Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT). 2000. Mecca for Shoreb i r ds and Bird Lovers. International Programs 1991-2001 Puget Sound Water Quality Work Plan. Newsletter. USDA Forest Service, No.6, 2 pages. Re s t o r e America’s Estuaries. 1999. Principles of Estuarine Habitat Gr eene, Sarah, U.S. Forest Service. Salmon River Estuary Restoration. Arlington, Va. Restore America’s Estuaries. Restoration work. (Scenic Research Area Management Plan). Co r vallis, Ore. Personal Communication. Riggs, Sharon. Padilla Bay Reserve- Spartina control. Personal communication. 17 January 2001. Padilla Bay Reserve, 10441 Habitat Restoration and Protection Committee (HRPC). 1998. Bayview-Edison Road, Mt. Ver non, WA 98273, 360-428-1558.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Salmon Information Center. 1999. “Projects to Restore Estuary War d, D.H., C.J. Markon, and D.C. Douglas. 1997. Distribu- and Nearshore Habitat.” In FY 2000 Habitat Projects in the tion and stability of eelgrass beds at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Tri-County Area. Internet. www.s a l m o n i n f o . o rg . Aquatic Botany 58: 229-240.

Simenstad, Charles. University of Washington, School of Fish- Washington Department of Ecology (WDE). 1993. Restoring eries and Aquatic Sciences, Wetland Ecology Team, Seattle, Wetlands in Washington—A Guidebook for Wetland Restoration, Wash. Personal communication Planning and Implementation. Publication 93-17.

State Department of Agriculture. 2000. Spartina Management Washington Department of Ecology (WDE). December 2000. Plan for Grays Harbor/Copalis River. Olympia, Wash. Sediment Quality in Puget Sound: Year 2- Central Puget Sound. Internet. www.e c y. w a . g o v . Tan n e r , Curtis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal commu n i c a t i o n . Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1996. 21st Century Wild: Washington State’s Fish and Habitat Policy for U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1998. National Salmonid Protection and Recovery. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State of Alaska De p a r tment of Fish and Game. Katchemak Bay National Estu- Washington Departments of Health (WDH), Fish & Wil d l i f e arine Research Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement, (WDFW), Natural Resources (WDNR) and Ecology (WDE); Final Management Plan. National Estuarine Research Reserve Parks and Recreation Commission; Puget Sound Water Quality Sy s t e m . Action Team (PSWQAT); Brem e r ton-Kitsap County Health District; Northwest Indian Tribes and the Washington Sea U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic Grant Program, University of Washington. 1999. Public Shell- and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996. Commence- fish Sites of Puget Sound. ment Bay Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol - ume I: Draft EIS. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), De p a r tment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic Ag r i c u l t u r e (USDA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Commence- and Olympic National Research Center. 2000. Spartina Man- ment Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Restoration agement Plan for Willapa Bay. Willapa Bay, Wash. Plan. White, Jacques. 1997. The Loss of Habitat in Puget Sound. Pe o - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wes t e r n Was h i n g t o n ple for Puget Sound. Of fice. 2000. Intertidal Habitat Projects Monitoring Prog r a m . Panel Publication 23. C H A P T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 2 – CALIFORNIA AND THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

EST UA R I E S O F CA L I F O R N I A A N D T H E PAC I F I C IS L A N D S SU M M A RY

The California and Pacific Islands region is he California and Pacific Islands region covers a large geo- de f ined here as the northern and southern coasts graphic area comprising significant diffe r ences in the local of California, Hawaii and the Pacific Island/U.S . Pa c i f ic Prote c t o ra t es, including Guam, American T extent of coastal and estuarine habitat as well as res t o r a t i o n Samoa and the Commonwealth of the North e r n eff o r ts and planning. In the Pacific Islands, the fact that estuarine Marianas (CNMI). habitat is relatively rare makes that habitat uniquely critical to local ecosystem functions. In terms of restoration planning, San Francisco This reg i o n : ❖ Encompasses an area from latitude 15 degree s Bay produced the nation’s first effo r t at what has become known as south to latitude 42 degrees north, and from coastal zone management. The Southern California Wetlands Recov- longitude 117 degrees west to longitude 145 er y Project is a partnership among 17 federal and state agencies work- de g r ees west—a significant portion of the planet. ing in concert with a public advisory committee, a science panel and task forces in five coastal counties. The Southern California Wet l a n d s ❖ Has subregions that are not only distinct from Re c o v e r y Project developed a regional restoration strategy that has each other ecologically and politically, but as a been evolving over the past four years. In the Pacific Islands, very few whole are geologically and ecologically distinct fr om each other. plans exist for comprehensive restoration planning for estuarine habitats. This absence of planning is alarming because the populations of ❖ Has lost 9,000 acres (33 percent) of intert i d a l these islands are increasing at an extremely high rate and the majority ha b i t at in the Humboldt Bay estuary (USFWS, 19 9 2 ) . of the populations inhabit the coastal areas. Several government agencies are gathering baseline data that would allow planning effo r ts to ❖ Has lost 80 percent of the estuarine area in the pro c e e d . Suisun Marsh, Calif. (USFWS, 1981).

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat IN T RO D U C T I O N Northern Hawaii Marianas Description For this discussion, the California and Pacific Islands region is defined as the north e r n and southern coasts of Californi a , Hawaii and the Pacific Island/U.S. Pacific Prot e c t o r a t e s . Papua New Guinea

American The North e r n California subregion encompasses the coast fr om the Oregon border to Point Conception, Calif. This sub- Samoa region covers more than 800 miles of coastline. Because the Australia no rt h e r n coast is exposed to the Pacific current and cooled fr om the north e r n reach, it experiences cooler climates with higher rainfall than the rest of the state. The Southern Califor- Figure 2. Pacific Protectorates Subregion nia subregion includes the area from Point Conception south- wa r d to the Mexican borde r . This part of the coast is subject to tions encloses an area much larger than the continental United a subtropical oceanic gyre that moves north w a r d until it mixes States, and any leg of this triangle is longer than the distance with the cooler Pacific current at Point Conception. This phe- between New York City and Los Angeles. nomenon creates a warm and semi-arid Mediterranean-like climate unlike that of other parts of the region. Key Habitats and Species Key habitats within the region include salt, brackish and fres h - The United States affiliated Pacific islands discussed in this water marsh; open water lagoon; seasonal wetland; tidal mud- section are the state of Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the flat; beach and dune; upland and riparian habitat; salt ponds; No rt h e r n Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the territories of Guam and Hawaiian fishponds. These habitats and their need for and American Samoa. All are tropical oceanic islands; however, restoration are based upon the frequency with which they were they are widely dispersed across the Pacific. Hawaii lies near mentioned in the restoration plans reviewed. Habitats and the the edge of the tropics in the north Pacific Ocean and is the de g r ee of restoration needed vary somewhat between subre- most isolated island chain in the world in relation to continen- gions (see Table 1, next page). tal areas. Guam is the southern terminus of the Mariana Islands chain and the remainder are part of the CNMI. These islands Coastal and estuarine habitats within California and the Pacific lie near the equator in the Wes t e r n Pacific Ocean. Guam is Islands are designated as essential fish habitat for species man- 3,800 miles west-southwest of Honolulu and 1,500 miles aged by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the south-southeast of Tokyo. American Samoa is south of the Wes t e r n Pacific Fishery Management Council, indicating that equator in the central Pacific Ocean, approximately 2,500 these habitats are necessary to support a sustainable yield from miles southwest of Hawaii. A triangle formed by these loca- fisheries and to support a healthy ecosystem (NOAA/Pacific Fi s h e r y Management Council, 1998; Wes t e r n Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1998). Many of the estuaries in the region directly support species of fish that are economically im p o r tant because of their commercial and rec r eational harvest. These and other estuaries provide habitat for endan- ge r ed and threatened species of fish and indirectly support im p o r tant economic species by providing nursery habitat for pre y .

The estuaries of California provide important habitat for a Northern California host of shore birds and wading birds, fish-eating birds , Southern California wa t e r fowl and raptors. Many of these estuarine-dependent Hawaii and the species are listed as endangered or threatened; consequently, Island Protectorates the limited amounts of healthy estuaries provide critical habitat. Some areas within the region have a high incidence Figure 1. California and the Pacific Islands Region of endemic species, making healthy estuaries essential to Invasive species are a serious problem in TA B L E 1. EST UA R I N E HA B I TATS I N NE E D O F RE STO R AT I O N I N Ca l i f o r nia estuaries. Invertebrates such as the CA L I F O R N I A A N D T H E PAC I F I C IS L A N D S Asian clam, various non-native algae includ- Ha b i t at No r thern Southern Ha waii U.S. Pacific ing Caulerpa taxifolia, and plants such as pep- Ca l i fo r n i a Ca l i fo r n i a Pr o t e c t o ra t e s pe r grass and smooth cordgrass are threa t e n - Tidal salt marsh ing the integrity of native habitats. In many and fres h w a t er cases, these species alter essential prop e rt i e s ma r sh ● ● ● ● of existing habitats, and compete with Cali- Su b m e r ged aquatic fo rn i a ’ s native plants and animals. Many of ve g e t ation ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ Ca l i f o rn i a ’ s listed species are suffering due to the presence of these invasive exotics. Di a d r omous fish co r r i d o r s ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ While limited in extent, estuarine habitats in Co a s t al the Pacific Islands can be quite diverse. In embayments ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Hawaii, brackish-water marshes, fishponds, Sh e l l f ish ree f s anchialine pools and mudflats are the most ▲ ▲ ● ● and coral ree f s significant estuarine habitats. In the other Beaches and dunes ● ● ▲ ▲ island areas, most estuarine habitat is man- In te r tidal flats ● ● ▲ ▲ gr ove forest. These habitats support a wide Salt ponds and variety of invertebrates such as shrimp, crabs salt pannes ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ and mollusks. Wetland and coastal habitats Rocky shore and also support a range of resident and visiting cobble beach ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ wa t e r fowl, shore birds and seabirds. In addi- Wetlands ● ● ● ● tion, a very important group of orga n i s m s rely on estuaries to complete their life Ma n g r oves ❍ ❍ ❍ ● cy c l e s — f r eshwater amphidromous fish (gob- Estuarine ies), mollusks and crustaceans. These orga n - ▲ ▲ ● ● fish corridors isms have evolved from marine forms to KE Y : ● High need ▲ Mo d e ra t e need ❍ Low or no need inhabit freshwater streams in Hawaii, Ameri- can Samoa, CNMI and Guam. These species live as adults and spawn in streams, after their survival and regional biodiversity. Across the region, estu- which the young float to the ocean and drift for weeks or aries also play a critical function as resting and feeding area s months before ret u r ning to the streams as juveniles to continue along the Pacific Flyway (USFWS, 1996). the cycle (Swenson, personal communication).

A number of species in California estuaries are either federally California’s Anadromous Fish Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or have special An a d r omous fish, such as the coho, chinook salmon, steelhead state status as determined by the California Department of Fish tr out, american shad, striped bass (an introduced species) and and Game. Federal endangered species include fish (tidewater white sturgeon, req u i r e healthy rivers and associated tributaries goby), mammals (saltmarsh harvest mouse), birds (light-footed for migratory routes, as well as for spawning and nursery clapper rail, California clapper rail, San Clemente loggerhe a d gr ounds. Many of these fish pass through wetland, or shallow shrike, California least tern, California brown pelican), and ne a r s h o r e water (which have wetland and estuary influence) for plants (salt marsh bird’ s beak). Federal threatened species su r vival during at least a portion of their lives. Most often, include fish (steelhead trout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, these areas are nursery grounds for young fish. The young fish delta smelt, sacramento splittail), mammals (southern sea otter) benefit from the high food concentrations, shelter and vegeta- and birds (marbled murlett, snowy plover). Many other species tion that these areas provide. Some salmon and steelhead of estuarine fish, mammals, plants, invertebrates, reptiles and smolts use streamside wetlands for food and protection and amphibians are listed as threatened or endangered by the state then move to estuaries and fringing marshes for weeks or of California. months as they grow and adapt to the salt water environ m e n t be f o r e moving out to sea. As adults, salmon and steelhead will

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat utilize the estuaries again for a brief time to feed before TA B L E 2. STAT U S O F SA L M O N A N D ST E E L H E A D heading upstream to spawn. Other fish species use wetlands PO P U L AT I O N S* I N CA L I F O R N I A and estuaries for years at a time, while still others depend on ne a r s h o r e environments for their whole lives. Species Name Population S ta t u s On c o r h yncus S. Oreg o n / N o r thern California Although salmon and steelhead historically used rivers and ki s u t c h coho T st r eams along the entire coast of California, the stron g e s t Ce n t r al California coho T remaining populations of anadromous fish typically occur in On c o r hy n c u s Southern California steelhead E rivers near or north of San Francisco Bay, where 60 perce n t mykiss Ce n t r al CA Coast steelhead T of Californi a ’ s annual rainfall occurs. The Klamath River, So u t h - C e n t r al California Coast which drains a 12,000-square-mile watershed, is the second st eelhead T la r gest river in the state, after the Sacramento River. Other CA Central Valley steelhead T an a d r omous fish, such as striped bass and white sturge o n , No r thern California steelhead C mainly spawn in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Klamath Mountain Province st eelhead C Many anadromous fish have shown significant population declines in the last decade. In 2000, only 1,352 winter-ru n On c o r hy n c u s Sa c r amento River winter chinook E chinook salmon migrated upstream in the Sacramento River, ts h a w y t s c ha CA Central Valley spring chinook T co m p a r ed to an average of 35,000 from 1970 to1974 (see CA Coastal chinook T Fi g u r e 3). Many of Californi a ’ s salmon and steelhead are CA Central Valley fall chinook C either threatened, endangered or candidates for listing under * These fish populations are those that are listed under the Endan- the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (see Table 2). ge r ed Species Act (ESA) as being in danger of extinction (E), threa t - ened with becoming endangered (T), or as a candidate (C) for listing Threats to California’s Salmon and under the ESA. These population groupings, called Evolutionarily Sig- Steelhead Fisheries ni f icant Units (ESUs), are broad groupings that contain fish of many d i ff e rent stocks (e.g., fish that are adapted to return to specific Hydropower ri v ers, often at a particular time of the yea r ) . Hy d r opower dams have dramatically altered flows and riparian habitat for a large number of rivers and streams. Dams and st r eam segments below dams, caused loss of upstream habitat hy d r opower operations have modified the level, timing, fre- and increased predation in res e rv o i r s . quency and duration of stream flows. Dams have blocked the movement of fish both upstream and downstream, de-watered Smolt and juvenile fish migrating downstream through the res e r voirs encounter slower moving water. By increasing the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Populations time it takes for them to reach the ocean, their chances of dying from predation and diseases increases as well. In addi- 40,000 Source: California Department of Fish and Game tion, the absence or inadequacy of fish ladders or other bypass 35,000 systems block or limit adult migration upstream, closing off 30,000 many miles of potential spawning and rearing habitat. 25,000 Agricultural Practices 20,000 Agricultural practices that may adversely affect salmon include 15,000 diking, draining, filling, stream channelization, removal of 10,000 la r ge woody debris, installation of riprap along stream banks, removal of riparian vegetation, road building, diversion of sur- 5,000 face and ground water for irrigation and agricultural proc e s s - 0 ing, and pesticide and fertilizer applications. Irrigated agricul- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985- 1990- 1995- 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 tu r e req u i r es diversion of water, which reduces stream flows. In 5-Year Averages some years, this leaves little or no water for salmon and other aquatic species. Return flows, while perhaps increasing the Figure 3. Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Populations amount of water in streams, degrade the water quality by raising its temperature and adding dissolved chemicals. pr ovides nutrients on which new generations of salmon Un s c r eened or improperly screened diversions can have devas- de p e n d . tating effects on juvenile fish. Climate Change and Ocean Conditions Forest Practices Climatic changes can affect the numerous physical, biological Fo r est management activities such as road building, timber har- and chemical processes in the ocean that influence fish popula- vests near streams or on steep or unstable areas, and the appli- tion dynamics and survival. Variations in sea surface tempera- cation of chemicals have damaged fish habitat and water quali- tu r es, air temperatures, strength of upwelling, salinity, ocean ty . The most profound impacts include: increased stream tem- cu r rents, wind speed and ocean productivity have been shown pe r a t u r e, diminished opportunities for large woody debris to cause or correspond with fluctuations in abundance and sur- rec r uitment, alteration of groundwater and surface water flows vival of salmonid populations. (i n c r eased run o f f and reduced percolation of rain and snowmelt into the ground), and degradation or loss of riparian habitats. Habitat-Dependent Activities These forest practices also resulted in lost or degraded spawn- The fisheries economy of California and the Pacific Islands is ing and rearing habitats, contributing to the ESA listing of di r ectly dependent on healthy estuarine habitats. In 1999, Cali- some salmon runs. fo r nia rec o r ded the landing of nearly 295,000 metric tons of fish, worth nearly $145 million. Landings of chinook salmon Urbanization alone were valued at nearly $7.5 million. Similarly, rec o rd e d Urban areas are frequently located in important salmon migra- landings of all species in Hawaii were nearly 17,000 metric tion corridors and rearing areas. The areas most significantly tons, worth $65 million (www.n m f s . n o a a . g o v ) . af fected by urbanization are small streams, riparian corri d o r s and associated wetlands, shorelines and estuaries. Residential, In addition to the important function estuaries play in the co m m e r cial and/or industrial development changes the natural coastal and marine ecosystem, they provide all the benefits to hy d r ologic cycle by stripping vegetative cover, removing and humans that terrestrial wetlands provide: water filtration and de s t r oying native soil struc t u r e, modifying surface drainage purification, aquifer rec h a r ge (e.g., help protect against salt pa t t e r ns and adding impervious and nearly impervious surfa c e s , water intrusion thereby protecting groundwater and drinking such as roads and other compacted soils. Loss of water in water), flood and erosion control, storm surge protection and st r eam channels and riparian areas, due to water withdrawal ar eas for rec re a t i o n . and consumptive use of water from streams, rivers and aquifers, fu r ther reduces groundwater rec h a r ge. In the Pacific Islands, estuarine habitats, particularly mangrov e ar eas, are important to rec r eational and semi-subsistence fish- Stream Flow Modification eries. Although native to American Samoa, CNMI and Guam, Natural flow conditions have been affected through the diver- ma n g r oves are actually an alien species in Hawaii. Historically, sion of water from streams for irrigation, municipal and indus- pre f e r red areas for human settlement and ocean access were at trial uses, water storage operations, and land use changes. river mouths and semi-enclosed water bodies such as Honolulu In c r eases in the frequency and duration of both floods and low Harbor on Oahu; Agana Harbor and the villages along the flows are having considerable detrimental effects on salmon. so u t h e r n coastline of Guam; and Pala Lagoon on Tut u i l a , American Samoa. Harvest Ha r vest rates of adults in many fisheries can reach 50 perce n t Status and Trends to 80 percent of salmon populations, and though many salmon Th r oughout California and the Pacific Islands, introduction of stocks can sustain this level of harvest, stocks that are chal- exotic species, discharge of industrial pollutants, oil spills, fill- lenged by poor productivity or poor ocean conditions cannot. ing of wetlands, application of fertilizers and pesticides, mili- In addition, size-selective gear, coupled with high rates of har- ta r y administration of remote islands, and major land use modi- vest of larger adults, can result in shifts toward younger, smaller fication to promote agriculture and fores t r y practices and urban adults with less ability to negotiate the challenges salmon face gr owth have altered estuaries and their associated habitats. during their journey (e.g., large barriers) and with lower rep r o- Table 3 summarizes some of the major past, present and future ductive potential. Aside from the direct impact of commerci a l th r eats to estuaries in the California and Pacific Islands reg i o n . fishing on salmon populations, harvest also reduces the amount This table is not meant to be comprehensive but simply pro- of dead salmon that contribute detritus to rivers. This detritus vides some key examples of threats in this reg i o n .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat TA B L E 3. KE Y TH R E ATSTO HA B I TATS A N D SP E C I E S O F CO N- C E R N I N CA L I F O R N I A A N D T H E PAC I F I C IS L A N D S Habitat loss in California and the Pacific Islands has been extensive and appears to be Threat Northern Southern Hawaii U.S. Pacific in c r easing because of an ever-i n c r easing pres - California California Protectorates su r e of development and population grow t h . Direct habitat alteration Although the population of the metrop o l i t a n ● ● ● ● Co a s t al development Los Angeles area grew by only 45 perce n t ● ● ● ● Dr edging between 1970 and 1990, the urbanized area ● ● ● ● Filling gr ew by 200 percent, and land use consump- ● ● ▲ ▲ Tidal restrictions tion grew by 300 percent (Hartmann, 2001). ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ Dams In San Francisco Bay, there were rou g h l y ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ Mosquito ditching 190,000 acres of tidal marsh before the mid- Nonpoint source pollution 1800s. Tod a y , only about 40,000 acres ● ● ● ● Urban runoff remain (San Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u re , ● ● ● ● Ag r i c u l t u r al runoff 2001). In southern California, estuarine wet- ▲ ● ▲ ● Pathogens lands have been eliminated by 75 percent to ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ Aq u a c u l t u r e 90 percent as a result of filling or dredging in ▲ ▲ ▲ ● Sewage/septic the last century (Ferren et al., 1995). Toxins ● ● ● ● Resource harvesting and extraction In the Pacific Islands, loss of estuarine habi- ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Fore s t r y tats also has been significant. The state of ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Mining Hawaii includes 54.8 square miles of estuar- ▲ ▲ ● ● Fisheries ies, 43 percent of which fully support their Nuisance, exotic and invasive species designated uses, 56 percent of which are ● ▲ ❍ ❍ Pep per grass im p a i r ed by some form of pollution or habi- ● ▲ ❍ ❍ Pampas grass tat degradation and one percent of which are ● ▲ ❍ ❍ Cape ivy th r eatened for one or more uses (CWAP , ● ● ❍ ❍ Smooth cordgrass undated). Filling of wetlands for development ● ● ● ● Non-native pred a t o r s has resulted in the loss of 64 percent of ❍ ❍ ● ❍ Ma n g r ove Sa i p a n ’ s wetlands and one-quarter of Ameri- ❍ ❍ ● ● Pickleweed can Samoa’s wetlands (NOAA, 1999; ❍ ❍ ● ● Pl u ch e a USFWS, 1996). Marine algae* ❍ ❍ ● ● ❍ ❍ ● ● Tilapia In t r oduction of alien species is another major Natural disturbance co n c e r n in the Pacific Islands and is a domi- ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ Ice scour nant threat to the islands’ endemic species. ▲ ▲ ● ● Sea level rise Hawaii alone has 280 threatened or endan- ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Pr edation and grazing ge r ed species, more than any other state in ▲ ▲ ▲ ● Storms the United States (USFWS, 1996). Sea tem p e ra t u r e rise ● ● ❍ ❍ of f the Calif. coast Regional Planning Efforts Within California and the Pacific Islands, ● ▲ ❍ KEY: High concern Medium concern Low or no concern restoration plans are primarily being imple- *N o te that not all species of marine algae are considered a nuisance. Nuisance species mented at the state level or subregional level include Ca u l e r pa tax i fo l i a , a green alga found in coastal lagoons and in the Long as discussed below. One example of a plan- Be a c h harbor in southern California. This alga is fast growing and toxic to inve rt e- ning effo r t with a regional focus is the Essen- br ates, fish and other native algae. It is likely it was introduced to southern California tial Fish Habitat Amendments. A description by the aquarium trade. Another nuisance alga is Unidaria sp., a brown alga, discov- of this planning effo r t is provided below. A er ed in Monterey Bay in 2001. This alga contributes to loss of biodiversity by tak i n g full listing of plans for the California and over habitat utilized by other native alga and the invert e b r ates that feed on them. Pacific Islands region and additional informa - tion can be found in the National Strategy Restoration Plan land use plans, zoning documents and other implementing Database (http://res t o r a t i o n . n o s . n o a a . g o v ) . actions. When a local coastal program has been approved by the Coastal Commission, reg u l a t o r y authority rev e r ts to the Essential Fish Habitat Amendments to the Sustainable region; however, the Coastal Commission retains limited per- Fisheries Act mitting authority, hears appeals and may issue orders for The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendments were prep a re d restoration of coastal res o u r ces and cease and desist orders for by the Pacific and West Pacific Fisheries Management Councils actions violating the Coastal Act. Although the overwh e l m i n g and identify and describe essential fish habitats for the coastal majority of the state is regulated under the Coastal Act, pelagic and pelagic fisheries of the Pacific and west Pacific. authority for coastal zone management in the San Francisco Also included in the amendments is identification of adverse Bay area is delegated to the San Francisco Bay Conserva t i o n impacts from both fishing and nonfishing activities, and actions and Development Commission under the McAteer-Petris Act. req u i r ed to conserve and enhance EFH. Major cities such as San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco California and the Pacific Islands Subregions ar e located near major estuaries and are either included in EPA’s For this analysis, the region has been divided into four subre- National Estuary Program (NEP) or designated as a National gions: two in California (north e r n California and southern Cal- Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Tijuana Estuary, in if o r nia) and two in the Pacific Islands (Hawaii and the U.S. San Diego County, has been designated as a NERR. The Santa Pacific Prot e c t o r a t e s ) . Monica Bay, in Los Angeles County, has been designated as a NE P . Morro Bay and the Elkhorn Slough in Monterey , both in The California coast is characterized by extreme geologic the North e r n California subregion, are designated as an NEP uplifting. In the central and north e r n areas of the state, coastal and NERR, res p e c t i v e l y . mountain formations have restricted the area of low-lying coastal plains and rivers that flow toward the sea, resulting in The Pacific islands include Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam na r row , deep and steep-sided estuaries. The exception to this is and the Commonwealth of the North e r n Mariana Islands San Francisco Bay, which drains the rest of California. Lower- (CNMI). Because the great distances between these areas are lying areas with more shallow estuaries characterize much of matched by diffe r ences in geology and biogeography, these so u t h e r n California. Southern California also has a distinct cli- island areas are divided into two subregions: Hawaii—which is mate. This subregion is subject to a warm-water oceanic gyre ecologically distinct because of its isolated and borderline trop - and a related Mediterranean-like climate, whereas north of ical location—and the remaining three entities. All these island Point Conception, the coast is subject to the cooler Pacific cur- ar eas feature steep relief both above and below water; there are rent and a relatively cooler and damper climate (NOAA, no wide and shallow coastal shelves, and coastal plain is limit- 19 9 0 ) . ed. Beyond fairly narrow fringing reefs, the reef face and base- ment rock drop off rapidly to considerable depths. As a res u l t , Ca l i f o r nia is divided into two subregions to rep r esent biogeo- the area suitable for estuarine habitats is very limited, with graphical distinctions as well as important regional planning restricted occurrence at river mouths and along the shores of a eff o r ts. Each subregion has a coastal zone management plan few large embayments. ap p r oved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA). This indicates that the state and local land use plans are consistent with the mandates of the federal NO RT H E R N CA L I F O R N I A SU B R E G I O N Coastal Zone Management Act. Description The California Coastal Commission administers the state’s The North e r n California subregion encompasses the coast coastal zone management under the authority granted by the fr om the Oregon border to Point Conception, Calif. This sub- 1976 Coastal Act. The Coastal Act sets state policy for the region covers more than 800 miles of coastline. Because the co n s e r vation and development of Californi a ’ s 1,100 miles of no rt h e r n coast is exposed to the Pacific current and cooled coastline, covering such matters as public access, coastal rec r e- fr om the north e r n reach, it experiences cooler climates with ation, the marine environment, coastal land res o u r ces and higher rainfall than the rest of the state. coastal development. Under authority of the Act, each local go v e r nment along the coast is to develop a local coastal pro- This area has experienced significant geologic uplift and is typ- gram consistent with state policies. These programs consist of ically characterized by dramatic topographical relief near the

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ocean. This steep relief means that most of the coastal rivers of this zone are rich in nutrients from freshwater inflows and have estuaries that are narrow and deep, with quite short upwelling events. These waters maintain an abundance and reaches. However, the area also includes significant estuaries, diversity of organisms that support rec r eational and econom- such as San Francisco Bay, Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes ic opportu n i t i e s . Es t e r o, Morro Bay, Eel River and Elkhorn Slough. These estuaries range in size from 452 square miles to one square mile of 4. Offs h o r e ocean zone: Extends from a depth of 100 water surface area and total only 492 square miles (NOAA, meters to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 1990). For comparison, this total area is approximately 13 per- miles offs h o r e). Productive oceanographic factors, such as cent the size of the Chesapeake Bay. Nonetheless, these small major ocean currents, stimulate biological productivity in ar eas provide critical habitat for numerous species listed as both nearshore and offs h o r e ocean waters. The Californi a en d a n g e r ed or threatened and often draw large congreg a t i o n s Cu r rent is a cold water current that originates north of Cali- of migratory birds . fo r nia and moves southward along the coast, whereas the Davidson Current is a periodic, nearshore current that flows Fi n a l l y , the north e r n area does not have the overall population in a northerly direction, carrying warm waters from semi- density that characterizes the southern area. Except for the San tr opical seas to southern California. Interactions between the Francisco Bay urban areas, this subregion has relatively sparse flows of these currents create two distinct marine biological populations, and land is typically used for fores t r y and agricul- regions along the coast of California. The southern reg i o n , tural purposes. extending from the Mexican border to Point Conception near the City of Santa Barbara, is composed of warme r Among estuaries in this subregion, habitats include salt, brack- waters and primarily supports temperate- and warm- w a t e r ish and freshwater marsh, mudflats, seasonal wetlands, eelgrass fish and invertebrate species. The central and north e r n beds, diked baylands (including diked wetlands, agricultural coastal region of California, extending from Point Concep- wetlands, managed wetlands and salt ponds), beaches and tion to Oregon, contains colder waters and organisms adapt- dunes, open water lagoons, tidal channels, uplands and riparian ed to such conditions. Another oceanographic factor influ- are a s . encing abundance and diversity of biological res o u r ces along Ca l i f o rn i a ’ s coast is upwelling, the movement of deep ocean Four major habitats make up Californi a ’ s coastal ocean waters into shallower, nearshore areas. Upwelling prov i d e s ec o s y s t e m : essential nutrients needed to support vast populations of 1. Inland watershed zone: Extends from the watersheds of mi c r oscopic organisms collectively known as plankton. the Sierra Nevada mountains to the California coastline. Plankton are a vital component of numerous food webs that This zone includes 7,800 miles of rivers, creeks and su p p o r t important fish, mammal and bird populations. drainages. Anadromous fish, coastal wetlands and nearshore waters are dependent on these waterways to provide fres h - Kelp forests water flows. Kelp forests connect the enclosed waters, nearshore, and off- sh o r e ocean zones described above. They are among the most 2. Enclosed waters zone: Includes waters and habitats of pr oductive and diverse ecosystems in the world, and they are a bays, estuaries and subtidal areas. Freshwater originating vital source of food for marine animals. Along the north e r n fr om as far as the Sierra Nevada mountains mixes with salt- Ca l i f o r nia coast the major kelp species are the giant kelp water from the Pacific Ocean. The bays and estuaries of (M a c r ocystis pyrifera) and the bull kelp (Nereo c y s t i s no rt h e r n California are dependent upon nutrient inputs from luetkeana). Giant kelp forms dense beds in the Monterey Bay the inland watershed, nearshore ocean and offs h o r e ocean ar ea from Cambria to Año Nuevo, except in the area between zones for the maintenance of the organisms that res i d e , Mo n t e r ey and Santa Cruz where the sandy substrate is unsuit- spawn or pass through these water bodies. able for kelp attachment. North of Santa Cruz, the bull kelp, which occurs from Point Conception north w a r d (Abbott and 3. Nearshore ocean zone: Includes nearshore open coastal Ho l l e n b e r g, 1976; Miller and Estes, 1989), becomes the domi- waters to a depth of 100 meters. This zone comprises over nant canopy-fo r ming kelp (Foster, 1982; Foster and Schiel, 1,100 miles of coastline, which extends from onshore area s 19 8 5 ) . such as sandy beaches, boulder fields and rocky outcrop - pings to an ocean floor depth of about 100 meters and the Along the central California coast where the distributions of associated kelp bed and sandy and muddy bottoms. Wat e r s these two species overlap, giant kelp outcompetes bull kelp for

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning light. Giant kelp dominates areas of relatively low water Habitat Issues motion and is dominant in years with relatively calm sea conditions. The shallow areas inshore of these kelp forests are often Status and Trends characterized by canopies of the feather boa kelp (Egreg i a San Francisco Bay is the nation’s first effo r t at what has since menziesii), the intertidal giant kelp (Macrocystis integrifolia) come to be known as “coastal zone management.” This was and the Fucalean alga (Cystoseira osmundacea) (Foster and sp u r red by dramatic losses from diking and filling and the Schiel, 1985). recognition that development was slated for every available shallow water area, which would have left only deep-water Various sea life such as turban snails, kelp crab and isopods, as shipping channels in the Bay. well as herbivorous fish like the half-moon and the opal eye, graze on the plants direc t l y . Other animals such as sea urch i n s , Since 1850, more than half a million acres of wetlands in the bat stars and abalone survive off residues of nutrient-rich drift San Francisco Estuary have been modified. In the delta, 97 per- kelp that sink to the ocean floor. Mature kelp beds contribute cent of the original tidal wetlands have been converted to up to 30 percent to 40 percent of the net primary prod u c t i o n . fa r mland or other uses. In the bay, 82 percent of the original Filter feeding organisms living in or around the kelp bed derive tidal wetlands have been filled or converted to other wetland much of their nourishment from the particulate and dissolved types (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1992). Approximately 95 or ganic matter produced by kelps. pe r cent of the San Francisco Bay’s riparian habitat has been damaged or destroyed (San Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u r e, 2001). Some species of fish, such as the gopher and black-an d -ye l l o w rockfish, rely on the dense canopy for protection and sustenance Sonoma County has the least amount of protected open space: during warm-water periods. Many juvenile fish (rockfish, senori- 25,500 hectares (63,013 acres) presently protected out of ta, kelp surfp e r ch, blacksmith) spend the early parts of their lives ap p r oximately 409,000 hectares (1,000,000 acres) of land in kelp forests, feeding on plankton concentrated there. (USFWS: Pacific Coast Joint Ven t u r e). In some areas of Morro Ba y , 85 percent of the coastal dune scrub community has been Harbor seals, California sea lions and the federally threa t e n e d co n v e r ted to suburban or urban development (Morro Bay Estu- so u t h e r n sea otter feed on fish and invertebrates occupying the ar y Program, 1999). kelp forests. The sea otter also uses the kelp forest for ref u g e fr om predators and as a nursery area for raising pups. Threats Many of the threats that gave rise to past concerns continue Giant kelp is harvested commercially in both southern and to d a y . Among them are direct conversion and loss of habitat central California, and in the mid-1980s, kelp harvesting sup- fr om draining, diking and filling. This includes, but is not limit- po r ted an industry worth more than $40 million a year (Tar p - ed to, conversion of land for agricultural use, urban develop- le y , 1992). Kelp was originally harvested as a source of potash ment, salt ponds and flood control. Remaining areas face many for making gunpowder during World War I (Frey , 1971; Tar p - th r eats, including: le y , 1992) but currently the emphasis is on the production of ❖ habitat fragmentation; algin, which serves as an emulsifying and binding agent in food ❖ se v e r e sedimentation and eros i o n ; and pharmaceutical products (Frey , 1971) and food for use in ❖ point and nonpoint source pollution from adjacent land use abalone farms. Currently between 100,000 and 170,000 wet (urban and agricultural run o f f, storm drains, streams, boating tons of kelp are harvested from California waters each year ac t i v i t i e s ) ; (Foster and Schiel, 1985; Tar p l e y , 1992). ❖ reduced tidal influence caused by accumulated sediments or co n s t r uction of physical barri e r s ; In addition to harvesting, kelp forests provide an importa n t ❖ dr edging and waterway modification; so u r ce of rec r eational activities, which range from hook-an d - ❖ intense human activity; line and spear fishing to sport diving and underwater photogra- ❖ changes in the volume or timing of freshwater flows because ph y . More is known about kelp forests in southern Californi a of water storage, diversions and flood control, resulting in and the Monterey Bay area than anywhere else in the world. in c r eased salinity, poor water circulation or habitat shifts in Ho w e v e r , knowledge is lacking on the kelp forests south of the estuary; Ca r mel Bay and north of Santa Cruz, and many processes are ❖ invasion of non-native plant species such as pepper grass, still poorly understood (e.g., the effects of local fisheries on pampas grass, cape ivy and smooth cordgrass, which have kelp forest fish populations). the potential to alter habitat struc t u r e and reduce popula-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat tions of native plants and animals; The plan was federally approved as a segment of the Californi a ❖ invasion of non-native animal species such as the mitten coastal management program in 1977. San Francisco Bay and crab, European green crab, New Zealand mud snail, New its shoreline continue to be managed under the plan as admin- Zealand sea slug, American bullfrog, Asian clam and the is t e r ed by the BCDC and other state agencies. common carp (for a complete list of troublesome species in the San Francisco Estuary, see www.c l r .pdx.edn/nis/); San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve ❖ in t r oduction of non-native predators such as foxes, dogs and The proposed San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research cats; and Re s e r ve encompasses 4,200 acres of Californi a ’ s protected estu- ❖ potential threats to kelp fores t s . arine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was pre- pa r ed in 2001, and it is expected that the res e r ve will be desig- Due to its important habitat functions, kelp harvesting in large nated in late 2001 or early 2002. Important habitats in the pro- quantities may have local ecological effects by removing food, posed res e r ve that may be useful for investigation and as ref e r - sh e l t e r , and important nutrients for large numbers of animals. ence sites include historic saline and brackish tidal marsh, live The cutting and removal of kelp in large quantities can upset oak woodlands, coastal scrub and seasonal palustrine wetlands. the balance of resident communities. Kelp also acts as a buffe r , Restoration priorities include exotic species control, hydrol o g i - absorbing and dissipating wave energy , thus its removal can cal restoration, prescribed burning and erosion control. Cur- lead to increased erosion along the shore. Coastal development rent restoration projects include native species rei n t ro d u c t i o n , may cause an increase in the amount of run o f f of fine silts and er osion control and prescribed burni n g . muds. This will increase the turbidity of the water, thereb y af fecting the amount of light entering the water and res t r i c t i n g Morro Bay Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan the growth of kelp or having a direct smothering effect on the The watershed communities of Morro Bay, Los Osos, Bay- kelp. Dredging activities offs h o r e may have the same effe c t . wood, Cuesta-by-the-Sea and Chorro Valley worked together to develop the Morro Bay Comprehensive Conservation Man- Restoration Plans agement Plan (CCMP), which is administered under the Morro Bay National Estuary Program. The CCMP addresses seven Coastal Zone Management Planning priority problems causing harmful impacts to the Morro Bay The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com- Es t u a r y. Through the development of 61 action plans based on mission (BCDC) and the Coastal Commission have res p o n s i - in f o r mation from scientific studies, the CCMP aims to sustain bility for the comprehensive planning and management of Cal- existing wildlife res o u r ces and environmental quality. if o rn i a ’ s land and water areas along the state’s coastline. The BCDC developed the San Francisco Bay Plan and has been car- Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for the San rying out a coastal management program based on this plan. Francisco Estuary The San Francisco Estuary Project, jointly sponsored by Cumulative Number of Invasive Species in the the EPA and the state of California, is a public-private San Francisco Estuary pa r tnership that developed the Comprehensive Conser- 25 0 vation Management Plan for the San Francisco Estuary. This plan presents a blueprint to res t o r e and maintain 20 0 the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the bay and delta. 15 0

10 0 Elkhorn Slough Watershed Conservation Plan The Elkhorn Slough Watershed Conservation Plan is 50 ad m i n i s t e r ed by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and The Nature Conservancy and was developed to identify 0 and address threats to Elkhorn Slough and to maintain 18 5 0 18 7 0 18 9 0 19 1 0 19 3 0 19 5 0 19 7 0 19 9 0 its long-term viability as a significant coastal system. Yea r This plan recommends continuation of other federal Source: Andrew N. Cohen, San Francisco Estuary Institute; James T. Carlton, pr ograms, such as the Natural Resource Conserva t i o n Maritime Studies Prog r am, Williams College Se rv i c e ’ s Elkhorn Slough Watershed Proj e c t . Fi g u r e 4. Cumulative Number of Invasive Species in the San Francisco Estuary Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve removal and control is often followed by effo r ts to rep l a n t The Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve was ar eas with native species such as pickleweed, eelgrass, arrow - established in 1980 and currently encompasses 1,385 acres of grass and native cordgrass. Enhancement of water quality Ca l i f o rn i a ’ s protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e rv e involves reducing point and nonpoint source pollution and management plan was approved by NOAA in 1985 and is cur- debris, restoring tidal influence and limiting the discharge of rently being revised. Important habitats that may be useful for ha r mful sedimentation. investigation and as ref e r ence sites include coastal prairie, oak woodland, coastal scrub, freshwater wetlands and ponds, salt An example of a crosscutting issue in the San Francisco and marshes and mud flats. Restoration priorities include monitor- Humboldt Bays is the removal of invasive eastern cordg r a s s , ing for new invasive species, exotic weed control, aquatic habi- which pushes out native cordgrass and, over time, fills deep- tat restoration, and replanting grasslands, oak understories and water channels with sediment. Eastern cordgrass has the poten- marsh-to-upland transition zones with native species. Curren t tial to spread coast-wide, and its eradication is taking on restoration projects include the development of a compreh e n - regional and local implications. Finally, plans speak to the need sive vegetation restoration and management plan, coastal for regional planning and ongoing monitoring and mainte- prairie and oak woodland restoration, invasion detection and nance. Critical to monitoring, maintenance and future res t o r a - exotic species control . tion planning is the need for developing a widely accepted, st a n d a r d method for measuring the success of restoration proj - Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals ec t s . Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals was developed by a grou p of rep r esentatives from a number of federal and state agencies Methods in support of the San Francisco CCMP. This rep o r t identifies The North e r n California subreg i o n ’ s plans most commonly rec - types, amounts, and distribution of wetlands and related habi- ommend implementing best management practices to red u c e tats needed to sustain diverse and healthy communities of fish pollution, erosion and sedimentation from adjacent land use, and wildlife and provides a guide to the regional wetlands and offering incentives and assistance to private landowners to planning proc e s s . do the same. Maintenance of water quality and habitat also is specifically addressed by repairing gullies to reduce erosion in Restoring the Estuary: Implementation Strategy of the San adjacent areas (techniques include constructing checkdams and Francisco Bay Joint Venture installing headcut and nickpoint protection), as well as seeding Restoring the Estuary: Implementation Strategy of the San and planting annual and perennial grasses and riparian vegeta- Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u r e was developed and adopted to tion to help stabilize soil and prevent erosion. Also, rem o v i n g help the San Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u r e (SFBJV) partn e r s debris and eradicating invasive plants that contribute to harm- reach their shared habitat objectives by working from what has ful sedimentation are methods for unblocking channels and al r eady been accomplished and planning for the future. The st r eams. In agricultural areas, plans call for preventing livestock SFBJV is based on both the San Francisco Bay CCMP and the grazing by installing fencing in sensitive erosion sites. Where Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. The CCMP calls for the ap p r opriate, plans specify eradicating invasive exotic plants and fo r mation of a joint venture to increase the acreage of wetlands replanting native wetland vegetation. Public involvement is pe r manently protected in the estuary, and the goals outlined in recommended through public outreach and education activities the strategy are based on the findings and recommendations of (e.g., workshops, meetings, rep o r ts, broc h u r es and interpret i v e the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. signs), as well as effo r ts to design public access that is compati- ble with and sensitive to environmental needs. Plan Elements Elements of Success Goals Many of the plans address the need for good coordination and An overriding goal is to approach restoration on an ecosystem cooperation between agencies and private landowners. The basis. Some of the specific goals outlined in restoration docu- Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals highlight the importance of ments focus on increasing and pres e r ving the quality and diver- complete site information and rigorous evaluation of each site’s sity of habitat and living res o u r ces within the estuaries; rem o v - suitability for its proposed project. Careful consideration of ing invasive non-native plant species, and protecting habitat such factors as the site’s water and sediment supplies, historical fr om the invasion of non-native predators and other exotic drainage patterns and current and future uses of adjacent lands species competing for the remaining habitat. Non-native plant is an important element of regional and site-specific success.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Site plans also emphasized the need for adequate funding to SO U T H E R N CA L I F O R N I A SU B R E G I O N complete projects and provide for long-term monitoring and maintenance. Description The physical features, climate and hydrology of coastal south- Information Needs er n California have produced a diversity of plants and animals In f o r mation needs cited in several plans highlight the impor- and a set of unusual conditions that sharply distinguish the tance of a comprehensive, watershed-wide, ecosystem region from any other in North America. Unlike the broa d , ap p r oach to restoration and future maintenance. Informa t i o n gradually sloping coastal plains of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, needed on a global scale is further res e a r ch on the potential so u t h e r n California has steep, rugged coastal mountains that ef fects of sea level rise. On a regional scale, examples include a descend sharply to the ocean where the underwater topogra- better understanding of the estuarine habitat needs of anadro- phy mirrors that of the craggy, exposed land. War mer waters mous fish, the migration patterns of waterfowl and shore birds , fr om the south meet chillier waters from the north. Summers the interaction between agricultural and fores t r y practices and ar e hot and dry in this semi-arid, Mediterranean-like climate, wa t e r fowl use in coastal lowland pastures, and listing the while the winters are cool with torrential downpours. The San species of fish and wildlife most affected by ecosystem frag- Gabriel and San Berna r dino Mountains can experience more mentation. Regional planning also would benefit from a better rain in a twelve-hour period than anywhere else in the conti- understanding of water quality issues that would come from nental United States. The rains cut numerous short, steep river studying circulation and dispersion of pollutants in bay ecosys- channels, which, especially in years of fire, can carry large sed- te m s . iment loads to the reg i o n ’ s lagoons and estuaries (Potter, personal communication). An example of a habitat-specific need is to gain better understanding of tidal marshes. For instance: A more arid climate and less elevated topography in direc t ❖ What are the effects of tidal marsh on the sediment budget pr oximity to the shore also create conditions for estuaries that and tidal prism? di f fer significantly from other subregions. Most estuarine area s ❖ How does the form of tidal marsh channels vary with he r e are more heavily influenced by marine water than large r sa l i n i t y ? estuaries such as the San Francisco Bay. However, irreg u l a r , ❖ What factors affect the evolution of mudflats and tidal marsh heavy rains can inundate coastal wetlands, and the species fe a t u re s ? associated with these areas are uniquely adapted to rare but ❖ What is the effect of tidal marsh on nutrient supplies to the heavy freshwater flows (Fancher, personal communication). ba y ? ❖ What species comprise the tidal marsh fish community? Habitats in the Southern California subregion include salt marsh, open water lagoon and tidal channel, seasonal wetland, Ef fective planning also req u i r es a better understanding of sever- tidal mudflat, brackish and freshwater marsh, upland and ripari- al controversial topics, including potential uses and availability an, beach and dune. Estuarine-dependent species in this reg i o n of dredge material for wetlands restoration, potential reuse of ar e too numerous to list here. However, there are more species wastewater in creating or improving habitats, disposal of con- listed as threatened or endangered in southern California than centrated waste products from salt ponds, and the potential use in any other region of the state. Listed species include fish of created wetlands to treat stormwater run o f f. Plans also dis- (e.g., steelhead trout, tidewater goby, California halibut), birds cuss the pros and cons of public access and balancing public (e.g., Belding Savannah sparrow , California least tern, clapper access with natural res o u r ce prot e c t i o n . rail, snowy plover), plants (salt marsh bird’ s beak, southern tar- plant), insects (salt marsh wandering skipper, Dorot h y ’ s El Fi n a l l y , more work is needed to develop a widely accepted Segundo sand dune weevil), mammals (Pacific little pocket st a n d a r d method for measuring the success of restoration proj - mouse and salt marsh shrew), reptiles (southwestern pond tur- ects. An example would be determining the appropriate scale tle) and amphibians (silvery legless lizard) . to measure shoreline loss or gain. In short, the dramatic historical loss of healthy habitat and the associated loss of species make restoration effo r ts vitally important. However, given the projected rate of coastal population gr owth, restoration may prove more challenging in the future. Habitat Issues The following statistics provide some indication of the extent of lost habitat in the southern California subreg i o n . Status and Trends ❖ So u t h e r n Californi a ’ s coastal wetlands have declined from Estuaries in coastal southern California are comparatively small ap p r oximately 53,000 acres to 13,000 acres (Hartm a n n , and precious, given the reg i o n ’ s narrow coastal shelf and semi- 20 0 1 ) . arid climate. But with 8.7 percent of the state’s landmass and ❖ So u t h e r n Californi a ’ s estuarine wetlands have been eliminat- almost 50 percent of the state’s population, coastal southern ed by 75 percent to 90 percent as a result of filling or dred g - Ca l i f o r nia has experienced an even greater loss of wetlands ing in the last century (Ferren et al., 1995). than the entire state, which has lost a greater percentage of its ❖ An estimated 95 percent of the historical wetlands acrea g e wetlands than any other state (National Research Council, of the Santa Monica Bay watershed has been destroy e d 1992). The five counties of coastal Southern California are (Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1994). home to 16 million people; more people than all but two states ❖ An estimated 55 percent of the animals and 25 percent of (New York and Texas) and more people than the 15 least pop- the plants designated as threatened or endangered depend ulous states combined. A full 25 percent of the nation’s coastal on wetland habitats for survival (Hartmann, 2001). population (those within 50 miles of the coast) lives in south- er n California (NOAA, 1990). Threats In addition to the dramatic losses listed above, there is the This ever-i n c r easing population req u i r es housing, flood con- th r eat of additional habitat loss associated with urban expan- tr ol, transportation infrastruc t u r e, and economic development, sion and direct conversion (e.g., dredging and filling, con- all of which have encroached upon and degraded wetlands and st r ucting dikes). Reduced tidal influence, changes in the vol- st r eams. The region has a radically altered hydrol o g y , with ume and timing of freshwater flows, habitat fragmentation, mo r e flood control dams (227), more debris basins (193), and invasion by non-native vegetation and predator animals (e.g., mo r e concrete channels than any other region in the country. domestic dogs and cats), disturbed patterns of erosion and sed- It is the only major region where storm drains carry run o f f imentation, subsidence from oil extraction, and disturbances di r ectly to the ocean rather than through sewage trea t m e n t fr om human traffic are all significant threats. Remaining estuar- plants, which accounts in large part for the 150 beach closures ine systems and the associated habitat also are degraded due to that occurred in southern California during the summer of point and nonpoint source pollution from adjacent land use. 2000, undermining a tourism and rec r eation industry worth Pollutants include, but are not limited to, pesticides and other over $7 billion annually to the region. Its network of highways toxins, bacteria, heavy metals, excess sediments and nutrients, and freeways is unparalleled and the Los Angeles/Long Beach and pathogens. po r t complex is three times larger than the next largest in the co u n t r y and the third largest port facility in the world. With a Restoration Plans gr oss regional product of $500 billion, the region has the 12th la r gest economy in the world. All of these factors have led to California Coastal Management Program the loss and degradation of the reg i o n ’ s coastal wetlands (Pot- The California Coastal Management Program was developed te r , personal communication). to provide effective res o u r ce management by protecting, maintaining, restoring and enhancing the res o u r ces of the coastal To quantify the loss of wetlands in the subregion, res e a rc h e r s zone. California coastal zone management (excluding the San have compared historical geological surveys to present-day sur- Francisco Bay area) is administered by the California Coastal veys. However, because the historical surveys did not diffe re n - Commission under the authority granted by the 1976 Coastal tiate by specific subhabitat types (e.g., mudflats, salt pannes, Act. The California Coastal Management Program is a combi- low salt marsh), the loss of habitats of concern is not rel i a b l y nation of federal, state and local planning and reg u l a t o r y quantifiable. Moreo v e r , radically changed conditions some- authorities for controlling the uses of land, air and water times make restoration of historical habitat types impossible. In res o u r ces along the coast. this sense, the dramatic decline of every habitat complicates regional priority setting. Restoration effo r ts are further compli- Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project cated by the broad array of endangered and threatened species. The Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project (SCWRP) For instance, restoration of habitat for threatened shore birds is a partnership among 17 federal and state agencies working in may inadvertently attract threatened falcons, which feed on co n c e r t with a public advisory committee, a science panel and sh o r e birds (Fancher, personal communication). task forces in five coastal counties. Southern California has a

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat draft regional restoration strategy that has been evolving over edge. Several plans also mention restricting human intrus i o n the past four years and will be formally adopted by the govern- and providing buffer zones to limit human disturbances. ing board of the SCWRP on November of 2001. The reg i o n a l restoration strategy establishes a framework for pres e r ving and Methods restoring coastal wetlands; pres e r ving and restoring stream cor- To meet the restoration goals of site plans, planning documents ridors and wetlands in coastal watersheds; recovering habitat specify restoration methods. For instance, mechanical brea c h - and species diversity; advancing the science of wetland res t o r a - ing or dredging is planned to improve or create tidal influence; tion in southern California; promoting education and compati- grading or filling is recommended to recontour the area for ble access related to coastal wetlands and watersheds; and inte- im p r oved water circulation and created habitat. Occasionally, grating wetland rec o v e r y with other public objectives. im p r oved water circulation and tidal influence demands rero u t - ing existing infrastruc t u r e, such as roads and bridges. Also, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan ensuring stable bottom contours and shore areas req u i r es con- The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan was produced by the tr ol of sediments; for example, constructing sediment basins Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project as a result of being nom- and stabilizing upstream banks through planting or embank- inated and accepted as a National Estuary Program. The plan ment struc t u re s . se r ves as a comprehensive blueprint for the bay’s rec o v e r y and as a guide to dealing with management issues such as intera- Often plans identify the need for removal of invasive plant gency coordination, resolution of conflicting or red u n d a n t species followed by replanting with native species. Water qual- res o u r ce management approaches and resolution of conflicting ity also is addressed to rer oute or treat stormwater drainage policies among jurisdictions. This plan is composed of six sec- and run o f f. Some plans call for enhancement or creation of tions that deal with major issues affecting the bay, including specific habitat for threatened or endangered species. restoring, protecting and managing habitats and res o u rc e s . Elements of Success Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve Site plans rarely discuss elements of success. The Science Panel The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve was of the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Program, how- established in California in 1982 and currently encompasses ev e r , is developing monitoring protocols to better assess the 2,513 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The success of individual projects and of the wetland rec o v e r y pro- res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1999. gram region-wide. Public involvement through education and Im p o r tant habitats that may be useful for investigation and as cooperative planning also is emphasized. Ultimately, success is ref e r ence sites include uplands, coastal sage, saltwater marsh, dependent on ongoing regional planning, which is emphasized mud flats, dunes and beaches. Restoration priorities include by the collaborative effo r ts of the Southern California Wet - sediment and flood control of upstream areas and salt marsh lands Recovery Project. The plans also focus on a watershed- restoration designed to increase endangered species habitat. wide approach to restoration and ecosystem management. Cu r rent restoration projects include completed and planned Fi n a l l y , managers often point to the need for a long-term moni- la r ge-scale salt marsh restoration as well as upland, dune and toring strategy to ensure implementation and effectiveness, as riparian restoration proj e c t s . well as a maintenance strategy that involves adaptive manage- me n t . Plan Elements Information Needs Goals In f o r mation needed might be characterized as global, reg i o n a l Site restoration plans in the Southern California subregion uni- or local. For instance, on a global scale, more information is fo r mly focus on increasing habitat values for fish and wildlife needed reg a r ding impacts associated with global warming and and restoring or enhancing native vegetation such as pickle- sea level rise. On a regional scale, further res e a r ch is needed on weed and native cordgrass. Under these general principles, the chemical and biological processes that control the transfer, specific goals include maintaining water quality through better fate and toxicity of toxic chemicals; effective means to identify pollution control, improving the volume and timing of fres h - the sources of chemical and bacteriological pollution; and ben- water flows, and restoring tidal influence. Plans also call for eficial uses for flood control and dredge spoil sediments. lo n g - t e r m maintenance and monitoring of sites to help assess Regional policy needs to address the underlying causes of and ensure effectiveness, as well as adaptive management to urban sprawl, standardized methods for measuring the success account for changes in natural dynamics and scientific knowl- of restoration projects, and the role of mitigation banks in helping to accomplish restoration goals. Finally, local res e a rc h embayments such as Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe Bay on Oahu, needs to be done on the role tidal creek networks play in the and Hilo Bay on the east coast of the island of Hawaii. Small development of wetland habitats in the Tijuana estuary. estuaries also occur at river mouths on all islands and areas of Considering the overwhelming and urgent need to pres e rv e off s h o r e groundwater discharge, primarily on the island of and res t o r e the limited res o u r ces of the Southern Californi a Hawaii, where porous lava rock limits surface flow. Fishponds su b r egion, an overriding question is whether to focus on “quali- built by native Hawaiians in the pre-contact period (most com- ty or quantity.” Large sites may offer the best opportunity for mon along the south coast of Molokai) are largely abandoned overall biodiversity, but small sites may serve the critical func- today and may also be considered estuarine (Kirch, 1998). tion of “stepping stones” for migratory birds or may be unique and critical to the survival of certain species. Anchialine pools, which occur mostly on the south coast of Maui and the west coast of Hawaii, are unique habitats where po r ous rock allows a subsurface connection to the sea. Salinity HAWA I I SU B R E G I O N is generally marine except for a brackish surface layer. Coastal ponds may be brackish and are important waterfowl habitat. Description Although considered estuarine in other regions, seagrass beds The island chain of Hawaii was formed as the Pacific tectonic ar e largely marine and found on inner reef flats. Mangrov e s plate moved northwest over a “hot spot” where, during many (Rhizophera mangle and Bruguiera gymnorhiza) were intentional- millennia, volcanic activity produced a series of high islands. ly introduced on Oahu and Molokai in the early 1900s and The eight principal islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago are subsequently spread into estuarine areas. They have colonized pro g r essive in age, with active volcanoes at the southeastern estuarine habitats where introduced, taking over brackish mud- end on the Big Island and older, inactive and highly erod e d flats and coastlines in Hawaii and displacing native plants, volcanoes on Kauai Island to the northwest. The island chain sh o r e birds and wading birds that would otherwise occupy continues with a series of pinnacles, atolls, banks and these areas (Scott, 1993; Maragos, 1998). seamounts rep r esenting prog r essively older and more weather ed products of the hot spot. Rugged topography and an Habitat Issues im p r essive range in elevation (from sea level to 4,180 meters [13,794 feet]) interact with a climate regime, resulting in sig- Status and Trends nificant spatial variation in rainfall. This produces diverse ter- Historic losses of native habitats are associated with mining of restrial environments (Scott, 1993; Maragos, 1998). guano, introduction of alien species, military administration of remote islands, and major land use modifications to prom o t e Ha w a i i ’ s topography results in relatively limited, although bio- ag r i c u l t u r e, fores t r y practices and urban growth. The U.S. Fish logically important, estuarine habitat. Coastal wetlands of and Wildlife Service estimate of coastal plain wetlands arou n d Hawaii provide important wintering habitat for migratory 1980 in this subregion is 15,474 acres—a decrease of 31 per- wa t e r fowl and shoreb i r ds. Since the Hawaiian Islands are so cent over a 200-year period (USFWS, 1996). Relatively large isolated, another important characteristic is the high level of estuarine areas have been lost to development. The tourist cen- endemism. About 10,000 Hawaiian species have been identi- ter of Waikiki, for example, was developed by draining and fill- fied as endemics, including 85 percent of birds, 89 percent of ing coastal wetlands and estuaries. Oahu, which supports flowering plants and 99 percent of snail and insects (USFWS, ap p r oximately 80 percent of the state’s population, has more 1996). significant wetland loss than the other islands; however, rapid gr owth and expansion of the tourist industry are a constant The Hawaiian Islands generally exhibit extremely steep rel i e f th r eat to the coastal res o u r ces of all the main islands (USFWS, and narrow coastal plains. Steep relief continues underwater so 1996). Harbor development, for both military and civil uses, that shallow coastal areas are limited; depths can reach more has destroyed or degraded estuarine areas, as exemplified by than one thousand feet just a few hundred yards offs h o r e. Rain- coastal development in Pearl Harbor. Channel dredging also fall, and consequently stream flow, is low and often intermi t - has eliminated estuarine habitats in some areas. Diversion of tent on leeward sides of the islands. As a result, these islands st r eam water for agriculture historically changed coastal salini- do not have developed river deltas, sheltered embayments are ty regimes in some areas, notably Kaneohe Bay on Oahu, few and shallow coastal habitat is limited. reducing estuarine habitats.

Limited estuarine habitats are found along the shore of large

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Threats The state of Hawaii has very little comprehensive conserva t i o n In t r oduction of alien species has especially severe impact on and management planning for estuarine habitats. Ver y few Hawaiian ecosystems because of the islands’ unique, large l y plans have been developed for restoration of estuarine habitats endemic biota. Alien plants—notably mangrove and pickle- at a regional or watershed level; those that have been devel- weed—and alien fish (e.g., mosquito fish) have displaced oped usually respond to a specific request or problem. Many native species. Introduced mongoose, rats, pigs, dogs and feral relate to mitigation projects, such as the Final Restoration Plan cats prey on waterbird eggs. Water quality at the watershed and Environmental Assessment for the May 14, 1996 Chevron level is a second major concern. For example, Manoa Strea m , Pipeline Oil Spill into Waiau Stream and Pearl Harbor, Oahu, which flows into the now severely degraded Ala Wai Canal Ha w a i i . es t u a r y bordering Waikiki, is heavily contaminated by lead and ce r tain organic chemicals. More generally, sedimentation and Plan Elements nutrient loading caused by some land uses can harm coastal ecosystems, including estuaries. The cessation of sugar cane Goals pr oduction in central Oahu led to calls (and eventually litiga- Restoration goals outlined in the few documents available focus tion) by environmentalists to ret u r n diverted water to strea m s on protecting and enhancing the limited estuarine habitat that on the windward (northeast) side of the island, many of which exists in this region. In parti c u l a r , restoration activities are pur- flow into Kaneohe Bay. These effo r ts were partly successful, sued to res t o r e essential habitat for a number of endangered or with a ret u r n of some of the diverted water to windward th r eatened species. Restoration goals also focus on the use of st re a m s . the natural, cultural and economic res o u r ces that estuarine habitats prov i d e . Restoration Plans Methods Hawaii Coastal Management Program In the few plans reviewed, several methods have been outlined The Hawaii Coastal Management Program guides governm e n t for reaching the state’s restoration goals. These methods con- activities related to the protection, pres e r vation and develop- sist of three components: economic, cultural and ecological. ment of Hawaii’s natural, cultural and economic coastal The methods include designation of habitat as sanctuaries and res o u r ces. A network of seven agencies implements the pro- refuges and intensification of management and development of gram, led by the Hawaii Department of Planning and Econom- those areas; acquisition of habitat by fee or long-term lease to ic Development. The Hawaii State Plan coordinates the state’s pr event alteration or conversion to other uses; removal of planning process through functional plans, agencies and excess vegetation and landfill; and discontinuation of sewage de p a r tments, boards, commissions, and county general and di s c h a rg e . development plans. A number of government agencies implement the state and functional plans. Elements of Success The plans that have been developed rarely discuss elements of Environmental and Enhancement Plan for Pouhala Marsh, success but do acknowledge a need for coordination and coop- Oahu, Hawaii eration among public and private organizations and agencies. The Environmental and Enhancement Plan for Pouhala Marsh, Most plans also mention the need for monitoring and assess- Oahu, Hawaii was a cooperative effo r t of the Hawaii Division ment of baseline conditions. of Fores t r y and Wildlife, the USFWS, the City and County of Honolulu and Ducks Unlimited. This plan addresses the need Information Needs to secure and res t o r e nearly 70 acres of wetlands in Pearl Har- Data and information on the status of wetlands and estuarine bo r ’s West Loch. habitats in Hawaii are needed. There is a significant shorta g e of baseline data, sustainable capacity data and res o u r ce value Aside from the Hawaii Coastal Management Program, there data for many res o u r ces and geographic areas of the state. has not been a concerted effo r t to coordinate with federal Basic data on the location and various functions of wetlands are activities in restoration planning on a state-wide level. In fact, lacking, as are maps showing all regulated wetlands in Hawaii. th e r e has been limited state wetland management, planning Ho w e v e r , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e ’ s National Wet - and coordination, as well as a lack of state-wide wetlands poli- land Inventory group is planning to update the wetland maps cies to guide restoration effo r ts. for Hawaii. PAC I F I C PRO T E C TO R AT E SU B R E G I O N Ha r b o r , they may be quite deep, limiting estuarine habitats. The most significant river-associated estuarine habitats occur at Description Leone Bay, where two streams discharge into a sheltered Guam and the Commonwealth of the North e r n Marianas embayment. In addition to mangroves, estuarine habitats in (CNMI) are part of the same island arc, which was formed by this bay include tidal mudflat and salt marsh. The other major volcanism and uplifting along the converging edges of the estuarine area in American Samoa is Pala Lagoon, located on Pacific and Philippine tectonic plates. For this reason, although the southwest coast of Tutuila on the margin of a rel a t i v e l y they are politically distinct, they are treated together in this la r ge coastal plain. Estuarine habitats in the bay include man- discussion. Population is concentrated on the southern islands gr oves and shallow muddy or sandy bay floor (Scott, 1993; of Guam, Rota, Tinian and Saipan. The islands north of Saipan Maragos, 1998). ar e isolated, small and essentially uninhabited. Several are volcanically active. Their geology is a mix of upraised limestone Habitat Issues fe a t u r es and material derived from volcanism. Raised limestone is highly porous. Streams in these areas are either nonexistent Status and Trends or ephemeral. As a result, most estuarine habitats occur on the La r ge expanses of estuarine habitats have been lost as a res u l t so u t h e r n part of Guam, which is mountainous and volcanically of filling in all island areas. Guam has experienced a large his- derived. The main habitats are mangroves and lower river toric loss because of military construction in Apra Harbor in channels. The largest mangrove stand in the Mariana Islands the years immediately after World War II. More rec e n t l y , an oil (a p p r oximately 85 acres) occurs at Sasa Bay in inner Apra Har- spill killed mangrove trees in Sasa Bay. Because it is difficult to bo r . Smaller stands occur elsewhere in Apra Harbor, along the estimate the size, location and type of wetlands that existed so u t h e r n coast of Guam, and the west coast of Saipan. Mudflat be f o r e European contact, estimates of loss are usually calculat- or reef flat on the seaward mangrove margin may be included ed from more recent years as wetlands have begun to be as estuarine habitat. Aside from mangrove areas in Apra Har- mapped and measured. It is estimated that filling has res u l t e d bo r , additional estuarine habitat can be found in the island’s in the loss of 64 percent of Saipan’s wetlands (USFWS, 1996). la r gest watershed in lower Talafofo River valley on Guam’s In American Samoa, it is estimated that wetland loss has aver- southeast coast. Brackish water extends about one mile aged 4.5 acres per year with accelerated decline over the past up s t r eam from the river mouth. Other estuarine habitats 10 years. To date, it is likely that American Samoa has lost include limited marshland located on the interior to mangrov e s ap p r oximately 60 percent to 70 percent of its original wetlands and river mouths. Saipan has an extensive lagoon, which is (American Samoa EPA, 2000). Pala Lagoon, for example, has influenced by the freshwater drainage along the western side of been partially filled and its entrance narrowed to build an air- the island. It contains the largest area of seagrass habitat in the po r t run w a y . CNMI and probably in all of the Marinas (Scott, 1993; Mara- gos, 1998). Threats Th r eats to the wetlands of the U.S. Pacific Protectorates can American Samoa consists of five high islands, the largest of be split into two separate categories: agriculture before Wor l d which is Tutuila, where most of the population is concentrated. War II and urbanization and infrastruc t u r e development after Aunu’u is less than a mile from Tutuila. The Manu‘a group, con- World War II. A major concern of the U.S. Pacific Prot e c - sisting of Ofu, Olosenga, and Ta’u, lies 60 miles to the east. torates is the clearing and filling of wetlands for development. These islands are volcanic in origin and generally very rug g e d . In addition, oil spills, effluent from sugar cane mills, heavy Rose Atoll, a national wildlife refuge, and privately owned metals and other contaminated run o f f from military bases are Swains Island (a raised atoll) are smaller and relatively isolated, all concerns that threaten estuarine health (USFWS, 1996). lying to the southeast and north res p e c t i v e l y . There are The CNMI is currently concerned with the impacts of non- ex t r emely limited estuarine habitats in American Samoa, and point source pollution, especially in the Saipan Lagoon. these are primarily located on Tutuila, with mangrove fores t Although nonpoint source pollution results from a number of being the predominant habitat type. (The enclosed lagoon at so u r ces, infrastruc t u r e shortfalls are probably the largest con- Swains Island contains some brackish water marsh.) Mangrov e s tributor and are starting to be addressed by a number of local reach their eastern limit in Samoa, and no mangroves occur in and federal government agencies. the Manu‘a group. Streams are relatively abundant on Tut u i l a but tend to be small and short (generally less than two miles). Th e r e are sheltered bays on Tutuila but, as with Pago Pago

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration Plans Guam. It was prep a r ed as a guide to assist the government of Ver y few plans exist with comprehensive restoration planning Guam with future wetland res o u r ce conservation and manage- for estuarine habitats in the Pacific Protectorate subreg i o n . me n t . Although the amount of estuarine habitat is small, this absence of planning is alarming because the populations of these islands A Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan for the Islands ar e increasing at an extremely high rate and the majority of the of Tutuila and Aunu’u, American Samoa populations inhabit the coastal areas. Several governm e n t This plan is administered by the Department of Commerce as agencies are gathering baseline data that would allow such a a means for the American Samoan government to anticipate, plan to be created. The Division of Environmental Quality is rather than merely react to, wetland problems and conflicts. looking at restoring or creating estuarine habitat to reduce the The plan provides a policy framework to manage the wetland ef fects of nonpoint source pollution. res o u r ces of American Samoa.

CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program The above-mentioned plans were developed with the coordi - The CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program guides nation of local and federal government agencies. However, it go v e r nmental activities related to the protection, pres e rv a t i o n has been noted that there is a significant lack of coordi n a t i o n and development of the coastal res o u r ces of the CNMI. This among agencies, particularly in CNMI, which affects the pr ogram was developed by the Commonwealth’s Planning and ad h e r ence to and enforcement of regulations and agreements. Budget Affairs Office. With the installation of a new constitu- tional government in 1978, it was recognized that there was a Plan Elements need to establish a policy base sensitive to the needs of both economic development and res o u r ce protection and the Goals authorities and government organization req u i r ed to imple- Goals identified in the plans reviewed for the U.S. Pacific Pro- ment the policies. tectorates focus on restoration and protection of wetland res o u r ces to ensure “no net loss” of those res o u r ces. Developing American Samoa Coastal Management Program policy guidance for wetlands management may help local gov- The American Samoa Coastal Management Program was er nments mitigate potential conflicts in this subreg i o n . developed to provide effective res o u r ce management by protecting, maintaining, restoring and enhancing the res o u r ces of Methods the coastal zone. Responsibility for development of the pro- For many of these plans, the first step toward restoration is gram was given to the Development Planning Office (which compiling information on the wetland res o u r ces in the area . has subsequently become the Department of Commerce). This The extent of wetland areas in many of the islands has not pr ogram is designed to accommodate and complement other been documented. Public participation in and coordination of planning effo r ts (e.g., Economic Development Plan and Quali- restoration effo r ts also are acknowledged as crucial compo- ty of Life Plan) that will guide the socioeconomic development nents in the restoration process. Specific restoration activities of American Samoa. include excavating formerly filled wetlands and rev e g e t a t i n g the sites. Guam Coastal Management Program The Guam Coastal Management Program guides the use, pro- Elements of Success tection and development of land and ocean res o u r ces within The plans that have been developed rarely discuss elements of Gu a m ’ s coastal zone. The program was developed by the success but do acknowledge the need for coordination amount Guam Coastal Management Bureau of Planning, and its poli- federal and state agencies. Monitoring and public involvement cies can be divided into three categories: res o u r ce prot e c t i o n , ar e also acknowledged as important components of successful coastal development and simplification of government process. res t o r a t i o n .

Wetlands Conservation Plan Information Needs Gu a m ’ s Wetlands Conservation Plan was developed by the Basic information on the extent and condition of wetland and U.S. EPA and a steering committee of rep r esentatives from a estuarine habitats in the islands is needed. Up-to-date and pre- number of federal and state agencies. This plan was prep a re d cise wetland maps are needed for this subregion. In American to review existing Guam and federal regulations and to deter- Samoa, more hydrological assessments of wetlands are needed, mine how to update, simplify and improve their application in as well as a technical mapping system to assist with a more accurate delineation and survey process. The U.S. Fish and time. A need to address the management of cumulative and Wildlife Service is trying to gather support for obtaining aerial se c o n d a r y impacts to wetlands in CNMI also has been photos and mapping of American Samoa’s wetlands for the first id e n t i f i e d .

RE F E R E N C E S El k h o r n Slough Foundation and the Nature Conserva n c y . Abbott, I.A., and G.J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine algae of Cali- 1999. Elkhorn Slough Watershed Conservation Plan. El k h o r n fo r nia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. Slough Foundation.

Am b r ose, Richard F. and Johannes Feddema. Wetlands. Estes, J.A. and J.F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea otters: their role in ww w. i o e . u c l a . e d u / p u b l i c a t i o n s / re p o rt 9 8 / w e t l a n d s . h t m l st r ucturing nearshore communities. Science 18 5 : 1 0 5 8 -1060.

American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . Fa n c h e r , Jack. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal commu- 2000. State of the Environment Report. Pago Pago, American ni c a t i o n . Sa m o a . Fe r ren, Wayne R. Jr. et al. 1995. Wetlands of the Central and Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Conserva n c y . Southern California Wetlands Southern California Coast and Coastal Watersheds. United States Inventory. ww w. c e re s . c a . g o v / w e t l a n d s / g e o _ i n f o / s o _ c a l . h t m l En v i r onmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, Calif. Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Conserva n c y . 2000. Tijuana Estuary Tidal Restoration Program: Project Description. Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Con- Fo s t e r , M.S. 1982. The regulation of macroalgal associations in se rv a n c y , Oakland, Calif. kelp forests. Synthetic and Degradative Processes in Marine Ma c r ophytes, pp. 185-205. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Conservancy and Circuit Rider Prod u c t i o n s . Berlin/New York, Monterey Bay Area . 1987. Sonoma County Coastal Wetland Enhancement Plan. Ca l i - fo r nia Coastal Conserva n c y . Fo s t e r , M.S. and D.R. Schiel. 1985. The ecology of giant kelp fo r ests in California: a community profile. US Fish and Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Conservancy and Tomales Bay Estuarine Wildlife Biological rep o r t 85(7.2). Enhancement Program. 1986. Program for Restoring the Environ- ment of Tomales Bay. Ca l i f o r nia Coastal Conserva n c y . Fo s t e r , M.S. and D.R. Schiel.1988. Kelp communities and sea otters: keystone species or just another brick in the wall? in: Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP). Undated. Coastal Condi- The community ecology of sea otters. Van Blaricom and Estes, tion for Alaska, Hawaii and the Island Ter ritories (Draft). eds. pp. 92-115. Chapter 8. Fre y , H.W. 1971. California’s Living Marine Resources and Dayton, P. K., Teg n e r , P. E., Parnell, P. E. and P. B. Edwards . Their Utilization. State of California, The Resources Agency, 1992. Temporal and spatial patterns of disturbance and rec o v - De p a r tment of Fish and Game. er y in a kelp forest community. Ecological Monographs 62(3): 42 1 -445. Guam Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Wetlands Con- servation Plan, Final Draft Plan. Ba r rigada, Guam. Ducks Unlimited. 2000. Environmental and Enhancement Plan for Pouhala Marsh, Oahu, Hawaii. Ducks Unlimited, Rancho Cor- Ha r rold, C., Watanabe, J. and S. Lisin. 1988. Spatial variation dova, Calif. in the struc t u r e of kelp forest communities along a wave expo- su r e gradient. P.S.Z.N.I. Marine Ecology 9( 2 ) : 1 3 1 -156. Economic Development Planning Office. 1992. A Comprehen- sive Wetlands Management Plan for the Islands of Tuttuila and Ha r tmann, Joan. 2001. The Southern California Wetlands Recov- Aunu’u, American Samoa. American Samoa Coastal Manage- ery Project: The Unfolding Story. Golden Gate Law Review. ment Program, Pago Pago, American Samoa.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Ha r tmann, Joan. The Southern California Wetlands Recovery National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pr oject. Personal communication. National Ocean Service (NOS). 1999. State Enhancement Grant Assessments and Strategies: Wetlands. Of fice of Ocean and Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani. 1976. the Works of the Peo- Coastal Resource Management, Coastal Programs Division. ple of Old (Na Hana a ka Po’e Kahiko). Translated from the Newspaper Ke Au ‘Oku’a by Mary Kawena Pukui. Honolulu: National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Bishop Museum Pres s . Ecosystems.

Kimura, R.S. and M.S. Foster. 1984. The effects of harve s t i n g Po t t e r , Chris. California Resources Agency. Personal communi- Ma c r ocystis pyrifera on the algal assemblage in a giant kelp ca t i o n . fo r est. Hydrobiologia 116/117: 425-428. San Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u r e. 2001. Restoring the Estuary: Ki r ch, Patrick V. 1998. Arch a e o l o g y . In The Atlas of Hawaii Implementation Strategy of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. (T h i r d Edition), Sonia P. Juick and James O. Juvick, eds. Hon- Oakland, Calif. olulu: University of Hawaii. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Proj e c t . Leet, W.S., Dewees, C.M. and C.W. Haugen, eds. 1992. Cali- 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. U.S. Environ m e n t a l fo rn i a ’ s living res o u r ces and their utilization. 257 pages. Sea Pr otection Agency, San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Grant Extension Publishers. Davis, Calif. Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif.

Maragos, James E. 1998. Marine Ecosystems. pp. 111-120 in San Francisco Estuary Project. 1993. San Francisco Estuary Pro- Atlas of Hawaii, Th i r d Edition, Sonia P. Juvik and James O. ject: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Oa k l a n d , Juvik, eds. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Pres s . Ca l i f .

Merkel & Associates, Inc., et al. 1999. Long-term Monitoring and San Francisco Estuary Project. 1992. State of the Estuary. As s o c i - Pilot Vegetation Program for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement ation of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, Calif. Project. Merkel & Associates, Inc., San Diego, Calif. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. 1994. The Santa Monica Mi l l e r , K.A.; Estes, J.A. 1989. Wes t e r n range extension for Bay Restoration Plan. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Proj e c t , Ne r eocystis luetkeana in the north Pacific Ocean. Botanica Mo n t e r ey Park, Calif. Marina, 32 : 5 3 5 - 5 3 8 . Scott, Derk A., ed. 1993. A Directory of Wetlands in Oceania. Mo r ro Bay National Estuary Program. 1999. Turning the Tide for Slimbridge (U.K.) and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Interna t i o n a l Morro Bay: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Wat e r fowl and Wetlands Research Bureau and Asian Wet l a n d Mo r ro Bay National Estuary Program, Morro Bay, Calif. Bu r eau. (American Samoa, pp. 1-18; Guam, pp. 129-178; Hawaii, pp. 179-198; CNMI, pp. 263-284). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Ocean Service (NOS). 1990. Estuaries of the So u t h e r n California Wetland Managers Group, National United States: Vital Statistics of a Natural Resource Base. Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project Draft 2000-2001 Work Plan. Keith B. Macdon- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ald, Seattle, Was h . (NOAA)/Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1998. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan/Amendment 8, Po rt l a n d , State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resource s . Ore . 1994. Kawai Nui Marsh Master Plan. Oahu, Hawaii.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration St e e r e, J.T. and N. Schaefer. 2001. Restoring the Estuary. Sa n (N O A A ) / We s t e r n Pacific Fishery Management Council. Pelagic Francisco Bay Joint Ven t u r e, Oakland, Calif. Fisheries of Western Pacific Region/Amendment 9. Swenson, Chris. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal Com- mu n i c a t i o n . Tar p l e y , J.A. 1992. The effects of herbivorous gastrop o d United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Pacif- species and densities on early algal succession in the high ic Islands Ecoregion Coastal Ecosystems Program Proposal. Ho n - in t e r tidal zone. M.S. Thesis, Moss Landing Marine Laborato- olulu, Hawaii. ri e s . United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and San United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Califor- Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority. 2000. Environmen- nia Coastal Conservancy (CCC). 1999. San Pablo Bay Water- tal Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Die- shed Restoration Study. United States Army Corps of Engineers, guito Wetland Restoration Project. United States Fish and San Francisco, Calif. Wildlife Servi c e .

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Pacific Watanabe, J.M. and C. Harrold. 1991. Destructive grazing by Coast Joint Ven t u r e. Pacific Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan: sea urchins Strongylocentrotus spp. in a central California kelp Executive Summary, Northern California Coast. United States Fish fo r est: potential roles of rec r uitment, depth, and pred a t i o n . and Wildlife Servi c e . Marine Ecology Progress Series 71 : 1 2 5 -141.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1977. Ze d l e r , Joy B. Coastal Mitigation in Southern California: The Need Hawaiian Waterbirds Recovery Plan. En d a n g e r ed Species Pro- for a Regional Restoration Strategy. Ecological Applications, gram, Portland, Ore. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 84-85.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. The Ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: An Estuarine Profile. Un i t e d States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat C H A P T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 3 – GULF OF MEXICO

EST UA R I E S O F T H E GU L F O F ME X I C O SU M M A RY

The Gulf of Mexico region is defined here as the n terms of population, the Gulf Coast is one of the fastest grow - Gulf coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi , ing regions in the country. This region also supports one of the Alabama and Florida, excluding the Evergl a d e s , the Florida Keys, and Florida Bay, which are Imost productive fisheries in the world. Several excellent pro- included in the Southeast Atlantic Regional grams and plans have been developed for restoration of the Gulf Su m m a r y. Coast. The Gulf of Mexico Program provides an example of the ef fective use of partnerships in restoration effo r ts. This program is the This reg i o n : ❖ Co n t ains the grea t est amount of coastal result of a partnership of 18 federal agencies, state agencies from the wetlands of any region (NOAA , 1990). five Gulf states, and diverse public and private organizations. The Coast 2050 plan is a strategic plan for the survival of Louisiana’s coast ❖ Dr ains an area appro x i m a t ely 1.6 million sq u a r e miles wide, which is equivalent to and coastal communities and promotes restoration and protection on about 60 percent of the land area of the a coast-wide basis. The plan involves federal, state and local entities co n t i n e n t al U.S. (Beck et al., 2000). as well as landowners, environmentalists and scientists. This plan builds on previous restoration planning effo r ts including the ❖ Accounts for more than 96,000 square miles of estuarine drainage along the Gulf Coast Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan and the Coastal Wet - (N O AA 1990). lands Conservation and Restoration Plan. Information needs for the Gulf pertain to gaining a more complete understanding of habitat These estuaries suppo r t more than half the nation’s wetlands, as well as communities such functions and links between habitats. Nonstructural or “soft” shorel i n e as Corpus Christi, Houston, New Orleans, stabilization is being successfully used in restoration proj e c t s Mobile and Tampa (NOAA , 1990). th r oughout the Gulf Coast to battle subsidence and erosion. These methods include coastal dune revegetation or beach nourishment, br ush fences and breakwaters, rebuilding of coastal ridges, marsh terracing, dredged material use, and large scale fr eshwater and sediment diversion.

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning IN T RO D U C T I O N TO T H E GU L F O F ME X I C O Estuaries and their associated habitats are highly prod u c t i v e and contribute significantly to the ecology of the Gulf of Mex- Description ico region. Marshes, mangroves, and seagrass beds prov i d e For this discussion, the Gulf of Mexico region is defined as the food and shelter to resident and transient species and function Gulf coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Flori- as vital nursery habitats. Gulf Coastal wetlands and barri e r da, excluding the Everglades, the Florida Keys and Florida Bay. islands provide habitat for waterfowl, neotropical migrant bi r ds, shore birds, wading birds, and raptors, as well as a variety of reptiles and mammals. The estuaries of the Gulf Coast also are home to a diversity of prot e c t e d species, including Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, piping pl o v e r , brown pelican, West Indian manatee, diamondback terrapin, Texas pipefish and bald eagle.

Habitat-Dependent Activities Gulf Coast estuaries are centers of residential, rec r e- W estern Gulf of Mexico Subregion ational, commercial, agricultural and industrial activity. Central Gulf of Mexico Subregion Indeed, estuaries have historically been pref e r red as Eastern Gulf of Mexico Subregion centers of human settlement because of the abundance of fish and shellfish, proximity to freshwater and the Southern Gulf of Mexico Subregion ocean, and access to inland areas. Tod a y , the estuaries of the Gulf Coast support cities such as Corpus Christi Figure 1: Gulf of Mexico Region and Subregions and Houston, Texas; New Orleans, La.; Mobile, Ala.; and Tampa, Fla. The Gulf Coast has one of the fastest The 31 estuarine systems within the Gulf of Mexico reg i o n gr owing populations in the country. In 1990 it was estimated cover approximately 12,000 square miles—accounting for that the population of the Gulf region would increase approx i - mo r e water surface area than any other region of the United mately 26 percent by 2010 (NOAA, 1990). Tourism in the States (NOAA, 1990). The drainage basin for the Gulf of Mex- Gulf states is valued at $20 billion each year, as beachgoers, ico, which includes the area drained by the Mississippi River, is boaters, anglers, bird watchers and hunters participate in ap p r oximately 1.6 million square miles or 60 percent of the diverse habitat-dependent activities (USEPA, 1999). land area of the continental United States (Beck et al., 2000). The Gulf Coast supports one of the most productive fishery Key Habitats and Species ar eas in the world (NOAA, 1990). Commercial finfish and The physical and hydrological conditions within Gulf estuaries shellfish landings rank first in the nation in both quantity and ar e ideal for the formation and growth of wetlands. In fact, the value, contributing approximately 69 percent of the U.S. Gulf region contains approximately five million acres of emer- shrimp harvest and 57 percent of U.S. oyster prod u c t i o n gent salt marsh and mangrove vegetation, accounting for more (U S E P A, 1999). Commercial and rec r eational fisheries, which than half of the nationwide total (USEPA, 1999). Gulf Coast play such a large role in Gulf economies, rely on the health of estuaries also support oyster reefs, submerged aquatic vegeta- estuarine habitats. Approximately 95 percent of Gulf Coast tion, tidal flats, open water habitat, barrier islands, swamps, landings depend on estuaries during some stage of their life bogs, prairies and forests. cycle (USEPA, 1999), and studies have demonstrated a quantitative link between wetlands loss and fisheries prod u c t i o n All estuarine habitats within the Gulf of Mexico are designated (Tu r ner and Boesch, 1988; Turn e r , 1977). as essential fish habitat for species managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, including shrimp, red In addition to rec r eational uses and commercial fishing, the dr um, reef fish, mackerel, stone crab, spiny lobster and coral. economies of the Gulf Coast are linked to estuaries in a num- The Council defines estuarine habitat as all waters and sub- ber of other ways. Estuarine habitats serve as buffers for human strates within estuarine boundaries, including subtidal vegeta- communities by improving water quality, protecting shorel i n e s tion. Estuarine boundaries are set landward at the limit of per- fr om erosion, and reducing the effects of flooding. The ship- manent freshwater bottom, and seaward at the coastal barri e r ping access provided by estuaries of the Gulf supports a grea t islands or other lines of demarcation (NOAA, 1998). deal of maritime commerce. In terms of total tonnage, seven of

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat the 10 busiest ports in the United States are in the Gulf reg i o n Water quality within Gulf estuaries is a key issue. More than (U S E P A, 1999). Of the ships using these ports, approx i m a t e l y half of the oyster-p r oducing areas in the region are closed, 98 percent use the Gulf Intracoastal Wat e r way (USEPA, 1999). either permanently or conditionally. There also have been sig- Oil, gas and chemical production and development are prev a - nificant changes in both the quantity and timing of fres h w a t e r lent along the Gulf Coast. Approximately 31 percent of the entering the estuaries. land in the Gulf region is used for agriculture. Silviculture and aq u a c u l t u r e also are significant activities in this region (USEPA, Regional Planning Efforts 19 9 9 ) . The regional nature of the issues faced by Gulf estuaries, coupled with the importance of the res o u r ces to the nation, has These diverse activities affect both the struc t u r e and function made the restoration of Gulf habitats a key objective noted in of the estuarine res o u r ces on which they depend. Estuaries federal and regional plans reviewed. Regional effo r ts include have been described as the most anthropogenically degraded the Gulf of Mexico Program, The Nature Conserva n c y ’ s Ecore- habitat type on earth (Edgar et al., 1999). Throughout the Gulf gional Plan for the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and the Essential Fish region, estuaries have been altered by many of the factors that Habitat Amendments pre p a r ed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery af fect estuaries worldwide. As Gulf Coast populations increa s e , Management Council. the demand for, and impacts on, estuarine res o u r ces can be expected to increase as well. The Gulf of Mexico Program is a partnership of 18 federal agencies, state agencies from the five Gulf states, and diverse Habitat Status and Trends public and private organizations. The program implements Th r oughout the Gulf region, estuaries and their associated res e a r ch, demonstration projects, restoration activities and habitats have been altered due to discharge of industrial pollu- public information activities that focus on restoring seagrass tants and urban waste; alteration of freshwater inflows; dred g - and wetland habitat, enhancing water quality, controlling inva- ing of ship channels and oil and gas canals; filling of wetlands; sive species, monitoring habitats and educating the public. In ar moring of shorelines; introduction of exotic species; defor- the five Gulf states, 12 priority coastal areas have been identi- estation; application of fertilizers and pesticides; and severing fied: Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay, Barataria-Ter reb o n n e , of migratory pathways. Lake Ponchartrain, Mississippi Sound, Mississippi’s coastal basins, Mobile Bay, Pensacola Bay, Suwanee River, Tampa Bay, Eff o r ts have been made to assess the current extent of various Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor. estuarine habitats and the need for restoration. A 1990 study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- The Nature Conserva n c y ’ s Ecoregional Plan for the Northern Gulf tration (NOAA) examined the extent and distribution of of Mexico identifies a collection of sites that, if conserved, man- marshes (fresh, brackish and salt), estuary scrub - s h r ub (managed or res t o r ed, could rep r esent the biodiversity of the reg i o n , gr oves) and freshwater forested scrub - s h r ub wetlands throu g h including its nearshore waters. The ecoregional planning the use of photos and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pr ocess used a res e r ve selection algorithm, expert intervi e w s National Wetland Inventory maps from 1972 and 1984. The and a workshop to select a set of priority sites. Habitats targe t - total acreage was rep o r ted at approximately 3.3 million acres . ed included seagrasses, oyster reefs, sponge and soft coral, salt National trends, however, suggest that wetland coverage has marshes, tidal fresh marshes and tidal flats. Sites are considered continued to decline since those photos and maps were pro- on a landscape scale, with entire bays and estuaries included in duced (Freyer et al., 1983). No current studies summarize the plan (Beck et al., 2000). coastal wetland loss rates for the Gulf as a whole. Informa t i o n is available from key Gulf Coast estuaries, however, and is dis- The Essential Fish Habitat Amendments pre p a r ed by the Gulf of cussed for each of the Gulf subreg i o n s . Mexico Fishery Management Council identify and describe Gulf habitats that are “req u i r ed to support a sustainable fishery Seagrasses have declined markedly since the 1950s, with most and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem” estuaries losing between 20 percent to 100 percent of their sea- (NOAA, 1998). The document provides information for the grass habitat (Handley, 1995). This is mostly the result of identification and description of essential fish habitat for 26 water quality degradation from increasing human impacts rep r esentative species under federal management in the Gulf of (Neckles, 1993). Six species of seagrass occur in the Gulf Mexico. It also considers threats to essential fish habitat, iden- region, accounting for a total of approximately 2.5 million tifies options for the conservation and enhancement of essen- ac r es (Duke and Kruczynski, 1992). tial fish habitat and needed res e a r ch to better identify and describe essential fish habitat. Bend, freshwater inflow has decreased by approximately 19 pe r cent since 1940 (Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Prog r a m , Gulf of Mexico Subregions 1998). Although Gulf estuaries share many similar geographical fea- tu r es, habitat types, and habitat-dependent activities, the Threats region has ecological diffe r ences. The Gulf of Mexico encom- Degraded water and sediment quality as a result of point and passes portions of both the Louisianan Province (Rio Grande, nonpoint source pollution, and alteration of freshwater inflow Texas, to Anclote Key, Fla.) and the West Indian Prov i n c e have been identified as major concerns for the subreg i o n . (west coast of Florida from Tampa Bay to the Keys) and is Th e r e also is concern that continued growth and changing gr eatly influenced by the Mississippi River. Gulf estuaries also land use within the subregion will have additional adverse va r y geomorphologically, from complex networks of deltaic ef fects, including fragmentation of habitat. Other threats to channels to shallow, bar-built systems. On the basis of these fi s h e r y species include increased fishing pres s u r e, trawling and ecological and geographical distinctions, the region has been by-catch, and entrainment of organisms by industrial cooling divided into four subregions. sy s t e m s .

The western, central and eastern Gulf subregions have been Restoration Plans adopted based on The Nature Conserva n c y ’ s ecoregional plan for the north e r n Gulf of Mexico (Beck et al., 2000). A southern Texas Coastal Management Plan (TCMP) su b r egion also has been added. For the purposes of this discus- This plan was designed to meet the req u i r ements for parti c i p a - sion, the Everglades, the Florida Keys and Florida Bay are tion in the federal Coastal Zone Management Program and has excluded from the Gulf analysis and are discussed as part of the been approved by NOAA. The TCMP coordinates state, local Southeast Atlantic regional analysis. and federal programs for the management of Texas coastal res o u r ces. The plan is administered by the Coastal Coordi n a - The following sections summarize the habitat issues and high- tion Council, which is charged with adopting uniform goals light certain restoration planning effo r ts for each of the four and policies to guide decision-making by all entities that reg u - Gulf of Mexico subregions. Detailed information and addition- late or manage natural res o u r ce use within the coastal area of al plans are available through the National Strategy Restoration Texas. Current areas of high priority are protecting wetlands, Plan Database (http://res t o r a t i o n . n o s . n o a a . g o v ) . im p r oving shoreline access, and addressing impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution.

WE ST E R N GU L F O F ME X I C O SU B R E G I O N To address priority issues, the Coastal Coordination Council oversees a TCMP grants program and a small business and Description individual permitting assistance program. Also under the Extending from the southernmost coast of Texas to just south TC M P , the Texas General Land Office leases coastal lands to of Galveston Bay, the western subregion is characterized by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to manage as pre- low levels of freshwater inflow, sandy sediments, clear water se r ves. This Coastal Pres e r ve program is designed to prot e c t and extensive growth of seagrasses. Estuaries in this subreg i o n unique coastal areas and fragile biological communities. Two of also support salt marshes, tidal flats, oyster reef, serpulid worm the four currently designated pres e r ves are in the western Gulf reefs, freshwater marshes, open bay, barrier islands and riparian su b r egion: Welder Flats in San Antonio Bay and South Bay in wo o d l a n d s . the lower Laguna Madre.

Habitat Issues Coastal Bend Bays Plan The Coastal Bend Bays Estuary Program is implementing the Status and Trends Coastal Bend Bays Plan for the Aransas, Corpus Christi and Within the subregion, direct loss of habitat has been attributed upper Laguna Madre estuaries. The document outlines action to erosion, damage by invasive species and other anthro- plans for human uses, maritime commerce and dredging, habi- pogenic factors such as dredging and filling, hydrologic alter- tat and living res o u r ces, water and sediment quality, fres h w a t e r ation and shoreline modification. Habitat also is being degrad- res o u r ces and public education and outreach. Priority issues for ed as factors such as water and sediment quality affect the the study area include freshwater inflow, condition of living function of estuarine systems. For example, in the Coastal res o u r ces, public health, loss of wetlands and other estuarine

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat habitats, degradation of water quality, altered circulation and Elements of Success de b r i s . Common principles of successful estuarine restoration are ap p a r ent in the planning effo r ts for the western Gulf. Plans Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas emphasize the need for cooperation of diverse entities, plan- The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas is a cooperative ning and restoration on an ecosystem level, and a high degree eff o r t of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Gen- of public education and involvement in both the planning and eral Land Office, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com- implementation phases. mission, Galveston Bay Estuary Program, and Coastal Bend Bays Estuary Program. The document addresses the assessment, Information Needs restoration and management of seagrasses in Texas waters. The understanding of habitat functions and the understanding of total loadings and transport pathways, as well as their bio- The Clean Rivers Program logical effects, were identified as areas in need of furth e r The Clean Rivers Program is administered by the Texas Natur- res e a r ch. Long-term monitoring was suggested as an importa n t al Resource Conservation Commission, which works with river tool for gathering this informa t i o n . authorities and other stakeholders to address issues related to monitoring and assessment of water quality. The Texas General Land Office and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departm e n t CE N T R A L GU L F O F ME X I C O SU B R E G I O N cooperate on the State-owned Wetlands Conservation Plan. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department also implements the Description Texas Wetlands Plan. The central subregion includes Galveston Bay and spans the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The subregion is Mission/Aransas Watershed Conservation Plan characterized by high, and sometimes variable, levels of fres h - The Texas General Land Office, in cooperation with EPA, has water inflow and by high levels of sediment input. The nutri- developed the Mission/Aransas Watershed Conservation Plan, ent-rich waters and muddy sediments support extensive marsh which outlines habitat assessment, enhancement and education and oyster reef habitat. Other key habitats within the subre- goals for portions of Aransas, Refugio and San Patricio coun- gion are freshwater marsh, oyster reef, seagrass, swamp, tidal ties. This local wetlands plan was designed as a model for other flats, open bay, barrier islands, nesting islands, bayous, pitcher coastal communities interested in bringing stakeholders togeth- plant bogs, dune swales, forested wetlands, coastal prairie and er to evaluate wetland issues and to develop a plan for conserv- long-leaf pine savannah. ing wetlands while allowing for economic growth. Habitat Issues Plan Elements Status and Trends Goals The marsh-dominated estuaries of the central Gulf have experi- Restoration goals outlined in these documents focus on enced tremendous habitat losses in recent decades. In in c r easing and pres e r ving the quality and diversity of habitats Louisiana, more than 960,000 acres of marsh have been lost and living res o u r ces within the estuaries, enhancing water qual- since 1930. Curren t l y , an area of marsh the size of a football it y , and reducing debris. Reductions of point and nonpoint field is disappearing every 30 minutes (LCWCRT, 1998). In so u r ces of pollution, creation of seagrass and marsh habitat, Galveston Bay, more than 30,000 acres of marsh and approx i - and maintenance of freshwater inflow have been identified as mately 90 percent of the seagrass beds have been lost since the top priorities. 1950s (Galveston Bay NEP, 1994). Alabama’s fresh and salt marshes declined by 69 percent and 29 percent , res p e c t i v e l y , Methods between 1955 and 1979 (Alabama Department and Communi- Several methods have been applied or recommended for ty Affairs, Science, Tec h n o l o g y , and Energy Division, Coastal achieving the subreg i o n ’ s restoration goals. Among these are Pr ograms Office, 1999). For these reasons, much of the cr eation of wetlands through the beneficial use of dred g e d restoration planning focuses on creating and enhancing material or by ponding, and enhancement of habitat and water ma r s h e s . quality via promotion of best management practices, parti c i p a - tion in landowner initiatives, and development of a compre- Threats hensive regional water management plan. Habitat, residences, prop e r ty and business opportunities are being lost to subsidence and subsequent erosion. In addition to sites include upland forests, fresh and saltwater marshes, fores t - loss of habitat struc t u r e, most plans express concern about lost ed swamps, pitcher plant bogs and tidal flats. Restoration prior- function caused by degraded water quality as a result of run o f f ities include restoring riparian buffers, shorelines, wetlands and and point sources of pollution, and changes in fres h w a t e r bottom lands. Restoration projects currently underway include inflows. Habitat fragmentation has also been identified as a pr i o r- c o n v e r ted wetland and riparian buffer restoration, pitcher co n c e r n. plant bog restoration, salt marsh restoration and pres c r i b e d bu rn i n g . A variety of factors have been identified as contributing to habitat loss in the Central Gulf of Mexico subregion. Among Galveston Bay Plan these are subsidence, erosion and direct alterations, such as The Galveston Bay Plan is undergoing its five-year rev i e w dr edging and filling, changes to hydrol o g y , shoreline modifica- pr ocess. A five-year work plan is being generated that will tion, sand extraction, prop scarring, shoreline alteration and include action items in the areas of habitat protection, species disturbance from trawling. Key among these is the loss of sedi- population protection, public health, freshwater inflow and bay ment and nutrients to Louisiana marshes, resulting in the level- ci r culation, spills and dumping, shoreline management, water ling of the Mississippi River. Invasive species, particularly her- and sediment quality, point and nonpoint sources of pollution, bi v o r es such as nutria, also are responsible for loss of habitat. res e a r ch, monitoring, and public participation and education. Restoration, creation and protection of wetlands are identified General habitat types including submerged aquatic vegetation, as top priorities for Galveston Bay. em e r gent vegetated wetlands, oyster reefs, shellfish beds and ce r tain intertidal zones have been identified as areas of parti c u - The Galveston Bay Plan is administered by the Galveston Bay lar concern. Fisheries species most affected include brow n Es t u a r y Program, a program of the Texas Natural Resource shrimp, white shrimp, blue crab, oysters, red drum, black drum , Co n s e r vation Commission, in conjunction with the Galveston speckled sea trout, gulf menhaden, southern flounder, large - Bay Council. The Council consists of rep r esentatives of state, mouth bass and channel catfish. These habitats also support a federal and local natural res o u r ce agencies, the res e a r ch com- variety of migratory neotropical birds, waterfowl, shore birds , mu n i t y , local governments, citizens and other Galveston Bay wading birds and raptors, as well as threatened and endangered st a k e h o l d e r s . species such as the Florida yellow bat, American alligator, piping plover, Alabama red-bellied turtle, eastern indigo snake, The Texas Coastal Management Plan and the Galveston Bay black bear and gopher tortoise. Plan are augmented by several state plans and programs. To ad d r ess priority issues, the Coastal Coordination Council over- Restoration Plans sees a TCMP grants program and a small business and individual permitting assistance program. Also under the TCMP, the Texas Coastal Management Plan (TCMP) Texas General Land Office leases coastal lands to the Tex a s The TCMP was designed to meet the req u i r ements for parti c i - Parks and Wildlife Department to manage as pres e r ves. This pation in the federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The Coastal Pres e r ve program is designed to protect unique coastal TCMP coordinates state, local, and federal programs for the ar eas and fragile biological communities. Two of the four state- management of Texas coastal res o u r ces. The plan is adminis- designated coastal pres e r ves are in the Galveston Bay system: te r ed by the Coastal Coordination Council, which is charge d Ar mand Bayou and Christmas Bay. with adopting uniform goals and policies to guide decision- making by all entities regulating or managing natural res o u rc e Louisiana Coastal Resources Program use within the Texas coastal area. Current areas of high priority The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program is administered by ar e protecting wetlands, improving shoreline access and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. The prog r a m ad d r essing impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution. works with local parishes to design programs that resolve conflicting local uses of the coast. Programs include the Coastal Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Use Permit Program and management of the Marsh Island The Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- Refuge and the Louisiana Offs h o r e Oil Port. lished in Alabama in 1986 and currently encompasses 3,028 ac r es of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve man- Mississippi Coastal Program agement plan was approved by NOAA in 1998. Importa n t The Mississippi Coastal Program is administered by the state habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e re n c e De p a r tment of Marine Resources. An advisory council of citi-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat zen and industry rep r esentatives makes recommendations to items in the areas of coordinated planning and implementation, the program, and a commission of citizen and industry rep r e- ecological management, sustained recognition and citizen sentatives creates the prog r a m ’ s policies. The program manages involvement, and economic growth. po r t and beach special management areas based on separate management plans for those area s . Mobile Bay and Delta Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (Draft) Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve A draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan is The Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- being finalized for Mobile Bay and Delta. The Mobile Bay lished in Mississippi in 1999 and currently encompasses 18,000 National Estuary Program has outlined the issues and action ac r es of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve man- items, which the plan will address in a document titled Our agement plan was approved by NOAA in 1998. Importa n t Water Our Future. The document was developed in coordi n a - habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e re n c e tion with a management conference, six community-based sites include wet pine savannah, coastal swamp habitats, estuar- issue workgroups and a variety of res e a r ch entities. Priority ine tidal marsh and shallow water open bay. Restoration priori- issues include water quality, physical and hydrologic modifica- ties include exotic species control, shoal and salt marsh res t o r a - tions, habitat loss, living res o u r ces, human uses, and public tion, oyster reef restoration, reestablishment of flood water education and involvement. flow and hydrological restoration, and prescribed burning in wet pine savannah and pine flatwoods. Current res t o r a t i o n Habitat Conservation Blueprint pr ojects include prescribed burni n g . The Galveston Bay Foundation’s Habitat Conservation Blue- print was developed with federal, state and local partners to Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan facilitate the habitat restoration and protection goals of the The Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan consists of com- Galveston Bay Plan. The Blueprint is an inventory of potential pr ehensive management policies and guidance for the prot e c - restoration sites within the Galveston Bay system, and includes tion and enhancement of the quality, quantity and viability of in f o r mation reg a r ding potential strategies and res o u r ces. The coastal res o u r ces and the management and uses of those Blueprint will be implemented by the Galveston Bay Founda- res o u r ces. The plan was developed in response to the Coastal tion and other environmental organizations, res o u r ce agencies, Zone Management Act and is used by the Alabama Coastal universities, local governments, private landowners, industry Ar ea Management Program to balance pres e r vation, conserva - rep r esentatives, and other stakeholders. tion, enhancement and development of coastal res o u r ces while pr omoting a sustainable economy. The Alabama Coastal Area Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Management Program is a joint effo r t of the Alabama Depart- Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico ment of Economic and Community Affairs, which has primary Another example of an interagency water quality improv e m e n t responsibility for planning and policy development, and the eff o r t that can be used to forwa r d restoration activities is the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, which Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling Hypoxia has primary responsibility for regulation and implementation of in the North e r n Gulf of Mexico. Federal agencies have joined policies and goals. together in response to a serious threat that has been linked to nutrient over-enrichment. Each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Plan the oxygen levels near the bottom become too low to allow The study area for the Barataria-Ter rebone National Estuary most fish and crustaceans to live, resulting in an 8,000 square Pr ogram includes the Barataria and Ter rebonne basins and por- mile “dead zone.” Concern about the dead zone is both envi- tions of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. The Barataria- ronmental and economic as approximately 40 percent of U.S. Ter rebonne Estuary Plan was developed in conjunction with fisheries landings come from this area. Research indicates that the state of Louisiana, and is being implemented by the the dead zone is caused by a combination of natural and Ba r a t a r i a - Te r rebone National Estuary Program and the human influences, with the main driver being excess nutrients. Ba r a t a r i a - Te r rebonne Management Council, which consists of Ni t r ogen loads in the Mississippi Basin come from a variety of state, federal and local res o u r ce agencies, as well as universities so u r ces, but over half can be attributed to agriculture, primarily and diverse stakeholders. The plan identifies seven priority run o f f of nitrate from fertilizers. issues: hydrologic modifications, sediment reduction, habitat loss, eutrophication, pathogen contamination, toxic substances, To address this issue, federal agencies along with other stake- and changes in living res o u r ces. The plan also contains action holders have crafted an Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the North e r n Gulf of Mexico. The pa r tnerships developed under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Action Plan describes a national strategy to reduce the freq u e n - Pr otection and Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA). CWPPRA cy , duration, size and degree of oxygen depletion of the established a multi-agency task force that is responsible for hypoxic zone of the north e r n Gulf of Mexico. The plan is the pr ogram management and project selection based on rec o m - result of several years of study and discussion by the members mendations of the technical committee. The task force is com- of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient prised of NOAA Fisheries, Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Task Force and many concerned officials and citizens who par- Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Prot e c t i o n ticipated in their deliberations. The primary approaches to Ag e n c y , the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico outlined are to red u c e Louisiana Governo r ’s Office. ni t r ogen loads from watersheds to streams and rivers in the basin and res t o r e and enhance denitrification and nitrog e n Since 1991, 99 CWPPRA projects have been authorized in retention within the basin. While the primary focus of this Lo u i s i a n a ’ s nine coastal basins. The projects are expected to strategy is reducing nitrogen loads to the north e r n Gulf, many cr eate, protect and res t o r e 75,000 acres of wetlands over the of the actions proposed in this plan also will achieve next 20 years. Demonstration projects and feasibility studies ba s i n -wide improvements in surfa c e -water quality by red u c i n g ar e also part of CWPPRA. CWPPRA funds enabled a compre- ph o s p h o r ous. Likewise, actions taken to address local water hensive approach to restoration by funding restoration, coordi - quality problems in the basin often contribute to reductions in nated planning and monitoring. ni t r ogen loadings to the Gulf. Citizens’ groups such as the Coalition to Restore Coastal Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana Louisiana, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the Acadi- Pe r haps the most all-encompassing restoration plan within the ana Bay Association and the Ver million Rice Growers Associa- Gulf region is Louisiana’s Coast 2050: Tow a r d a Sustainable tion have played a significant role in habitat restoration plan- Coastal Louisiana. This strategic plan for the survival of ning for Louisiana. Lo u i s i a n a ’ s coast and communities promotes restoration and pr otection on a coast-wide basis, and recommends strategies Plan Elements that work with natural forces such as the river, climate, and tidal influences. The strategies included in the plan are expect- Goals ed to prevent the loss of 1,000 square miles of coastal habitat. Habitat goals for the central Gulf focus on the restoration of pr oductivity and diversity through the enhancement of habitat Coast 2050, which has been approved by all 20 of Louisiana’s st ru c t u r e and function. Examples of restoration goals for the coastal parishes, involved federal, state and local entities, ar ea include Galveston Bay’s target of restoring and/or conserv- landowners, environmentalists, scientists and other stakehold- ing 24,000 acres of habitat by 2010, and Coast 2050’s overar- ers. Partners include the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conserva - ching goal to “sustain a coastal ecosystem that supports and tion and Restoration Task Force (U.S. Army Corps of Engi- pr otects the environment, economy and culture of southern neers, National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], USFWS, Louisiana, and that contributes greatly to the economy and Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], EPA, and the well-being of the nation.” Of fice of the Governor of Louisiana) and the Louisiana State Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (Office of Many closely linked goals call for the protection, enhancement the Governor of Louisiana; the Louisiana Departments of Nat- or creation of lost habitats such as marshes, seagrasses, coastal ural Resources, Tra n s p o r tation and Development, Environ m e n - prairies, swamps, bay and lake shorelines, barrier islands and tal Quality, and Wildlife and Fisheries; Louisiana Division of critical land forms. Other goals address the causes of habitat Administration; and State Soil and Water Conservation Com- loss and degradation. These goals are designed to control inva- mittee.) sive species, ensure freshwater and sediment inflows, improv e water quality and res t o r e riparian buffer zones and barri e r Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan and the islands. Still other goals focus on the restoration of goods and Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Plan se r vices provided by estuarine habitats. In order to achieve one Coast 2050 builds on previous restoration planning effo r ts for set of goals—the restoration of goods and services provided by the Louisiana coast, including the Louisiana Coastal Wet l a n d s estuarine habitats—actions aim to pres e r ve and enhance fish- Restoration Plan and the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and eries res o u r ces, such as maintenance of temporal and spatial Restoration Plan. Coast 2050 also builds on the projects and biodiversity; maintenance of exchange and interface to achieve

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat system linkages; and reduction of water and sediment toxicity. of diverse stakeholders, and facilitation of coast-wide coopera- Restoration of colonial bird nesting habitat, elimination of tion. The integration of res e a r ch and the acquisition, interpre- dumping and debris, and control of shoreline erosion also are tation and application of information were also emphasized, examples of goals based on the rec o v e r y of habitat servi c e s . along with the use of predictive modeling. There seems to be a consensus that restoration should be planned and implemented Methods at the watershed or ecosystem level. Also recommended is an Within the central Gulf subregion, a variety of res t o r a t i o n in c r ease in public support within the context of communities methods have been suggested, developed and applied. and a tenfold increase in current funding levels. Although specific strategies are linked to particular habitats and threats, most habitats can benefit from landowner initia- Information Needs tives, removal of debris, establishment of habitat corridors and In t e rd i s c i p l i n a r y res e a r ch is recommended to: land use planning. ❖ Identify rare and threatened habitats; ❖ Im p r ove understanding of struc t u r e and function of coastal Er osion control and compensation methods include nonstruc - habitats; tural shoreline stabilization, brush fences and breakwaters, arti - ❖ Im p r ove understanding of human impacts on habitat; ficial reefs, shoreline scraping and grading, and reb u i l d i n g ❖ Im p r ove understanding of water and sediment processes and coastal ridges. Where subsidence has occurred or sedimenta- interactions; tion patterns have been altered, techniques such as terra c i n g , ❖ Develop innovative, practical techniques for habitat the beneficial use of dredged material, dedicated dredging for enhancement, especially the design of struc t u r es and meth- wetland creation, induced deposition of sediment, and sedi- ods for managing hydrol o g y , and the development of tech- ment diversion are recommended. niques and materials for marsh crea t i o n ; ❖ Employ hydrologic studies to determine restoration needs The innovative marsh terracing project at Sabine National and strategies; Wildlife Refuge has served as a model for smaller projects in ❖ Develop a regional monitoring program; and Galveston Bay. Louisiana also is pioneering the large-scale use ❖ Assess current status and tren d s . of freshwater diversion as part of the Caerna r van and Davis Pond restoration projects. As part of its plan to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel, the Port of Houston EA ST E R N GU L F O F ME X I C O SU B R E G I O N Authority has consulted with res o u r ce agencies to crea t e marsh, nesting areas and oyster reef habitats. Description The upper Gulf Coast of Florida, south to Anclote Key, defines Seagrasses have been transplanted using a variety of methods, the eastern subregion. Moderate freshwater inflow, coarser sed- and there is interest in developing nursery capability. Methods iments and clearer water than is found in the central subreg i o n for revegetation include the use of either nursery or transplant su p p o r ts extensive seagrass habitat. Where the limestone bot- stock. Techniques for enhancing oyster reefs also are being tom is exposed, sponge and soft coral communities exist. In developed, mostly with use of supplemental culch or arti f i c i a l addition, the subregion also supports salt marsh, fres h w a t e r substrate. Coastal prairie is often managed through the use of marsh, oyster reef, open water, barrier islands, bayous, dune pr escribed burns and the removal of invasive species. lakes, forested wetlands, sand pine, pine flatwoods, scrub hammock and hardwood hammock. Restoration of hydrologic conditions is often necessary and can encompass, the diversion of fres h w a t e r , management of pump Habitat Issues outfalls and removal of pipelines. To address water quality issues, many plans suggest the creation of buffer zones, red u c - Status and Trends tion of septic tank and sewer overflows, implementation of best Th e r e is some indication that fisheries have been declining in management practices and improvement of unpaved roads. Pensacola Bay (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997). Throughout the subregion, fishery species such as blue Elements of Success crab, shrimp, oysters and bay scallops, as well as finfish such as Several common themes have been identified among the cen- redfish, flounder, mullet, menhaden, speckled sea trout and tral Gulf plans. Of the documents reviewed, nearly all rec o m - la r gemouth bass, are identified as key beneficiaries of habitat mended the development of strong partnerships, involvement restoration. Protected species of particular concern in the East- er n Gulf region include pelicans, plovers, oyster catchers, skim- Plan Elements mers, terns, raptors, alligators and river otters. Goals Threats Restoration goals focus on the protection and restoration of Within the eastern Gulf, habitat is being lost, degraded, frag- seagrasses, marshes and forests, and on the reduction of run o f f mented and threatened. Hydrologic alterations, invasive and point source pollution. Maintenance of historic fres h w a t e r species, dredging and filling have caused much of the habitat inflow and the protection of listed species also are priorities for loss within this subregion. Changing land uses, an increase in the eastern Gulf. the amount of polluted run o f f, point and nonpoint sources of pollution, changes in freshwater inflow, and withdrawal of Methods gr oundwater threaten estuarine habitats in the subreg i o n . Shellfish restoration methods have involved enhancement of oyster reefs, construction of artificial reefs and the transplanti- Restoration Plans ng of scallop. Improvements to stormwater and wastewater management and treatment, landowner initiatives and imple- Florida Coastal Management Program mentation of best management practices for urban and agricul- The Florida Coastal Management Program activities relate to tural areas have been identified as techniques for improv i n g the protection, pres e r vation and development of Florida’s natu- water quality. Seagrass planting and sediment detention have ral, cultural and economic coastal res o u r ces. A network of 10 been recommended for restoration of vegetated habitat. agencies implements the program, led by the Florida Depart- ment of Community Affairs. A 15-member Governo r ’s Coastal Elements of Success Ad v i s o r y Committee advises the governor and the legislature Consistent with other Gulf subregions, key elements for suc- on coastal management issues and program implementation. cessful restoration are: system-wide coordination, public educa- The Coastal Management Program implements 23 state tion and involvement, and incorporation of res e a r ch. statutes related to coastal res o u r ces. Information Needs Management Plan for the Apalachicola National Estuarine Two res e a r ch priorities—mapping of existing natural res o u rc e s Research Reserve and long-term monitoring of existing and res t o r ed habitat— The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve was have been developed for the subreg i o n . established in Florida in 1979 and currently encompasses 246,766 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1998. SO U T H E R N GU L F O F ME X I C O SU B R E G I O N Im p o r tant habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include forested flood plains, fresh- and saltwa- Description ter marshes, oyster bars and barrier islands. Restoration priori- The southern subregion encompasses the Gulf Coast of Florida ties include restoring historic hydrol o g y , historic biological fr om south of Anclote Key to Cape Romano. The region is communities and fire regimes. Current restoration proj e c t s characteristic of the West Indian ecological province. In addi- include shoreline stabilization, Phragmites removal, marsh tion to salt marsh and seagrass, the clear, shallow estuaries of restoration and prescribed burni n g . the southern Gulf also support extensive mangrove habitat. Other key habitats are oyster reef, freshwater marsh, barri e r Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans islands, swamp, salt pans, dry-zone scrub, pine flatwoods, oak The Northwest Florida Water Management District has pre- sc r ub, scrub flatwoods and hammocks. pa r ed Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans for Pensacola Bay, St. Marks River and the Choctawatchee River Habitat Issues and Bay systems. These plans for comprehensive coordi n a t e d watershed management describe the res o u r ces and issues of the Status and Trends watershed, as well as the res o u r ce management activities of Di r ect loss of habitat has occurred as a result of eros i o n , various res o u r ce agencies. The plans also describe prop o s e d degraded water quality, and physical disturbance. Since 1870, pr ojects to address issues related to watershed management, ap p r oximately 80 percent of the seagrasses and 50 percent of biological concerns, water quality and public awaren e s s . the salt marsh and mangrove habitat in Tampa Bay have been lost (Tampa BayWatch, 1998). Erosion and degraded water

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat quality affect estuaries as a whole, as do changes to fres h w a t e r ac r es of low-salinity tidal stream habitat every five years for a inflow and changing land use. Invasive species and hydrol o g i c total increase over time of 1,800 acres, while pres e r ving exist- alteration are particularly damaging to marshes, and prop scar- ing salt marshes and mangrov e s . ring is a large problem in seagrass beds. In some cases, public ov e r use and misuse of natural areas also are leading to degrada- Management Plan for the Rookery Bay National Estuarine tion. Research Reserve The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was Threats established in Florida in 1978 and currently encompasses 9,400 Plans emphasize the effects of habitat loss on fisheries species ac r es of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve man- such as mullet, blue crab, and stone crab. Several prot e c t e d agement plan was approved by NOAA in 1998 and is curren t l y species inhabit the southern Gulf subregion, including: Wes t being revised. Important habitats that may be useful for investi- Indian manatee, Atlantic loggerhead turtle, gopher torto i s e , gation and as ref e r ence sites include tropical hardwood ham- indigo snake, Florida panther and 16 species of threatened or mocks, xeric scrub, pine flatwoods, saltwater marsh, man- en d a n g e r ed birds. These species are threatened by a variety of gr oves, shallow bay waters and barrier islands. Restoration pri- habitat alterations. There also is a concern that habitat is orities include hydrologic restoration and native community becoming fragmented and migration corridors are being restoration. Current restoration projects include hydrol o g i c a l se v e re d . restoration through roadbed removal and GeoWeb installation, invasive plant control, mangrove restoration and pres c r i b e d Restoration Plans bu rn i n g .

Florida Coastal Management Program (see Restoration Plans for Southwest Florida Conservation Corridor Tampa Bay the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Subreg i o n ) . Watershed This framework document is designed to provide a partn e r s h i p Charlotte Harbor Comprehensive Conservation and Manage- vehicle to synchronize comprehensive planning effo r ts by a ment Plan (Draft) host of independent partners. Designed to be a “living docu- The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program has complet- ment,” it will provide a template for developing strategies and ed a draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan priorities through time and allow for new opportunities for fed- for the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed, including the eral, state and regional governments to work together with Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay watersheds, Lower Peace local governments and the private sector to explore and devel- and Myakka River watersheds, and the Upper Peace and op innovative conservation, restoration and pres e r vation pro- Myakka River watersheds. The plan identifies hydrologic alter- grams. Furth e r , it will allow funding requests to be strea m l i n e d ations, water quality degradation, and fish and wildlife habitat as monies become available for acquisition and restoration at loss as priority issues. the local, state and federal levels. Under the guidance of the Agency on Bay Management (ABM), this document is the Charting the Course, the Comprehensive Conservation and result of a unified planning effo r t with state and federal agen- Management Plan for Tampa Bay cies, local governments, private landowners, and nongovern- Ch a r ting the Course was produced by the Tampa Bay National mental organizations and businesses (Southwest Florida Con- Es t u a r y Program in cooperation with local government and se r vation Corridor planning document, 2001). agency partners. The document addresses seven priority issues: degradation of water quality; impacts to living res o u r ces and Land Management Plan for the Estero Bay State habitats; impacts associated with human uses of the estuary; Buffer Preserve agency coordination and response; community awareness; bay The Land Management Plan for the Estero Bay State Buffe r ci r culation and flushing; and spills and contamination. Restora- Pre s e r ve has been prep a r ed by the Bureau of Coastal and tion and protection of seagrasses is a key goal. The goal is to Aquatic Managed Areas in the Florida Department of Environ - res t o r e 12,350 acres and protect the Tampa Bay’s existing mental Prot e c t i o n ’ s Division of Marine Resources. The docu- 25,600 acres of grass beds based on restoring the vital under- ment describes the res o u r ces associated with the pres e r ve, as water seagrass meadows to 1950s levels. This will largely be well as proposed management activities and the roles of man- achieved by controlling the bay’s nitrogen loading, although aging agencies, the public and local government in manage- other factors such as turbidity and water color, also influence ment of the area. The plan identifies the following res t o r a t i o n seagrass reg r owth. The goal includes restoring at least 100 goals: assess natural res o u r ces and restoration needs, establish and post presence boundaries, manage invasive plant species, and invasive species have been recommended for marshes and manage ecosystems with prescribed burns, and control damage uplands. The conservation of flyways has also been identified by feral hogs. as essential.

Tampa BayWatch and other citizens’ groups have been very Elements of Success active in the implementation of community-based res t o r a t i o n Restoration planners in the southern Gulf subregion have pr ojects. Tampa BayWatch has published the results of several shown strong support for public education and involvement; workshops that identify restoration sites and res o u r ces, as well cooperation of federal, state and local agencies with other as proposed project selection criteria. The Tampa Surfa c e or ganizations; science-based adaptive management; coordi n a - Water Improvement and Management Department has also tion of regional maps and databases; and partnerships among pre p a r ed a five-year plan that includes potential res t o r a t i o n universities, res o u r ce agencies and res e a r ch institutions. Also sites. noted as an essential element of successful restoration was the ability to balance human use and sensitive area s . Plan Elements Information Needs Goals Several types of information were determined to be necessary Restoration goals focus on enhancing hydrol o g y , water quality, for successful restoration in the subregion, including: and habitats such as seagrass, salt marsh, oyster reefs, fres h w a - ❖ assessment of management strategies for listed species; ter marsh, native uplands and mud flats. Ecological function ❖ ef fectiveness of control techniques for invasive species; will be res t o r ed through establishment of buffer zones arou n d ❖ fr eshwater inflow needs; sensitive areas and restoration of freshwater inflow. Also ❖ existing res o u r ces (inventory and status of existing planned are activities that will control invasive species popula- res o u rc e s ) ; tions and assist with the rec o v e r y of protected species popula- ❖ the carrying capacity of sensitive habitats relative to public ti o n s . use and mosquito control methods; and ❖ GIS-based information about habitat distribution, topogra- Methods ph y , hydrol o g y , and biological and cultural res o u rc e s . For pres e r ve areas, techniques as simple as posting boundaries have been identified. Prescribed burns and removal of trash

RE F E R E N C E S hensive Conservation and Management Plan, Part II. The Estuary Compact. A Public Private Promise to Work Together to Save Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affa i r s , the Barataria-Ter rebonne Basins. Science, Tec h n o l o g y , and Energy Division, Coastal Prog r a m s Of fice. 1999. Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan, Program Beck, M, W.M. Odaya, J.J. Bachant, B. Keller, R. Martin, R. Document III. Mathews, C. Porte r , G. Ramseur. 2000. Identification of Priority Sites for Conservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Ecore- Au b u r n University Marine Extension Program. 2000. Draft: gional Plan. The Nature Conserva n c y , Arlington, Va. Dog River Watershed Management Plan. Boesch, D., M. Josselyn, A. Hehta, J. Morris, W. Nuttle, C. Ba r a t a r i a - Te r rebonne National Estuary Program. 1995. Saving Simenstead, D. Smith. Scientific Assessment of Coastal Wetland Our Good Earth: A Call to Action. Barataria-Ter reb o n n e Loss, Restoration, and Management in Louisiana. Executive National Estuary Program Characterization Report. Summary.

Ba r a t a r i a - Te r rebonne National Estuary Program. 1996. Compre- Center for Coastal Studies, Texas A&M University at Corpus hensive Conservation and Management Plan, Part I. The Executive Christi. 1999. Mission/Aransas Watershed Conservation Plan. Summary. Pr ogram Objectives, Action Plans, and Implementa- tion Strategies at a Glance. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999. Committing to Our Future, Volume I. A Draft Comprehensive Conservation and Ba r a t a r i a - Te r rebonne National Estuary Program. 1996. Compre- Management Plan for the Greater Charlotte Harbor Wat e r s h e d .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999. Committing Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of to Our Future, Volume II. Preliminary Action Plan for the Greater Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. 2000. Rookery Bay Charlotte Harbor Watershed. National Estuary Research Reserve Management Plan 2000-2005.

City of St. Petersburg Planning Department. 1994. City of St. Florida Ecotourism/Heritage Tourism Advisory Committee. Pe t e r s b u r g Environmental Enhancement Program. Five-Year 1997. Recommendations on the Statewide Plan to Protect and Pro- Plan 1995-2000. mote the Natural, Coastal, Historical, Cultural and Commercial Assets of Florida. Planning for the Florida of the Future. Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. 1989. Here Today and Gone Tomorrow? A Citizen’s Program for Saving the Mississippi Florida Sea Grant. 1993. Florida’s Estuaries: A Citizen’s Guide to River Delta Region to Protect its Heritage, Economy, and Environ- Coastal Living and Conservation. ment. Fonseca, M. A Guide to Planting Seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program. 1998. Coastal Bend Bays Plan. Fonseca, Mark S. 1992. Restoring Seagrass System in the Unit- ed States. Chapter 3 in Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environ- Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. 1997. Course Correc - ment, G. Thayer, ed. Maryland Sea Grant College. tion. Developing a Sustainable Vision for the Mississippi River Cor- ridor. Main Report. Fonseca, M., W. Kenworth y , and G. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the Unit- Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States ed States and Adjacent Waters. NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Pro- 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and gram. Decision Analysis Series No. 12. Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Fre y e r , W.E., T. Monahan, D. Bowden, and F. Graybill. 1983. Duke, T. and W. Kruczynski. 1992. Status and Trends of Status and trends of wetlands and deep water habitats in the Emergent and Submerged Vegetated Habitats, Gulf of co t e r minous United States, 1950s to 1970s. Colorado State Mexico, U.S.A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Un i v e r s i t y , Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Fort Of fice of Wat e r , Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Cen- Collins. 32 pages. te r , Miss. 161 pages. Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 2001. Ebb & Flow. Galveston Ed g a r , Graham J., N. Barrett, D. Graddon, and P. Last. 1999. Bay Characterization Highlights. The conservation significance of estuaries: a classification of Tasmanian estuaries using ecological, physical and demograph- Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 2001. State of the Bay Sympo- ic attributes as a case study. Biological Conservation 92. 383- sium V. 39 7 . Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 1994. The State of the Bay. Er win, Kevin L. 1996. Bibliography of Wetland Creation and A Characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. Restoration Literature. Association of State Wetland Managers. Galveston Bay Foundation. 1998. Habitat Conservation Blueprint. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1998. A Plan to Save the Habitats and Heritage of Galveston Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Bay. Plan 1998-2003. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (NEP). 1994. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Galveston Bay Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation and Marine Resources, Bureau of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Management Plan for the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. Ar eas. 1997. Land Management Plan for the Estero Bay State Buffer Preserve, Lee County Florida for the period May 1997 Ha n d l e y , L.R. 1995. Seagrass Distribution in the North e r n through May 2002. Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi c e of Wat e r , Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, Miss. 161 pages. Houston-Galveston Area Council. 2000. Seabrook Wetlands Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Tas k Conservation Plan. Fo r ce. 2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Control- ling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Tas k Fo r ce (LCWCRT). 1993. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. 1999. Our Water, Our Plan. Main Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Future. Mobile Bay and Delta.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Tas k Moulton, D., and J. Jacob. 2000. Texas Wetlands Guidebook. Fo r ce (LCWCRT). 1997. Evaluation Report to the U.S. Con- gr ess on the Effectiveness of Louisiana Coastal Wet l a n d National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 1998. Weeks Bay Restoration Proj e c t s . National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Tas k National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Fisheries of the Unit- Fo r ce (LCWCRT) and the Wetlands Conservation Authority. ed States – 1999. Silver Spring, Md. National Marine Fisheries 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Se r vice, Office of Science and Tec h n o l o g y , Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Tas k Fo r ce (LCWCRT) and the Wetlands Conservation Authority. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Th e National Ocean Service. 1990. Estuaries of the United States. Ap p e n d i c e s . Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special NOAA 20th Anniversary Report. Ma r tin, D., T. Morton, T. Dobrzynski, and B. Valentine. 1996. Estuaries on the Edge: The Vital Link Between Land and Sea. Am e r i - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can Oceans Campaign. /Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Generic Amend- ment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Matthews, G., and T. Minello, eds. 1994. Technology and Suc- Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Gulf of Mexico cess in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina Fishery Management Council. 19 9 8 . alterniflora Marshes in the United States. Volume I. Executive Su m m a r y and Annotated Bibliography. Neckles, H.A., ed. 1993. Seagrass Monitoring and Research in the Gulf of Mexico: Draft Report of a Workshop Held at Mote Matthews, G., and T. Minello, eds. 1994. Technology and Suc- Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla., January 28-29, 1992. cess in Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina National Biological Surve y , National Wetlands Research Cen- alterniflora Marshes in the United States. Volume II. Inventory te r , Lafayette, La. 75 pages. and Human Resources Direc t o r y. NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Pro- gram. Decision Analysis Series No. 2. No r thwest Florida Water Management District. 1997. Pensaco- la Bay System Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Water Qual- ity Assessment Branch. 2001. Managing Our Waters…Basin by Pa s h l e y , D., C. Beardm o r e, J. Fitzgerald, R. Ford, W. Hunter, Basin. M. Morrison, and K. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight. Con- servation of the Land Birds of the United States. American Bird Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Water Qual- Co n s e rv a n c y . ity Assessment Branch. 2001. Managing Our Waters…From the Land. Sh e e h y , D.J. and S.F. Vik. 1992 Developing Pref a b r i c a t e d Reefs: An Ecological and Engineering Approach. Chapter 12 in Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Water Qual- Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment, G. Thayer, ed. Mary- ity Assessment Branch. 2001. Managing Our Waters…With land Sea Grant College. Local Government. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1996. Charting the Course for Tampa Bay. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 1996. Setting Priorities for Turn e r , R.E. and D.F. Boesch. 1988. Aquatic Animal Prod u c t i o n Tampa Bay Habitat Protection and Restoration: Restoring the Bal- and Wetland Relationships: Insights Gleaned Following Wet - ance. land Loss or Gain. In The Ecology and Management of Wet - lands. Vol I. Ecology of Wetlands. Timber Press: Portland, Ore. Tampa BayWatch, Inc., 1998. High School Saltmarsh Wet l a n d pp. 25-39. Nu r s e r y Program. Operations Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Planning and Evaluating Tampa BayWatch, Inc. 2000. Beneficial Use of Dredge Material Restoration of Aquatic Habitat from an Ecological Perspective. for Tampa Bay Bottom Habitat Restoration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Ecological Con- Tampa BayWatch, Inc. 1998. A Conservation Blueprint for Habi- dition of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA 620-R-98-004. tat Restoration in Tampa Bay. Prioritizing habitat res t o r a t i o n U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and sites and funding opportunities to res t o r e coastal ecosystems in Development, National Health and Environmental Effe c t s the Tampa Bay estuary. Re s e a r ch Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Fla.

Tampa BayWatch, Inc. 1998. Prioritizing Habitat Restoration U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1998. Final Habitat Stewards h i p Sites in the Tampa Bay Region. Workshop Summary. Pr ogram. Texas Chenier Plain.

Tampa SWIM Department. 1996. SWIM Potential Restoration Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority. 2000. Sites. Five Year Plan FY 95-FY 2000. Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Plan. Fiscal Yea r 20 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 . Texas General Land Office. 1996. Texas Coastal Wetlands. A Handbook for Local Governments. White, W., T. Calnan, and R. Morton. 1998. Evaluation of Marsh Creation and Restoration Projects and Their Potential Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. 1998. State for Large-Scale Application, Galveston-Trinity Bay System of the Texas Environment, Volume II. Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 1999-2003. Wil l a r d, J.D., and H. Hull, eds. 1995. Wetlands and Watershed Management: Science Applications and Public Policy. As s o c i a t i o n Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1999. Seagrass Conserva- of the State Wetland Managers Institute for Wetland Science tion Plan for Texas. and Public Policy.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1995. Wetlands Assis- World Wildlife Fund. 1992. Statewide Wetland Strategies. A tance Guide for Landowners. Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource.

Th a y e r , Gordon, ed. 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Envi- Yozzo, D. and J. Tit r e, eds. 1997. Coastal Wetland Restoration ronment. Maryland Sea Grant College. Bi b l i o g r a p h y . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wet l a n d s Re s e a r ch Program Technical Report WRP-RE-20. Turn e r , R.E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp. Transactions of the American Fisheries Soci- et y , Kissimmee, Fla. 543 pages.

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning C H A P T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 4 – SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC

EST UA R I E S O F T H E SO U T H E A ST AT L A N T I C SU M M A RY

The Southeast Atlantic region is defined here as he Southeast Atlantic region is characterized by broad scale the coastal and estuarine zones of the stat es of climatic patterns, which produce a diversity of ecosystems. No r th Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, the Atlantic coast of Florida (including South Flori- T In this region, restoration programs and plans are primarily da, the Everglades, the Florida Keys and Florida implemented as regional or state level strategies. A review of res t o r a - Bay), the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. tion plans and programs determined that there is significant duplication of effo r t within and among federal and state initiatives. Several The Southeast Atlantic region: ❖ Co n t ains about 17.2 million acres of marsh successful restoration methods were identified in this region. While and other estuarine habitat and 5.1 million ma n g r ove restoration is still in need of further development, there are ac r es of inter tidal area s some examples of effective restoration methods that have been (h t t p : / / c a l d e ra . s e r o.n m fs . g o v / h a b i ta t / s p. h t m ) . applied in the field such as the use of PVC pipes to stabilize mangrov e ❖ Includes the only emergent ree f s off the conti- pr opagules in order to protect them from washing away (this method ne n t al U.S. (Causey et al., 2000). is known as the Riley Encased Methodology). Another more rec e n t technique being tested is the use of burlap, whereby four or five ❖ Co n t ains the largest seagrass bed yet docu- me n t ed (5,791 square miles), which occurs off pr opagules may be placed on a section of burlap so that the roots of south Florida (www.fi u . e d u / ~ s e a g r ass/). the propagules intertwine and protect one another from washout. Innovative approaches and new techniques also are being tested for ❖ Includes 3.9 million acres (18 percent of national total) of shellfish beds, ranking third coral and artificial reef enhancement. Until the 1980s, bundled auto- in the total acreage of classified water s mobile tires were most often used, but this practice was discontinued (N OA A , 1990). due to stability problems. Materials most often used include boating vessels, large diameter concrete pipe, train cars, bridge railing and rub - ble. A document entitled Guidelines for Marine Arti f i c i a l Reef Materials, published by the Gulf States Marine Fish- eries Commission, provides details and drawbacks of past uses of materials used for restoration and enhancement proj - ects. Regional habitat restoration plans identify several res e a r ch and information needs that are necessary to achieve lo n g - t e r m restoration success. Some of the information needs include understanding ecosystem struc t u r e and function; understanding the causes and effects of habitat alterations; and using the best available technology and methodology for effective habitat restoration.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat IN T RO D U C T I O N a long evolutionary isolation, a number of groups have rea c h e d continental high points of species richness in the Southeast Description Atlantic region, making it one of the most species-rich areas in For the purposes of this discussion, the Southeast Atlantic the temperate zone, surpassed only by eastern Asia (White et region includes North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, the al., 1995). Atlantic coast of Florida (including South Florida, the Florida Keys, the Everglades and Florida Bay), the U.S. Vir gin Islands Hi s t o r i c a l l y , longleaf pine savanna was widely dominant on the and Puerto Rico. The Southeast Atlantic estuarine region is one Coastal Plain. Open habitats, including fens, bogs, glades, bar- of the largest, most diverse and most productive coastal area s rens and prairies; freshwater and saline marshes; sand dunes; in the United States. Eighteen estuaries and two sub-estuaries, and salt flats and rock outcrops, form island-like habitats with- totaling almost 56,000 square miles of total drainage area, char- in the matrix of closed forest. Over thirty plant and animal acterize the region. It rep r esents the second highest U.S. species associated with the longleaf pine habitat are listed as region in wetlands and coral reef coverage area (NOAA, 1990). th r eatened or endangered, including red-cockaded woodpeck- er , fox squirrel and gopher tortoise (White et al., 1995).

It has been estimated that non-alluvial wetlands support mo r e than one-third of the rare plants that occur in the Southeast Atlantic region and 23 species of rare, threa t - ened or otherwise noteworthy plants have been identified in bays in South Carolina. Animals that depend on bay North Carolina Subregion habitat include amphibians, the American alligator, fres h - South Carolina Subregion water turtles, snakes, and birds. Several animal species are Georgia Subregion endemic to particular bays; Lake Wac c a m a w , for example, Florida Subregion su p p o r ts at least two and possibly four endemic fish Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands Subregion species, and three endemic mollusk species (White et al., 1995). Recreationally important fish species in the reg i o n include tarpon, American shad, and striped bass (Iliff, personal communication).

Figure 1: Southeast Region and Subregions Pocosins are freshwater wetlands dominated by a dense cover of broad-leaved evergr een shrubs or low-growing tree s Th e r e is a great deal of diversity among land types and habitats with highly organic soils developed in areas of poor drainage. within the Southeast region. River drainage areas range in size Several plant species depend on pocosin habitat, including fr om 500 square miles (New River) to over 11,600 square miles wh i t e w i c k y , arrowleaf shieldwort, spring-flowering goldenrod (Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary) (NOAA, 1990). For the purposes and roughleaf yellow loosestrife (White et al., 1995). of this discussion, the regional estuary systems are classified into three broad types: low-lying marshes within South Carol i - The coastal physiography of the north e r n and southern part of na and Georgia; lagoons and barrier islands along the coasts of the South Atlantic Bight (North Carolina and Florida) is domi- No r th Carolina and Florida; and coral reefs and salt ponds nated by shallow water lagoons behind sand coastal barri e r within Puerto Rico and the U.S. Vir gin Islands (White et al., sh o r elines, while the central portion (South Carolina and 1995). Wetlands cover over 9,000 square miles of the reg i o n , Ge o r gia) contains depositional marsh-filled lagoons. Estuarine and forested wetlands constitute three - q u a r ters of southeast marshes constitute a complex ecosystem that is vital to fish and wetlands (NOAA, 1990). Total salt and brackish marsh acrea g e wildlife including threatened and endangered species, furbear- in this region is 894,000 acres, or 16 percent of the nation’s ers and other mammals, waterfowl, wading birds, shore birds , total coastal wetlands (White et al., 1995). reptiles and amphibians, shellfish and invertebrates.

Key Habitats and Species Within this region, barrier islands and maritime forests are Br oad-scale climatic patterns explain much of this diversity, complex and dynamic ecosystems. Large numbers of migratory and the Southeast reg i o n ’ s most distinctive characteristic is and nesting bird species are found on barrier islands. Coastal diversity at small scales. Due to these diverse environments and marshes are critical to overwintering populations of many wa t e r b i r ds. Southeastern barrier islands are included in the Florida Bay is a unique, relatively young subtropical lagoon migration routes of many raptor species. Neotropical migrants with localized estuarine characteristics. Some scientists believe use the islands as a resting stop when traveling to and from that the cumulative lack of freshwater inflow to Florida Bay, their winter habitats in the tropics. Nine endangered species of due to man-made water diversions coupled with other anthro- bi r ds have been listed as wholly or partially dependent on pogenic and possibly natural causes, led to a major seagrass so u t h e a s t e r n barrier island habitats. These species use the bar- di e - o f f in the bay in 1987, followed by subsequent die-offs in rier islands for nesting, migration, wintering, feeding, res t i n g the 1990s. The declining health of Florida Bay was a major cat- and roosting (Stalter and Odum, 1993). alyst for passage of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which in part proposes to res t o r e freshwater inflow from Dunes and beaches provide essential nesting habitat for sea the Everglades into Florida Bay (Porter and Porter 2001). The tu r tles. There are five species of sea turtles found in the open bay is inextricably linked to the Everglades and the Florida ocean and coastal waters of the Southeast Atlantic. All of these Keys reef tract. A decline in water quality associated with rapid species nest on open beaches and include: the green sea turtl e population growth in the South Florida area and the subse- (e n d a n g e re d / t h r eatened), the hawksbill (endangered), Kemp’s quent increase in polluted run o f f have a synergistic impact on ridley (endangered), the leatherback (endangered) and the log- the downstream coral reefs of the Florida Keys. Degraded ge r head (threatened) (White et al., 1995). water quality is a major concern for coastal managers in South Florida and the Florida Keys. In the Southeast Atlantic region, well-developed mangrov e fo r ests occur in South Florida, the U.S. Vir gin Islands and Oyster reefs and shell banks in the South Atlantic are com- Pu e r to Rico in areas where tidal waters produce saline condi- posed of oyster shell, live oysters and other organisms that are tions for all or part of the year. The red mangrove (Rhizophora di s c r ete, contiguous and clearly distinguishable from scattered mangle), black mangrove (Avincennia germinans) and white man- oysters in marshes and mudflats. The American oyster (Cras- gr ove (Laguncularia racemosa) ar e the three true mangrov e sostrea virginica) extends over a wide latitude. The ecological species found in the Southeast Atlantic. Mangrove habitats role of the oyster reef is to provide struc t u r e, food and prot e c - pr ovide shelter for fish and invertebrates, contribute detritus to tion, and to filter impurities from the water column. This rol e estuarine food webs, trap sediment and nutrients before they is the reason intertidal oysters are described as “keystone” reach the sea, and protect coastal shorelines from the full species, defined as species that are critical to a healthy coastal ef fects of storms. ecosystem (NOAA, 1998a; 1998b).

Seagrass beds in North Carolina and Florida are pref e r red habi- Oysters form living intertidal reef struc t u r es that support a host tat areas of many managed species such as shrimp, red drum , of other associated organisms including but not limited to and estuarine-dependent snapper and grou p e r . In addition, bi r ds, shellfish, mammals and invertebrates. Oysters also filter many key species of birds (e.g., black brant), green turtles and water by depositing suspended sediments on the estuarine bot- manatees feed directly upon coastal and estuarine seagrasses tom and removing excess nutrients. Improved water clarity has (NOAA, 1998a; 1998b). Seagrass species found in the reg i o n many benefits, one of which is allowing recolonization and include turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass gr owth of submerged aquatic vegetation. Oysters and their (Syringodium filiforme) and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii). reefs buffer wave action, thereby reducing erosion to salt marshes and adjacent uplands. The Southeast Atlantic region contains the only emerge n t coral reefs off the continental U.S. (Causey et al. 2000). Coral In t e r tidal flats are diverse along the South Atlantic coast. Con- reefs help to build landmass in tropical environments, prov i d e siderable regional variability in tidal ranges causes the diversity beach sand and offer protection to coastlines from hurri c a n e s , in distribution and character of the estimated one million acres st o r m erosion and flooding by reducing wave action. The num- of tidal flat habitat. The constantly changing systems prov i d e ber and density of species using coral reefs is extremely high nu r s e r y grounds for early development of benthic species, and many reef taxa have yet to be described or inventoried refuges and feeding grounds for forage species of fish, and (B ru c k n e r , personal communication). Recent estimates of the feeding grounds for specialized predators (NOAA, 1998a; extent of coral reefs in Puerto Rico by the Department of Nat- 19 9 8 b ) . ural and Environmental Resources have placed Puerto Rico’s reef acreage second only to Hawaii’s. Fr ee flowing riverine systems are the historic pref e r red habitat of anadromous fish populations. However, through the

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat damming of most significant riverine systems, the historic ladders, or constructing natural dam bypasses to ensure that ranges of anadromous fish populations have been grea t l y optimal habitat is available for future populations of anadro- reduced. Pollution and the construction of dams have res u l t e d mous fishes. in substantial loss and degradation of suitable spawning habitat. South Atlantic coastal stream habitat from North Carolina to An a d r omous fish species commonly found in southeastern Florida is estimated to have been reduced by 77 percent due to Atlantic waters include American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hi c k - the construction of 6,944 dams. The riverine habitat historical- or y shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), ly utilized by anadromous fishes has been reduced from al e w i f e (Alosa pseudoharengus), Atlantic sturgeon* (Acipenser ap p r oximately 152,862 miles of unobstructed stream access to oxyrinchus), Shortnose sturge o n * * (Acipenser brevirostrum), an d 30,168 miles of optimal stream habitat (Busch et al., 1998). In the striped bass (Morone saxatilis). A catadromous fish species addition, habitat alterations from discharges, dredging or dis- (one that spends its adult life in freshwater and spawns in the posal of material into rivers, and related development activities ocean) found in southeastern Atlantic waters is the American di r ectly affecting riverine and estuarine mudflats and marshes, eel (Anguilla rostrata). remain constant threats. *The Atlantic sturgeon is a candidate species of federal concern. Ma i n s t r eam spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for anadro- **The Shortnose sturgeon was federally listed as endangered in 1967 mous fishes has specific physical and biological characteristics and is still endangered today. for the successful rep r oduction and survival of anadromous fish populations. Streambed hydraulics and substrate composition Habitat-Dependent Activities ar e the primary factors for successful spawning of anadrom o u s Tra d i t i o n a l l y , forests have been the dominant land cover within fish species. Optimal anadromous fish habitat is found in area s the estuarine and coastal regimes of the southeastern U.S., with cobble and gravel substrate and appropriate water veloci- accounting for about 33 percent of all land within the estuarine ties to maintain high levels of oxygenated waters for spawning drainage areas. Agriculture accounts for 22 percent of the lands and to prevent the excessive buildup of fine sediments within estuarine drainage areas. Winyah Bay, Ossabaw Sound, th r oughout the incubation stage of larval anadromous species. Br oad River and Indian River each have over 30 percent of Substantial groundwater upwelling contributes to specific their lands classified as agricultural (NOAA, 1990). spawning and essential temperature req u i re m e n t s . Although urban centers rep r esent only about four percent of its Water level fluctuations within a riverine system can have an estuarine drainage areas, Florida has a rapidly urbanizing coast adverse effect on developing embryos depending upon the extending north from Miami to Jacksonville at the mouth of developmental stage and duration of the water level changes. the St. Johns River. The population in 126 counties of this The river flushing rate affects aquatic prod u c t i v i t y , which is region is projected to increase by more than 24 perce n t typically high in free-flowing sections of mainstream rivers. between 1988 and 2010 (NOAA, 1990). The southeastern U.S. Su b m e r ged aquatic plant species allow for increased diversity coastal region continues to attract visitors and residents in of food sources, which includes macroi n v e r tebrates and zoo- in c r easing numbers, with consequent stress to and loss of the plankton, and provides protective cover for developing juvenile natural res o u r ces and habitats within these coastal and estuar- fishes. Organism diversity decreases in res e r voirs crea t e d ine zones. th r ough the damming of free-flowing rivers. Thermal regime is another important habitat req u i r ement that is altered throu g h Th e r e are nearly 2,700 public outdoor rec r eation sites compris- the stratification of dammed res e r voir waters and releases of ing about 5,200 square miles of land in this coastal reg i o n . al t e r ed water temperatures downstream from permanent struc - Over 60 percent of these lands are managed for hunting, while tu r es. about 32 percent are set aside for conservation, pres e rv a t i o n and aesthetic value. Of the almost 900 public sites which pro- Southeast Atlantic anadromous fish management effo r ts should vide access to the water, 61 percent are adjacent to estuarine take a holistic ecosystem approach. Habitat restoration effo rt s waters and 36 percent provide access to the Atlantic Ocean. within primary watersheds of the southeastern Atlantic should Florida has the largest concentration of private sites in the specifically address the cumulative impacts from habitat loss region (70 percent of the reg i o n ’ s total) (NOAA, 1990). due to damming and expand present-day population ranges back to historic ranges. Habitat restoration measures include Coral reefs are the major marine tourist attraction in the south- dam removal, breeching of dam struc t u r es, installation of fish east. In the Florida Keys alone, coral reefs are credited with generating $1.2 billion in tourism revenue each year from four urban areas while levee construction, channelization, agricul- million visitors (English et al., 1996). Economically and cultur- tural run o f f, cattle grazing, timber extraction and invasions of ally important fisheries of the U.S. Vir gin Islands and Puerto non-indigenous species influence surviving stands (White et al., Rico (specifically reef fish, conch, lobster and aquarium species 1995). in trade) are completely dependent on reef habitats (Bruc k n e r , personal communication). Within the Southeast region, human activities have had a major effect on barrier island habitats over the past 50 years. Habitat Status and Trends Development has meant the construction of jetties and sea Based on an analysis of plans within the Southeast region, find- walls, filling and draining of marshes, and extensive dune stabi- ings indicate that the major factors contributing to estuarine lization and beach nourishment programs, all of which obstruc t and coastal habitat loss and degradation include: logging, con- the natural fluctuations of the barrier island communities. version to agriculture and development, hydrological alter- Although there remain isolated stretches of protected barri e r ation, and anthropogenic and natural threats. Table 1 summa- island beaches and dunes and intact salt- and freshwater marsh- rizes some of the key past, present and future threats for all es, nearly half of the area of these communities is estimated to su b r egions of the Southeast. have been lost (White et al., 1995).

Within private or public land, pristine areas and rare habitats in Many birds have been negatively affected by development and the Southeast Atlantic region have suffe r ed significant losses, human encroachment. Species that nest in bare sand can be and human effects have permeated the region, rather than disturbed by pedestrian and off- r oad vehicle traffic, and by the en c r oaching into the region along one or even several fron t s co n s t r uction of artificial dunes. Loss of habitat due to coastal (White et al., 1995). development also can have a detrimental effect on seabird and sh o re b i r d populations that may use mangroves, coastal and Data from 1987 show that although 55 percent of the south- riparian forests, or dune vegetation to nest and roost. east reg i o n ’ s land was forested, there was a downward tren d and a decline of five percent since 1960 (U.S. Forest Servi c e , Hi s t o r i c a l l y , the Florida Everglades system extended from Lake 1988; Martin and Boyce, 1993). The rest of the land was used Okeechobee to Florida Bay. However, 50 percent of the origi- for crop and pasture (31 percent) and miscellaneous purposes nal wetland area (3,861 square miles) has been drained and (r oads, towns, cities, airports: 14 percent). Urban areas were used for agriculture and development. The remaining area lies gr owing at the fastest rate (White et al., 1995). within impoundments of the South Florida Water Management District (White et al., 1995). Pr edictions of trends in land use include a decline in forest land by 15 percent over the next 50 years (with additional fores t An exemplary study of landscape change in the historical Ever- land converted from natural to plantation forests); a slight glades (Davis et al, 1994) showed three of seven physiographic decline in agricultural land (with a continued shift from small landscapes had been entirely eliminated (swamp or custard- to large farming operations); and an increase in urban area s . apple forest, peripheral wet prairie, and bald cypress stand), These predictions suggest that further habitat loss and frag- and other landscape types had been reduced by 74 perce n t mentation will occur near human population centers (Boyce (sawgrass plains), 47 percent (sawgrass-dominated mosaic), 24 and Martin, 1993). pe r cent (southern marl-forming marshes) and 13 percent (wet pr a i r i e / s l o u g h - t r ee island-sawgrass mosaic). On the local scale, In Georgia, the Savannah River has experienced the grea t e s t wet prairie and slough decreased by 25 percent, and sawgrass human impact. Large dams, dredging and channelization have marsh increased by 33 percent, a change attributed to lower removed the vegetated flood plains in the freshwater tidal water levels. The study concluded that the factors res p o n s i b l e zone. It has been estimated that 78 percent of southeastern for the historical configuration of habitats were extended wetlands were lost between settlement and 1980 (Noss et al., hy d r operiods and slow water flow caused by the presence of 1995). Southern floodplain forests may constitute the large s t extensive sawgrass marshes, punctuated by drought years with remaining riparian habitat type in the United States. Estimates se v e r e fires. However, due to man-made alterations in the natu- of extent vary from 25,482 square miles to 50,193 square miles. ral hydrological flow, historic estuaries such as Florida Bay have This areal extent is decreasing (0.51 percent per year from been starved of fres h w a t e r , resulting in significant shifts in the 1954 to 1974), with a total loss of about 63 percent. These natural ecosystem and subsequent seagrass die-offs. fo r ests have been converted to farmland, industrial parks and

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat TA B L E 1. KE Y TH R E ATS I N T H E SO U T H E A ST AT L A N T I C R E G I O N

Threats Description Subregions Ag r i c u l t u r e Co n v e r sion of wetlands to agricultural lands; direct and in d i r ect nonpoint source discharges of fill, nutrients and N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., chemicals; hydrologic modifications to crea t e ditches, dikes and Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I.* farm ponds; damage to wetlands and submerged lands by livestock; and cumulative and synergistic effects of these impacts. Aq u a c u l t u r e Dr edging and filling of wetlands and other coastal habitats through N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., the introduction of pens; nets and other containment devices; and Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. in t r oduction of waste products and toxic chemicals. Si l v i c u l t u r e Co n v e r sion of wetlands to production sites with rel a te d N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., impacts similar to those listed for agriculture. Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Urban, suburban Co n v e r sion of wetlands and coastal habitats to sites for res i d e n t i a l and coastal or commercial uses with some of the following associated impacts: N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., dev e l o p m e n t di r ect and indirect nonpoint source discharges of fill, nutrients and Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. chemicals; hydrologic modifications; damage to coastal dunes, wetlands and other sensitive habitats; and cumulative and synergistic ef fects caused by these impacts. Industrial and Impacts similar to those listed for agriculture and urban N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., commercial activities and suburban development. Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V. I . Navigation Por t construction and operation; channel dredging and stab i l i z a t i o n pr ojects; discharge of fuels or other chemicals; turbidity; ship N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., gro u n d i n g s / p r op damage/sinking in sensitive areas; and tran s f er of Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. exotic species through ballast water discharge . Land subsidence N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., and eros i o n Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Vessel operation Impacts similar to those listed for navigation and gear-re l a te d impacts such as damage to coral ree f s caused by the improper setting N.C.**, S.C., Fla., Ga., of anchors; mono-filament line and ghost nets (threa t ens marine Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V. I . and coastal species); propeller scarring (causes irrep a r able damage to se a g r ass habitat); and shrimp trawling (damages important benthic habitats). In s h o r e mining Ph o s p h a t e and marl mining. N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Hy d r ologic Mosquito control, agriculture, flood control projects, urban and N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., mo d i fi c a t i o n s suburban development, deprivation of fres h w a t er from upland Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. wa te r sheds and saltwater intrusion. Dams, impoundments, N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., ba r r i e r s to fish passage Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Point and nonpoint Pol l u t ants, including chemical, sediment, stormwater source runoff, N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., source pollution nutrients and bacteria. Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Na t u r al events Co a s t al storms, hurricanes, global warming and sea level rise.*** N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Dumping Burial of habitats with fill or debris; introduction of toxics and N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., co n t aminants; and associated turbidity. Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Illegal cutting or N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., removal of key species Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V .I. Ad v e r se impacts N.C., S.C., Fla., Ga., as s o c i a t ed with over- Pu e r to Rico and U.S . V. I . ha r vesting of resources

*For Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, agricultural threats also ** * N o te that global warming and sea level rise are topics of ext e n s i v e include impacts associated with cattle grazing, such as degradation of sc i e n t i f ic debate reg a r ding whether these phenomena are caused by wetlands and defores ta t i o n . na t u r al climatic fluctuations, anthropogenic factors, or whether it may **For N.C., vessel operation threats include impacts similar to those be a combination of the two. listed for navigation and gear-r elated impacts with the addition of im pacts associated with damage from clam kicking and clam dred g i n g . In addition to historic freshwater flow alterations, the Ever- wetlands of the area had occurred due to sugar cane planta- glades are facing a number of threats: nonindigenous plant tions. The increase in wetland area corresponds to the natural invasions and sea-level rise (sea level rise is occurring at a rate regeneration process following abandonment of agricultural 6 to 10 times higher than in the past 3,200 years, possibly ac t i v i t i e s . af fected by global warming (Light and Dineen, 1994). Light and Dineen (1994) reviewed the role of agriculture in causing Coral reefs in the Southeast Atlantic region are subjected to peat subsidence through increased oxidation of organic matter gr eater stress than anywhere else in the United States. Human and suggested that the late 1900s may well have been the high impacts tend to be significant because of large, concentrated point of agricultural production in the area because of the coastal populations located in sensitive areas. Land run o f f and eventual loss of peat soils. coastal pollution problems introduce sediments, pesticides, sewage, fertilizers and heavy metals into coral habitats, parti c u - Upland outcroppings of limestone in south Florida support larly where large populations are centered close to reefs. Ves s e l pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammocks that are gr oundings, anchor damage and tourism impacts are more unique in the continental United States (Snyder et al., 1990). pr evalent throughout the southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean The extent of these ecosystems has been greatly reduced by islands because of high levels of rec r eational activity by res i - development and conversion to agriculture. Although wetlands dents and visitors (Bruc k n e r , personal communication). have decreased by 40 percent to 50 percent since 1900, the mo r e restricted upland pine forests have decreased by 80 per- Regional Planning Efforts cent (Robertson and Frederick, 1994). Most of the rem a i n i n g Within the region, some programs and plans encourage a stands of pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammocks in regional approach to restoration planning. Some examples are peninsular Florida are protected in Everglades National Park or described below. A list of plans can be found in the National by state or local governments. In contrast, most of the rem a i n - Strategy Restoration Plan Database (http://res t o r a t i o n . n o s . ing undeveloped land in the Florida Keys is privately owned noaa.gov). and likely to be developed, with the exception of that in the lower Keys lying within national wildlife refuges. Even where Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish upland vegetation is protected, species survival is not guaran- Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the teed. Fire is essential to the management of pine rockland veg- South Atlantic Fishery Management Council etation, and pine and tropical hardwood hammocks are severe- In order to address the new essential fish habitats mandates in ly threatened by invasions of nonindigenous animal and plant the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the South Atlantic Fisheries Man- species (Snyder et al., 1990). agement Council began development of a habitat plan that will se r ve as a source document describing essential fish habitat; a Th e r e are about 780 square miles of mangrove forests in Flori- co m p r ehensive amendment to each of the existing fishery da (Gilmore and Snedaker, 1993). Odum and McIvor (1990) management plans; and a monitoring program for each fishery reviewed data that indicated a loss of about 2.5 percent of the management plan to determine new impacts from fishing gear ma n g r ove habitat between 1943 and 1970 in the three counties and practices that will have an adverse affect on essential fish with the highest original total. Overall areal extent of this habitat. The description of essential fish habitat in the Habitat habitat has been reduced by coastal development (draining and Plan includes estuarine inshore habitats, mainly focusing on filling for urban areas and mosquito control); reductions in No r th Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (east fr eshwater flow because of diversion of run o f f from inland coast), as well as adjacent offs h o r e marine habitats (coral ree f s , ar eas; invasion of nonindigenous species; port development; coral, live and hard bottom habitat, artificial reefs, Sarga s s u m and natural causes such as tropical storms and hurri c a n e s . habitat and the water column).

Th e r e were nine square miles of mangrove in the U.S. Virg i n Partners In Flight Islands and Puerto Rico in 1995, an increase of 61.2 perce n t Pa r tners In Flight (PIF) is a consortium of public and private since 1936. Marsh areas in 1995 were three square miles, a or ganizations and individuals working to conserve land birds de c r ease of 42.2 percent since 1936. Combined, there was a th r oughout the Wes t e r n Hemisphere. PIF’s guiding principles gain of 1.5 square miles or about 20.6 percent. The apparen t ar e to res t o r e populations of the most imperiled species and to gain of mangrove forest could be the result of a successional pr event other birds from becoming endangered. A compreh e n - change from one type of habitat to another due to natural sive set of regional Bird Conservation Plans for land birds in and/or human influences. By 1936, significant impacts to the the continental U.S. was completed by the PIF partnerships in

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat 2000. Bird Conservation plans which cover the southeast restoration attempts have been identified and can be avoided include the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Plan; the Peninsular by proper restoration planning. The single most importa n t Florida Plan; and the Subtropical Florida Plan. factor in designing a successful mangrove restoration proj e c t is determining the hydrology (frequency and duration of North American Waterfowl Management Plan tidal flooding) typical of existing mangrove plant communi- In 1986, the United States and Canada signed the North ties near the restoration site (Lewis and Stree v e r , 2000). American Wat e r fowl Management Plan (joined by Mexico in Although mangrove restoration techniques still req u i r e fur- 1994). This international agreement challenged conserva t i o n - ther development, there are some examples of effe c t i v e ists in North America to res t o r e waterfowl populations to restoration methods that have been applied in the field. One 1970s levels. Most importa n t l y , it directed that this be accom- method involves the use of PVC pipes to stabilize mangrov e plished by creating sustainable landscapes for waterfowl using pr opagules and protect them from washing away (this is un p r ecedented partnerships among the federal, state and pri- known as the Riley Encased Methodology). Another more vate sectors. This constituency facilitated the passage of the recent technique that is being tested is the use of burlap, 1989 North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the primary wh e r eby four or five propagules may be placed on a section funding tool for habitat conservation under the plan. Wit h i n of burlap so that the roots of the propagules intertwine and the Southeast Atlantic region, the Atlantic Coast Joint Ven t u r e pr otect one another from washing out. includes the states of Delaware, Maryland, Vir ginia, West Vir - ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. 3. Seagrass (submerged aquatic vegetation). Most effe c - tive techniques involve transplantation of species (e.g., from Plan Elements nu r s e ry - g r own shoots or existing seagrass beds). Most effe c - tive restoration occurs within protected coastal lagoons, Goals behind protection of barrier islands. An innovative approa c h The review of restoration plans identified similar goals among to seagrass restoration in South Florida entails the use of restoration effo r ts. These goals include: formation of partn e r - te m p o r a r y bird- r oosting stakes for ferti l i z e r -enhanced sea- ships and cooperative effo r ts; development of (or identification grass recolonization (http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/~mfonse- of the need for a strong scientific basis for restoration effo rt s ; ca / l v f i n a l re p o r t.pdf – rep o r t by Kenworthy et al.). Restora- setting priorities within the geographic zone or range; defining tion of propeller scars and “blowholes” from vessel grou n d - the appropriate geographic scale for given restoration goals; ings are accomplished by replacing lost sediment coupled planning with an ecological approach; and developing a clear with seagrass transplanting. Effo r ts are increasing to prot e c t understanding of the possible causes and effects of habitat loss seagrass habitats by proactive management (avoid impacts and degradation. and/or losses). Research continues to evaluate current techniques and develop new approaches (e.g., clonal develop- Methods me n t ) . Several restoration plans with a regional focus provide some in f o r mation on methods that have been used or rec o m m e n d e d 4. Oyster reefs and shellbanks. Restoration effo r ts most for achieving the reg i o n ’ s restoration goals. The methods are often involve the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virgi n i c a . categorized by key habitats and briefly outlined below: Restoration or enhancement involves both the distribution of clean shell material as settlement substrate for juvenile 1. Estuary intertidal. Restoration or creation most often shellfish larvae and “seeding” with sub-adult stage oysters. If involves designing the project site with appropriate hydrol o - oysters are naturally occurring in an area, oyster spat will gy , tidal exchange and sediment prop e r ties to support con- colonize cultched area; however more intensive res t o r a t i o n tinued growth of marsh species. Physical modification of a of all life phases of oysters may be needed in areas devoid of site is followed by planting, most often Spartina alterni f l o r a active oyster population. Wid e s p r ead presence of pathogens or Spartina patens. Restoration of intertidal marsh also is such as Dermo and MSX may present problems with trans- accomplished by removal of the impediment to tidal plantation of oysters. exchange (e.g., removal of shoreline hardening struc t u re s such as bulkheads, dikes or fill). 5. Tidal flats. While tidal flats have some legal protection as vegetated intertidal areas, permits have been relatively easy 2. Mangrove ecosystems. Ma n g r ove habitat res t o r a t i o n to obtain for dredging and/or filling of these habitats. techniques have evolved over time. Shortfalls in early Restoration involves removal of fill (if filled) or res t o r a t i o n of appropriate grades by filling (if dred g e d ) . and/or reestablishment of natural in-stream morphology. 8. Beach and dune ecosystems. Restoration of beaches 6. Coral, man-made reefs and live/hard bottom. Mo s t most often involves placement of sand or nourishment by restoration effo r ts focus on artificial reef enhancement or various methods, such as offs h o r e dredging and disposal co n s t r uction. North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and with hopper or mechanical dredges, or hauling of material to Florida have or are developing artificial reef management site and spreading by bulldozer. The use of bulldozers to plans. Until the 1980s, bundled automobile tires were most redistribute sand in post-storm periods is a very common often used, but this practice was discontinued due to stabili- practice in the hurri c a n e - p r one southeast region. Beach bull- ty problems. Materials most often used to construct arti f i c i a l dozing, or “scraping,” most often is designed to move over- reefs include boating vessels, large diameter concrete pipe, wash materials back onto a beach or to move sand erod e d train cars, bridge railing and rubble. Guidelines for Marine into the intertidal zone during a storm to re-establish a dune Ar tificial Reef Materials, published by the Gulf States line. Dune planting most often accompanies beach scraping, Marine Fisheries Commission, provides details on experi- and involves planting dune flora such as Ammophila bre- ences and drawbacks of past uses of materials used for viligulata and/or Uniola paniculata. The practices of beach restoration and enhancement projects. Habitat enhancement nourishment and beach scraping are not universally accepted th r ough the construction of man-made reefs can be achieved as viable habitat restoration practices. It is generally agree d by conversion of mud, sand, shell or other soft bottom habi- that new technologies need to be explored. The benefits tats into hard bottom communities by the addition of hard versus the adverse impacts to beach and dune species as a st ru c t u r e with low or high relief. result of beach nourishment is currently a topic of res e a rc h and debate within this reg i o n . Coral reef restoration projects also focus on repairing corals damaged by ship groundings. An example is the NOAA 9. Bird corridor and ecosystems res t o r a t i o n . Re s t o r a t i o n Fisheries Mona Island coral reef restoration project in Puerto eff o r ts included within the various conservation plans and Rico. After a merchant vessel known as the M/V Fortu n a pr ograms (outlined under the North American Bird Conser- Reefer ran aground on a shallow-water fringing reef domi- vation Initiative in the U.S.) involve a suite of res t o r a t i o n nated by elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) off Mona Island, methods and options including both habitat pres e rv a t i o n scientists used an innovative method of reattaching and sta- principles (through purchase of lands or conservation ease- bilizing broken pieces of coral. Loose branches of coral were ments) and active restoration techniques designed to res t o r e se c u r ed to the reef buttress and to existent relic Acrop o r a and/or enhance bird habitats (e.g., improving impoundment framework using stainless steel wire and nails, permi t t i n g co n s t r uction and management, establishing forested “gree n - timely removal of injured coral from sand areas where they ways” or planting riparian buffers, removal of impediments we r e being smothered. It also minimized abrasion damage to to habitat access such as shoreline hardening struc t u r es, or br oken coral pieces from swell and wave motion. A number co n t a m i n a n t s . ) . of stabilization techniques were tested, and it was determined that the best method consisted of drilling holes into Elements of Success the reef, driving nails into the holes, and wiring corals to the Of the documents reviewed with a regional planning focus, reef. At the conclusion of the restoration effo r t, 1,857 coral most effo r ts emphasize the need for partnerships, education fragments had been stabilized, and monitoring stations to and outreach effo r ts (depicting the benefits derived and impor- track the success of the restoration effo r t had been estab- tance of habitat restoration), and having adequate and sus- lished. tained funding for restoration effo r ts that go beyond a proj e c t - level approach. The use of best available technology, both for 7. Anadromous fish passage corri d o r s . Most common the planning and implementation phases of restoration effo rt s , techniques involve the removal of a dam (e.g., Quaker Neck was mentioned as key to successful effo r ts. Plans also empha- Dam in North Carolina) or other obstruction to fish migra- sized the need for incorporation of restoration into large r , tion. Other methods include the installation of fish passage watershed or basin level effo r ts, together with meaningful pri- st ru c t u r es (dam notches, fish ladders, elevators, baffl e s , oritization of key habitats and species, and well-defined pre- ap p r opriately-sized culverts, step pools) to facilitate fish pas- and post-construction monitoring, to guide needed res e a rc h sage where obstructions cannot be removed. Restoration of and adaptive management effo r ts. fo r mal hydrologic conditions may be accompanied by active st r eam or shoreline restoration which includes rep l a n t i n g

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Information Needs habitat res e a r ch and monitoring program. Decisions on per- Regional habitat restoration plans cite the following informa - mitting, regulations, enforcement, red i r ection of res e a rc h tion needs as significant to achieving long-term res t o r a t i o n eff o r ts and development and implementation of res t o r a t i o n goals: plans must be made with best available data.

❖ Ecosystem struc t u r e and function: Mo r e res e a r ch is ❖ Im p l e m e n t a t i o n : The elements listed above must be inter- needed to understand the struc t u r e and function of natural linked to provide a framework for effective res e a r ch and ecosystems, their linkages to one another, and the role they management. Research on ecosystem struc t u r e and function play in supporting and sustaining living res o u r ces, their must be known in order to effectively determine the effe c t s abundance, distribution and health. Knowing when and how of habitat alteration, develop restoration methods and devel- systems are affected, assessing the cause and degree of op indicators of impact and/or rec o v e r y. impact, and providing the basis for restoring and maintaining these systems are integral to this res e a r ch area . ❖ Better science and informa t i o n : In order to maximize the biological diversity that exists in the southeast, a better ❖ Ef fects of habitat alterations: Quantification of the causes understanding of the following issues is req u i r ed. of damage to ecosystems is critical to restoration and pre- • Sensitivity of species to habitat fragmentation and the vention of future losses. There also is a need to quantify the persistence of species in agricultural landscapes of various response of habitats and living res o u r ces to natural and ty p e s . an t h r opogenic alterations. • Roles of hydrological regimes and fires of various intensi- ties and in diffe r ent seasons. ❖ Habitat restoration methods: Many methods for res t o r a - • Ways to avoid future nonindigenous species problems and tion have not been rigorously tested under experimental to control the problems that already exist. conditions throughout wide geographic ranges and at diffe r - • Sustainable methods and levels of harvest, both for targe t ent scales (e.g., salt marsh restoration). For other habitats species and for non-target species that are affected by (e.g., coral reefs, riparian habitat, intertidal substrates) only ha rv e s t . limited methodology exists; little emphasis has been placed • Ways to propagate species taken directly from the wild to on rapidly restoring biodiversity and monitoring for success avoid damage to surviving natural area s . and persistence. Research areas and areas of concern include • Ways to develop off-site gene and species banks as last analyses of the successes of contaminant sequestration, res o r ts for the rarest and most threatened species. assessment of bioremediation techniques, development and • Ways to res t o r e natural processes and whole systems on evaluation of new restoration techniques, experiments on the ubiquitous degraded lands in the southeast. transplant species culture techniques, and evaluation of the • Ways to predict the varying sensitivities of ecosystems role and size of buffers and the importance of habitat het- and species to sea level rise and climatic change. er ogeneity in the restoration proc e s s . Southeastern Atlantic Subregions ❖ Indicators of habitat and living res o u r ces impacts and Fr om a primarily ecological standpoint, the Southeast reg i o n rec o v e ry : Th e r e is a need to develop indicators to deter- can be divided into several bioregions: the South Atlantic mine whether an ecosystem, habitat or living res o u r ce is coastal plain, Peninsular Florida, Atlantic Coastal Florida and he a l t h y , degraded or recovering. The development of indica- the U.S. Vir gin Islands and Puerto Rico. tors must be based on information derived from comparative res e a r ch on the struc t u r e and function of disturbed, natural Although these areas may be grouped by biological and geo- and/or res t o r ed habitats of diffe r ent ages and geographical logical similarities, A National Strategy adopts state-by-state locations for a suite of biological, chemical and physical su b r egions to identify and characterize the estuarine drainage parameters; time-dependent biotic populations analyses; and ar eas and coastal subregions in the Southeast Atlantic reg i o n . contaminant level follow-up evaluations for sediment, biota The analysis of the reg i o n ’ s status and trends, threats, and and water. ongoing restoration effo r ts are best understood within a state- by-state framework. ❖ Synthesis and information transfer: Synthesis and timely transfer of information derived from res e a r ch findings and The following sections summarize the habitat issues and high- the existing literature is a key element of the essential fish light certain restoration planning effo r ts for each of the South- east Atlantic subregions. Detailed information and additional Threats plans are available in the National Strategy Restoration Plan Key threats for this subregion are listed in Table 1. Urbaniza- Database (http://res t o r a t i o n . n o s . n o a a . g o v ) . tion and population growth have led to greatly increased nonpoint source pollution of coastal waters. Point source dis- ch a r ges are increasing as well. In the Cape Fear Basin alone, NO RT H CA RO L I N A SU B R E G I O N th e r e are 641 licensed point source discharges (NCDENR, 1999). Eighteen of North Carol i n a ’ s 26 commercially impor- Description tant fish species are exhibiting signs of stress from overfi s h i n g No r th Carolina encompasses 2.2 million acres of sounds, or environmental degradation (Center for Watershed Prot e c - cr eeks and marshes, and nearly 4,400 miles of estuarine shore- tion and Land Ethics, Inc., undated). line. The state includes eight coastal river basins, which provide spawning habitat for a number of anadromous species of Within North Carolina, pollution from stormwater and marinas fish. Approximately 50 percent of the fish caught on the east has resulted in the permanent closure of 56,000 acres of shell- coast of the United States depend upon North Carol i n a ’ s estu- fish waters. Since 1990 more than 1,000 acres of Outstanding arine system at some point in their life cycles. Of the nearly Re s o u r ce Waters, so designated because of their superior quali- five million acres of wetlands located in North Carolina, over ty , have been closed to shellfishing. State rep o r ting indicates 95 percent are found in the 41 counties that make up the that nonpoint source pollution is thought to account for 85 Coastal Plain (Holman and Childres, 1995). pe r cent of the total impaired acreage (NCDENR, 1999).

Within North Carolina, the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary (APES) Restoration Plans is a huge complex of shallow sounds, rivers and wetlands. Wit h a total water area that exceeds 2,900 square miles, it is the sec- Albemarle-Pamlico Comprehensive Conservation ond largest estuary system in the country. APES is composed Management Plan (CCMP) of seven sounds (Albemarle, Currituck, Croatan, Pamlico, As part of the National Estuary Program, the Albemarle-Pamli- Bogue, Core and Roanoke) and is drained by several major co Estuary (APES) was identified as a significant estuary threa t - river basins. The entire APES region consists of 1.8 million ened by pollution and development. The Albemarle-Pamlico ac r es of brackish estuarine waters (Albermarle-Pamlico Estuar- CCMP is a comprehensive plan for conservation and manage- ine Study, 1990). ment of the estuary. The plan promotes regional planning to pr otect and res t o r e the natural heritage of the APES region. It The sounds of North Carolina are uniquely characterized by has been partially implemented through the development of wind-driven tides that affect circulation patterns within the new programs and eight coastal basin-wide plans. sounds and saltwater concentrations in their tributaries. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) Habitat Issues and Associated Plans The NCWRP was created as a nonreg u l a t o r y program for the Status and Trends acquisition, maintenance, restoration, enhancement and cre- Within North Carolina estuaries, fish landings, seagrass beds ation of wetland and riparian res o u r ces. Its purpose is to res t o r e and catches of clams, oysters and bay scallops have all experi- degraded wetlands and riparian areas throughout all of North enced declining trends due in part to overfishing, eutrop h i c a - Ca ro l i n a ’ s river basins to compensate for the loss of vital function, sediment loadings and other pollution. Throu g h o u t tions and values that have occurred through wetlands conver- No r th Carolina, the areas closed to shellfishing as a result of sion. The NCWRP developed restoration plans for all eight lo n g - t e r m pollutant monitoring increased by nearly 40,000 coastal river basins in North Carolina, and is pursuing res t o r a - ac r es over a thirteen-year period (NCDENR, 1999). This tion projects in accordance with those plans. in c r ease can be attributed to increased nonpoint source pollution loads in rapidly growing regions. Pres s u r e on sensitive North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve ecosystems has resulted from increased coastal development. Management Plan Cu r rituck, Dare, Hyde, Carte r et, Onslow, Pender, New The North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- Hanover and Brunswick counties experienced a population lished in 1985 and currently encompasses 10,000 acres of pro- in c r ease of 32 percent between 1977 and 1997. tected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1998. Important habitats at

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat the four res e r ve components that may be useful for investiga- Elements of Success tion and as ref e r ence sites include maritime forests, shrub In North Carolina, common elements of success include shore- thickets, fres h w a t e r , brackish, and saltwater marshes; mud and line grading and marsh planting, sometimes including the use salt flats, sandy beaches, oyster bars and subtidal vegetation. of stone sills in addition to the plantings; wetland creation; and Restoration priorities include serving as a ref e r ence site and oyster bed plantings. These effo r ts have been successful in part assessing invasive species control, especially for Phragmites. because of public/private cooperation and partnerships in proj - ect planning and implementation. Public participation and edu- Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) by the cation is key for successful implementation. Environmental Protection Agency The WRAS process is intended to integrate existing state, local Information Needs and federal programs in a coordinated way with local and Key information needs in North Carolina include continued regional group activities to speed up response and treatment of pr oject monitoring and testing of techniques. The grea t e s t im p a i r ed waters. North Carolina has used this program to challenge ahead in coastal habitat restoration is grappling with heighten the visibility of watershed issues and to funnel grant global warming and consequent sea level rise. funds to watersheds such as the Bogue and Core Sounds that ar e high priorities for res t o r a t i o n . SO U T H CA RO L I N A SU B R E G I O N Coastal Habitat Protection Plans A key provision of the 1997 Fisheries Reform Act of North Description Ca r olina was to create protection plans for key fisheries habi- The coastal zone of South Carolina encompasses approx i m a t e - tats such as ocean waters and estuaries. The plans are being ly 8,116 square miles and ranks fourth nationally in its acrea g e pre p a r ed through an interagency agreement between the of salt marsh estuaries. There are 187 miles of ocean beaches, Coastal Resources Commission, Marine Fisheries Commission with 2,876 miles of shoreline around its estuaries, bays, rivers and the Environmental Management Commission. Once com- and creeks. plete, the goal of the plans is long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat. Plans South Carolina estuaries account for almost one-sixth of all salt must be prep a r ed by 2003 for the Chowan River, Coastal marshes on the east coast of the United States. These wetlands Ocean, Southern Estuaries, Tar -Pamlico River, Roanoke River, ar e dominated by salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). It New and White Oak Rivers, Albemarle Sound, Core and is estimated that South Carol i n a ’ s wetlands include 540,445 Bogue Sounds, Neuse River, Pamlico River and the Cape Fear ac r es of total coastal marsh, 344,500 acres of salt marsh, and Ri v e r . ap p r oximately 4.5 million acres of total freshwater wetlands (NOAA, 1979). Plan Elements Included among South Carol i n a ’ s freshwater wetlands are Goals ap p r oximately 79 coastal impoundments totaling 70,000 acres Goals of North Carolina restoration plans include fish and of impounded coastal marshes. Unique rice field impound- wildlife habitat protection and restoration, as well as res t o r a - ments, dating back to when rice culture was common, attract tion and protection of water quality. Both degraded and non- wa t e r fowl. These former rice fields have been identified for degraded areas are targeted. pr otection under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Within the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin, these rice Methods fields also have been identified for protection under the Nature Implementation methods include marsh plantings, wetlands Co n s e rv a n c y ’ s Last Great Places Program. This system is the co n s t r uction, shellfish bed plantings and acquisition of key la r gest of its type in the state, with over 3,300 acres of man- ar eas. Many of the effo r ts are locally driven with support from aged impoundments. state and federal agencies. Other effo r ts include attempts to simplify or modify the reg u l a t o r y process primarily for shore- No r th Inlet/Winyah Bay is unique in that it has one undisturbed line setbacks, bulkheading, buffers and impervious surfaces. In es t u a r y (North Inlet) and one influenced by human activity addition, watershed-based planning for pollution prevention is (W inyah Bay). Of the 17 estuaries in the state, Winyah Bay is recommended. Public-private partnerships also are common. the most important in terms of freshwater marshes, containing nearly 35 percent of South Carol i n a ’ s freshwater marshes. Habitat Issues lished in 1992 and currently encompasses 140,000 acres of pr otected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management Status and Trends plan was approved by NOAA in 1992. Important habitats that The coastal region of South Carolina has experienced a 40 per- may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include cent population increase in the past 20 years. The population fo r ested flood plains; fresh, brackish and saltwater marshes; of urban areas has increased 250 percent within this same peri- oyster reefs; bird keys and banks; and maritime fores t s . od (South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Restoration priorities include restoring flow to a salt marsh ww w. s c c c l . o rg / p ro g r a m s / p r ograms.htm). This rise in popula- bisected by a road, restoring native terrestrial plants and shell- tion, along with increased tourism, has altered habitats and fish habitat, and controlling invasive species. Current res t o r a - water quality. tion projects include shellfish habitat restoration and prescribed burni n g . Significant trends within the coastal zone of South Carol i n a include hydrologic modifications and conversion of habitats Charleston Harbor Plan for human uses. Urban expansion has led to conversion of wet- The Charleston Harbor Plan calls for establishment of: vege- lands in various locations, most notably in the areas arou n d tated buffers with a minimum average width of 50 feet for all Hilton Head, Charleston, North Charleston and in the vicinity development bordering tidal creeks and rivers; wetland master of Myrtle Beach and Columbia. Hydrologic modifications planning to protect wetlands smaller than one acre; and wet- include multiple rice field impoundments covering 70,451 acres land land banks that would include isolated wetlands. The plan of land (NOAA, 1979). is to be implemented at the local level. It encourages governments to develop mechanisms to allow collection of funds to Diversion of the Santee River into the Cooper River occurred ac q u i r e areas for public rec r eation and res o u r ce conserva t i o n . in 1941 when the Works Prog r ess Administration completed The plan also examines the utilization of oyster shells for ero- the Santee-Cooper Hydroelectric Project. This effe c t i v e l y sion control to benefit shoreline and marsh protection; the in c r eased the drainage area of the Charleston Harbor Estuary capacity for the growth of a complex, three-dimensional inter- by eleven times the original area. The Cooper River was trans- tidal habitat; and propagating shellfish res t o r a t i o n . fo r med from a tidal slough to a riverine system, and massive shoaling resulted from the project. To alleviate this prob l e m , North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine the Cooper River Rediversion Project diverted approx i m a t e l y Research Reserve 70 percent of the Santee drainage water back into the Santee The North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research River through the canal (South Carolina Department of Health Re s e r ve was established in 1992 and currently encompasses and Environment Control, 2000). 12,327 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1992. Wetlands are being altered or destroyed due to increasing res i - Im p o r tant habitats that may be useful for investigation, espe- dential, commercial and industrial development, as well as cially as ref e r ence sites, include abandoned rice fields and changing fores t r y practices. South Carolina has been rel a t i v e l y canals, tidal creeks, brackish and saltwater marshes, mud flats, successful in protecting its tidal wetland res o u r ces, and has sand bars, intertidal oyster reefs and shallow sounds. Restora- retained approximately 73 percent of its historic acrea g e . tion priorities lie mainly in invasive species control, especially Although tidal wetlands have been relatively well prot e c t e d , cr ustaceans and Phragmites. No restoration projects are curren t - significant losses have occurred in freshwater nontidal area s . ly underwa y , as the North Inlet system remains in a rel a t i v e l y Within South Carol i n a ’ s estuaries, nearly one-third of the shell- natural, pristine state. Reserve staff members have parti c i p a t e d fish areas are permanently closed (USES, 2000). in oyster reef restoration effo r ts that have taken place outside res e r ve boundaries. Threats Key threats for this subregion are listed in Table 1. Wetland Restoration Project As part of the recent Coastal Program Improvement Proj e c t , Restoration Plans NO A A ’s Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) identified areas for potential restoration along the New, Wac - Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine camaw and Ashley Rivers. To accomplish this, OCRM has Research Reserve Program developed the South Carolina Coastal Stream Corri d o r The ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- Restoration Initiative. The initiative focuses on stormw a t e r

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat management and channelization, and impacts on riparian habi- Power Company, local governments, the private sector, and tat. Assistance from NOAA and EPA will help to develop an others who manage, use, or enjoy the publicly-owned water ongoing program of technical assistance and guidance for local res o u r ces of the Santee-Cooper Basin. go v e r nments in the identification and restoration of impaired st r eam corridors and associated wetlands. Plan Elements

Oyster Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Plan Goals This restoration plan will help reduce shoreline eros i o n , Goals of South Carolina restoration plans include stormw a t e r im p r ove water quality, and provide additional refuge, spawning management, erosion reduction, natural vegetated buffer main- ar eas and habitat for prey species. The community-based Oys- tenance and oyster bed habitat restoration for the protection of ter Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Plan is a cooperative the ecological and consumptive values of the res o u r ce. In addi- eff o r t between the South Carolina Department of Natural tion, South Carolina is conducting res e a r ch to use as a scientif- Re s o u r ces (SCDNR) and local and state partners to involve cit- ic basis for habitat res t o r a t i o n . izens, schools and community organizations in oyster habitat restoration projects. Funding for this effo r t came from NOAA’s Methods Community-Based Restoration Program, Five Star Challenge Implementation methods for restoration in South Carol i n a Grant, the Hilton Head Island Foundation, and South Carol i n a include oyster bed plantings, acquisition of stream banks, wet- Sea Grant. Partners include Charleston Math and Science Hub, land creation and financial incentives for private wetlands pro- South Carolina Aquarium, South Carolina Coastal Conserva - tection. tion League, SCDNR, Sea Grant, and the University of South Ca r olina. Components include building oyster habitats, shell Elements of Success recycling, educational activities and related res e a rc h . Oyster reef plantings and restoration of mosquito impoundments have been successful in South Carolina. Partnerships are The Wetlands Reserve Program key to the success of these projects. The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to res t o r e and protect wetlands on private prop e rt y . It is an Information Needs op p o r tunity for landowners to receive financial incentives to In South Carolina, there is a need to study the impact of the enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural restoration of impoundments on seagrasses due to changes in la n d . hy d ro l o g y . Oyster reefs are treated as a fishery res o u r ce rather than a habitat. Mudflats and beaches are often neglected in Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage restoration planning despite the important ecosystem functions Restoration Plan they serve . This management plan provides a framework for reb u i l d i n g populations of the basin’s diadromous fish. Some of the targe t species include American shad, hickory shad, Atlantic stur- GE O RG I A SU B R E G I O N geon, shortnose sturgeon and striped bass. These species historically ascended the Santee River and its tributaries to loca- Description tions above the fall line. Some species even traveled into North Ge o r gia is comprised of five estuaries: the Savannah, Ca r olina. In the eastern U.S., the Santee-Cooper Basin is sec- Ogeechee, Altamaha, Satilla and St. Marys Rivers. The Altama- ond only to the Susquehanna River Basin in terms of drainage ha is the largest river of the Georgia coast and the second ar ea and volume of flow. The basin’s diadromous fish stocks are la r gest basin in the eastern United States (Georgia Rivers significantly depressed relative to historic levels. This plan LMER, http://wiegert.marsci.uga.edu). It is a relatively undis- seeks to res t o r e diadromous fish populations by eliminating or turbed analogue of the Savannah River, with no major channel- reducing migration blockages and habitat alterations caused by ization, dredging or res e rv o i r s . dams. The USFWS, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, and the SCDNR have developed this plan. To implement The Georgia coastline is approximately 100 miles long. The the plan, development of partnerships is envisioned. Pros p e c - coastline consists of a chain of barrier islands separated from tive partners include state and federal res o u r ces agencies, the the mainland by a four- to six-mile wide band of coastal marsh. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Santee-Cooper Public Servi c e Au t h o r i t y , South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Duke Habitat Issues Management Areas and Public Fishing Areas. This initiative was funded by $30 million of 20-year obligation bonds to be Status and Trends paid off by hunting and fishing license increases and Wil d l i f e The Georgia coastline is relatively unaffected by the heavy Management Area permit fees. development that has been seen in other areas of the south Atlantic coast in recent years, and Georgi a ’ s barrier islands and Preservation 2000 and River Care 2000 Programs marshes have been less altered by human activity than in most The Land, Wat e r , Wildlife and Recreation Heritage Fund will other coastal areas. Development has largely been of a res i d e n - derive funding from an increase in the real estate transfer tax to tial or rec r eational nature and has usually had a minimal effe c t $2 per $1000, generating more than $30 million each year. on salt marshes. In earlier days, considerable alteration of many 1998 legislation authorizes the fund to be used to purch a s e marshes near the barrier island uplands was due to cultivation land to protect and pres e r ve natural wildlife habitat, river corri - of sea-island cotton. Even though U.S. Highway 17 was paved dors and wetlands along major rivers. th r ough coastal Georgia in 1926, only four barrier islands have road access from the mainland. Seven of the 14 barrier islands Altamaha Buffers ar e in federal ownership, and thus protected from heavy devel- The state of Georgia, along with International Paper and Geor- opment and loss of habitat areas. gia-Pacific, will protect nearly 300 feet of buffers along the Altamaha River at a cost of $1.4 million in state funds. The Threats state purchased timber rights from the companies. In addition, Key threats for this subregion are listed in Table 1. the paper companies will fund The Nature Conservancy of Ge o r gia over a five-year period to direct res e a r ch projects on Restoration Plans the river.

Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve Georgia Wetlands Trust Fund (GWTF) Management Plan Cr eated in 1997 in an agreement between the U.S. Army The Sapelo National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Land Trust Service Center, lished in 1976 and currently encompasses 6,111 acres of pro- the GWTF provides alternatives to wetland mitigation req u i r e- tected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management ments by allowing an alternative to provide money to the plan was approved by NOAA in 1999. Important habitats that GWTF to purchase wetlands. The GWTF currently focuses on may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include pre s e r vation with some limited res t o r a t i o n . maritime forests, freshwater ponds, sloughs, salt marshes, and ba r rier island beaches and dunes. Restoration priorities include Plan Elements maritime forest and ephemeral wetlands restoration, rare endemic habitat restoration (e.g., longleaf pine, pond pine Goals habitats); hydrologic, terrestrial and associated freshwater habi- Goals of Georgia restoration plans primarily include rei n s t a t e - tat; wetland reclamation by restoration of natural hydrol o g y ; ment of natural processes that have been significantly disrup t - dune stabilization and restoration; invasive plant control and ed. There are very limited restoration goals for the Georgi a invasive species control (e.g., popcorn trees, feral hogs). Cur- coast. rent restoration projects include rare and endemic habitat restoration, selective timber harvest, maritime forest res t o r a t i o n Methods and prescribed burning. Comprehensive mapping and monitor- Cu r rent methods primarily include the use of existing reg u l a t o - ing of oyster reef habitat and biology, and high marsh plant ry programs. In addition, acquisition programs as a form of community interaction have been conducted to identify habitat protection are being adopted and implemented. restoration needs in these area s . Elements of Success Basinwide Plans In Georgia, shorelines are primarily managed by the Coastal To date, draft basin-wide plans for coastal river basins do not Marshlands Protection Act. Conservation easements are a suc- specifically address coastal habitat restoration except to men- cessful technique for ecosystem protection but for the most tion the Department of Natural Resources and Wil d l i f e pa r t there is very little restoration occurring in Georgia. Re s o u r ces Division’s land acquisition program that began in 1987 to acquire 60,000 acres of additional land for Wil d l i f e

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Information Needs Of the plans reviewed for this subregion, no information needs Habitat Issues we r e identified. Status and Trends Rapid urbanization and associated coastal development in FLO R I DA SU B R E G I O N so u t h e a s t e r n Florida over the last 100 years have virtually eliminated the low coastal wetlands along approximately 21 miles Description of mainland shoreline and approximately 12 miles of barri e r This coastal subregion includes peninsular Florida extending island shoreline bordering Biscayne Bay. These estuarine fr om the north e r n edge of Lake Okeechobee north to the tran- ecosystems have been replaced by eroding, altered shorel i n e s sitional zone around the Suwanee River in north e r n Florida, or hardened shorelines with numerous bulkheads (Milano, and from the north e r n edge of Lake Okeechobee south 19 9 9 ) . th r ough the Florida Keys, including the Everglades and Florida Ba y . The region has very little topographic relief, but slight In southeastern Florida, development of reclaimed swamp changes in elevation have important consequences for vegeta- lands, uplands and newly created lands produced by dred g i n g tion and the diversity of habitat types. The South Florida and and filling practices essentially began with the completion of Florida Keys region contains one of North America’s most the Florida East Coast Railroad in 1896. This, and networks of diverse assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine and marine fauna draining, caused serious environmental degradation to south- and flora and rep r esents one of the most complex ecosystems ea s t e r n Florida’s coastal wetlands and estuaries. on earth. Dr edging and filling in the early 1900s to create navigation Within Florida, the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) is located in the channels and harbors in Biscayne Bay resulted in over 20 zone where tropical and temperate climates meet. Flora and human-made spoil islands and two partially filled natural man- fauna include tropical and subtropical species that cannot sur- gr ove islands. Dredging, draining and diking of the river sys- vive in colder climates in addition to species that thrive in tems leading into and out of Lake Okeechobee occurred in the cooler weather. This has resulted in more species and a wider 1950s with the implementation of the Central and Southern range of species than in any other American estuary. The IRL Florida (CS&F) Project under the Flood Control Act of 1948. covers 40 percent of the east coast of Florida. Since 1916, The first phase of the CS&F Project was undertaken for flood human activities have resulted in the enlargement of the co n t r ol, water level control, water conservation, prevention of la g o o n ’ s watershed from 572,000 acres to more than 1.4 mil- salt water intrusion, and pres e r vation of fish and wildlife lion acres—an increase of 146 percent. The IRL is located (w w w. e v e rg l a d e s p l a n . o r g/the_plan/csf_devel.htm). Over the along the Atlantic Flyway, a route used by millions of birds years, the waters of the Everglades also have been drained and that migrate between eastern North America, South America di v e r ted to create agricultural and residential lands, which has and the Caribbean. inevitably altered the natural hydrologic flow. The Compre- hensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) seeks to mitigate The South Florida and Florida Keys region includes mangrov e - changes to South Florida ecosystems by restoring fres h w a t e r fringed shorelines, mangrove islands, sea grass meadows, hard flow to the Everglades and Florida Bay, though the plan does bottom habitats, thousands of patch reefs, and one of the not attempt to res t o r e the hydrologic flow to what it once was wo r l d ’ s largest coral reef tracts. The Keys are made up of over 100 years ago (www.e v e rg l a d e s p l a n . o r g). 1,700 islands encompassing approximately 103 square miles. They have a shoreline length of 1,857 miles and are perma - During the summer of 1987, a massive seagrass die-off began in nently inhabited from Soldier Key to Key West. the Florida Bay that resulted in 15 square miles of seagrass loss. This was just the beginning of a series of major ecological The largest seagrass bed yet documented (5,792 square miles) events that culminated in grave concern that the bay’s ecosys- occurs off the south Florida coast (www.fiu.edu/~seagrass/). Sea- tem was near an unprecedented collapse (Fourqu r ean and Rob- grasses in Florida Bay have been adversely impacted by a blee, 1999). These events include plankton blooms and sponge de c r ease in freshwater inflow due to upstream hydrol o g i c a l di e - o f fs in the 1990s as well as mangrove die-backs and alterations resulting in a massive seagrass die-off in 1987. The reduced catches in some fisheries (www.a o m l . n o a a . g o v / f l b a y / ) . Co m p r ehensive Everglades Restoration Plan proposes in part to As a result, South Florida received national attention and the res t o r e freshwater inflow from the Everglades into Florida Ba y . CERP was authorized under Section 601 of the Wat e r Re s o u r ces Development Act of 2000 to res t o r e the quantity, ad d r ess habitat pres e r vation and restoration. Within these qu a l i t y , timing and distribution of freshwater flows into Florida objectives, specific goals and action plans are identified. Exam- Bay with downstream effects on the Florida Keys National ples of restoration action plans are listed below. Marine Sanctuary (www.e v e rg l a d e s p l a n . o r g). ❖ Seagrass Action Plan: Implement a program of res t o r a t i o n Threats and management activities to maintain, protect and res t o r e Key threats for this subregion are listed in Table 1. the seagrass and submerged aquatic vegetation community of Indian River Lagoon. Restoration Plans ❖ Wetlands Restoration and Preservation Plan: Im p ro v e Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Plan implementation of wetlands protection programs, underta k e Within this plan, the designation of special-use areas includes a regular review of wetlands protection rules and reg u l a t i o n s , “r estoration areas” to provide for restoration of degraded or establish wetlands or shoreline setbacks or buffers; acquire ot h e r wise injured sanctuary res o u r ces. No person may enter, ownership or control of wetlands, reconnect impounded disturb or interfe r e with “such areas designated as a rec o v e r y wetlands to the Indian River Lagoon, res t o r e wetlands and ar ea or a restoration area,” or engage in “habitat manipulation sh o r elines, and remove trash and litter from wetlands and related to restoration of degraded or otherwise injured sanctu- sh o re l i n e s . ar y res o u r ces, or activities reasonably necessary to monitor rec o v e r y of degraded or otherwise injured sanctuary res o u r ces.” ❖ Restoration and Management Action Plan: Identify shorelines or wetlands which are either barren of vegetation or The Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) have been invaded by exotic plant species, classify and rank Program these areas based on the need for restoration and the prob a - The SWIM Program was created by the Florida Legislature in ble success of restoration projects. Develop partnerships or the late 1980s to address concerns over nonpoint sources of coalitions with local governments, interest groups, the pollution. SWIM addresses the needs of a waterbody as a sys- private sector or other parties to accomplish res t o r a t i o n tem of connected res o u r ces, rather than as isolated wetlands or pro j e c t s . water bodies. While the state’s five water management districts and the Department of Environmental Protection are direc t l y ❖ Impounded Marsh Restoration and Management Plan: responsible for the SWIM program, they work in concert with Complete or continue the diagnostic, management or feasi- federal, state and local governments and the private sector. bility projects related to marshes impounded for mosquito co n t r ol found in the 1994 SWIM Plan and continue acquisi- SWIM develops carefully crafted plans for at-risk water bodies, tion of privately owned impounded marshes or obtain con- and directs the work needed to res t o r e damaged ecosystems, se r vation easements allowing restoration of their natural pr event pollution from run o f f and other sources, and educate function. Plans are being developed for land acquisition, and the public. SWIM plans are used by other state programs, such public and governmental support and involvement. as Save Our Rivers, to help make land-buying decisions, and by local governments to help make land-use management deci- Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan sions. Tod a y , 29 water bodies are on the SWIM waterbody pri- Substantial restoration effo r ts have been undertaken in Bis- ority list. cayne Bay by Dade County and local municipalities. South Florida Water Management District and SWIM funds have Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and been used to support projects to res t o r e mangroves at Oleta Management Plan River State Recreation Area, res t o r e freshwater wetlands at the The Indian River Lagoon CCMP was developed after the 1994 Bulk Carrier Site and redistribute flow adjacent to the L-31E Indian River Lagoon SWIM Plan. The strategies for res t o r a t i o n Canal. The need for restoration is based on the assumption and maintenance contained within the Indian River Lagoon that some areas have been significantly degraded by pollution, SWIM Plan may be viewed as the technical backbone of the st r uctural change and other human activities. Restoration activ- Indian River Lagoon CCMP or as the phased prog r a m ities are designed to reduce the influx of excessive amounts of ap p r oach used to identify and define priority problems, estab- nutrients and other pollutants, and to make structural changes lish causes and devise alternate strategies to address those as needed to res t o r e appropriate biotic communities, substrate, pr oblems. Five program objectives were developed. One hy d r oponic, or physical conditions that will accelerate rec o v -

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat er y of the system. Bayside restoration is targeted toward three Optimizing Indian River Lagoon Wetland Habitat major issues: water quality, freshwater inputs, and habitat and Restoration and Management living res o u r ces. Restoration effo r ts are limited to areas and The goals of this project are to determine if reestablishment of methods where success is most likely. Planting mangroves in the hydroponic connection between impounded marshes and pr operly prep a r ed and stabilized substrate, and planting marsh the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) can res t o r e the ecological func- vegetation, have proven effective when planting and mainte- tion of the impoundments to a state similar to that of “native” nance are properly designed and supervi s e d . marshes, and to determine how continued hydroponic management would affect the restoration process. Many local state and Biscayne Bay Island Restoration and Enhancement Projects federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e , Components of these projects include stabilizing shorel i n e s , recommended restoration of the hydroponic connection removing exotic trees and fill, establishing flushing channels, between the marshes and the lagoon. Approximately 28,000 and planting mangroves and native salt/drou g h t - t o l e r a n t (80 percent) of the 35,000 acres of the IRL’s impounded estuar- uplands vegetation. Over the past 10 years, the Department of ine wetlands are located within the Merritt Island National En v i r onmental Resources Management has coordinated 14 Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and are a part of the Kennedy island projects through the cooperative effo r ts of federal, state Space Center. The initiative fills needs for a broad range of and local agencies. Cost-effective techniques were developed pr ograms and organizations. This work is directly called for by and used in implementing these successful projects. Island the IRL National Estuary Prog r a m ’ s Comprehensive Conserva - restoration and enhancement activities are underway to stabi- tion and Management Plan to optimize management of IRL lize eroding shorelines, res t o r e historical dune communities wetlands. It supports the objectives of the IRL SWIM Plan. and wetlands, eradicate exotic vegetation, and create wetlands, MINWR will manage a selected group of impoundments under dune, coastal strand and tropical hardwood hammock commu- various management strategies agreed upon by the parti c i p a t - nities. Island stabilization and enhancement have been funded ing res e a r chers. At the end of data collection, and when data primarily through the Florida Inland Navigation District analysis and results synthesis are complete, a review of wetland Wat e r ways Assistance Program and the Biscayne Bay Environ - restoration techniques and wetland management practices will mental Enhancement Trust Fund. be conducted. Results of the review will be a series of rec o m - mendations for restoration, pres e r vation and management of Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research estuarine wetlands. Reserve The Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research South Florida Initiative Re s e r ve was established in 1999 and currently encompasses Su p p o r t for habitat restoration also is available through the 76,000 acres of protected coastal lands and waters. The res e rv e South Florida Initiative. The South Florida ecosystem is the management plan was approved by NOAA in 1998. Importa n t principal nursery area for the largest commercial and sport fish- habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e re n c e eries in Florida. It also is the home of the largest wilderne s s sites include estuarine lagoons, oyster bars, tidal creeks, wet- east of the Mississippi River, the location of the only living lands, maritime hammock, pine flatwoods, coastal scrub, sand coral reef adjacent to the United States, the most significant dunes and beaches. Restoration priorities include treatment of br eeding ground for wading birds in North America, the main su r face run o f f, establishment of buffers to urban development, pr oducer of the nation’s winter vegetables, home to two Native and restoring and stabilizing natural shorelines. Curren t American nations, and a major tourist region. Fifty percent of restoration projects are primarily mitigation activities and the the reg i o n ’ s wetlands have been lost to suburban and agricul- conversion of former planted pine plantations to more natural tural development. Altered hydrology and water management fo r est and wetland communities. th r oughout the system has had a major impact on the area. To ad d r ess the issues surrounding the South Florida ecosystem, Remarkable Coastal Places Program the U.S. EPA is working in partnership with several local, This program was initiated by the Florida Coastal Management regional, state and federal agencies. The goal is to assure the Pr ogram to better address endangered coastal habitats and lo n g - t e r m sustainability of the reg i o n ’ s varied natural res o u rc e s other historical and cultural values by providing funding to while providing for the coexistence of extensive agricultural local governments for projects. This is part of their Coastal operations and a continually expanding human population. Pa r tnership Initiative and could be an avenue for local and state Many simultaneous restoration strategies are underwa y . A fed- pa r tnerships in res t o r a t i o n . eral task force on South Florida ecosystem restoration was fo r med in 1993 to integrate, focus and direct ecosystem protection and restoration effo r ts. Several ecosystem res t o r a t i o n place. Florida incorporates restoration programs into some of strategies are underway that, if implemented, would cost over their reg u l a t o r y effo r ts including those for buffers and setbacks. $2 billion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prop o s e d Pa r tnerships among federal, state and local governments and several structural or operation changes for the Central and the academic community are common. Use of volunteers for So u t h e r n Florida (C&SF) Flood Control Project in order to plantings heightens public awareness of issues. im p r ove hydrologic conditions within the Everglades and Florida Bay. They also are proceeding with a compreh e n s i v e Elements of Success review of the C&SF project in an effo r t to further ecosystem Elements of success include: stabilizing unconsolidated shore- restoration while meeting the projected needs of urban area s lines with limestone boulders; creating intertidal planters where and agriculture for the year 2050. Implementation of the wetland vegetation can become established while prot e c t e d selected alternative, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration fr om wave action; filling deep, barren bottom areas to raise Plan, is projected to cost over $8 billion. Phosphorus control them to points where light levels can support healthy prod u c - pr ograms consisting of agricultural best management practices tive bottom communities; planting of wetland vegetation in and constructed wetlands managed for phosphorus removal are ap p r opriate areas; enforcing reduced speed limits for vessels; un d e r way to reduce phosphorus loading into the oligotrop h i c co n t r olling exotic plants; restoring sheet flow, tidal flushing or Ev e r glades wetlands. The South Florida Initiative also direc t s water levels in wetlands impacted by fill or excessive drainage; agencies to promote opportunities to link restoration plans and and conducting long-term evaluation. pr ojects into federal programs and initiatives that focus on im p r oving water quality. Coastal marsh restoration and creation effo r ts have been more successful than similar inland attempts. This success appears to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) be due largely to res e a r chers’ abilities to more accurately pre- This plan is designed to be a collaborative effo r t among gov- dict hydrologic patterns in tidally influenced areas than in er nmental and nongovernmental entities and provides a 50 per- fr eshwater settings. Also, coastal restoration effo r ts have percent federal share for projects carried out under the CERP. The haps had a longer history than freshwater wetland res t o r a t i o n . ov e r a r ching objective of the CERP is the “restoration, pres e rv a - In the Indian River Lagoon, publicly owned impoundments are tion, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem while pro- under rotational impoundment management to res t o r e connec- viding for other water-r elated needs of the region, including tion between impoundments and the lagoon. Restoration is less water supply and flood protection.” The governing board of experimental today, although site preparation and substrate sta- the South Florida Water Management District has approv e d bilization are critical, and planting and maintenance must be eight contracts totaling more than $68 million for the Ever- pr operly designed and closely supervised. glades Construction Project, an effo r t designed to improve the quality of water reaching the huge ecosystem (www.e v e rg l a d e s - Information Needs pl a n . o r g). In Florida, continued monitoring of projects is integral to the success of restoration effo r ts. Coral and seagrass habitats tend Plan Elements to be more difficult to establish in the long-term; more res e a r ch that focuses on identifying viable restoration tech- Goals niques for these habitat types is necessary. Adequate training Goals of Florida’s restoration plans include restoration of habi- can increase the likelihood of successfully restoring these habitats that have been converted to mosquito impoundments as tats. Also identified was a need to increase public and govern- well as restoration of seagrasses, mangroves and coral ree f s . ment involvement in activities designed to protect and res t o r e The plans focus both on habitat and water quality issues with the coastal environment. the goal of restoring the natural functions of the ecosystem and reducing nonpoint source pollution (e.g., the SWIM Prog r a m ) . In addition, plans call for stabilization of eroding shorel i n e s PU E RTO RI C O A N D U.S. VI RG I N IS L A N D S and the eradication of exotic species. SU B R E G I O N

Methods Description Implementation of the restoration plans calls for designation of During the ice ages, Puerto Rico and most of the Virg i n special-use areas to provide for restoration. In addition, specific Islands, including St. John, St. Thomas and the British Virg i n plans for planting seagrasses, mangroves and corals are in Islands, were a single land mass called the Puerto Rican Bank.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat The thousands of islands and cays composing the Greater and st ru c t u r es. Similarly, the U.S. Vir gin Islands also have fresh and Lesser Antilles are among the most biologically interes t i n g saltwater wetlands and varying reef struc t u r es. ar eas of the world. Centrally located in the West Indies, Puerto Rico and the Vir gin Islands are in the eastern extreme of the Habitat Issues Gr eater Antilles, about halfway between the southern tip of Florida to the north and the Caribbean coast of Ven e z u e l a . Pu e r to Rico has about 60 estuaries including small drainages Pu e r to Rico is roughly 111 miles long by 36 miles wide. Aside (Pabon and Carrubba, personal communication). About half of fr om the main U.S. Vir gin Islands, 54 small islands flank St. these are larger systems with drainages that have headwaters in Thomas, St. Croix and St. John. the central mountain ranges and drain to the coast. Note that the classical definition of an estuary does not apply in the Pu e r to Rico and the U.S. Vir gin Islands share the following Caribbean islands, where the coastal zone is confined due to physical and biological coastal features: a limited coastline the geography and alternately wet-dry climate of the islands. extension, a restricted shelf dimension, a permanent tempera- tu r e gradient, oligotrophic waters and sparse upwelling zones. Pu e r to Rico also has a number of fresh and saltwater wetlands, coastal barriers and coastal lagoons in addition to varying ree f The U.S. Vir gin Islands and Puerto Rico provide critical nest- st ru c t u r es. Similarly, the U.S. Vir gin Islands have fresh and ing, foraging and developmental habitat for three species of sea saltwater wetlands and varying reef struc t u re s . tu r tle: the leatherback and the hawksbill, (both endangered species) and the green sea turtle (listed as endangered / t h re a t - Status and Trends ened). Coral reefs and seagrasses serve as habitat for these In c r eases in tourism and associated real estate development species, where they typically remain until they reach maturity. have greatly impacted the key habitats and species of this Gr een and hawksbill sea turtles forage throughout the coastal region. Due to relatively long periods of evolutionary isolation, ar eas, but the only island which still supports any green sea island ecosystems are more susceptible to change than those tu r tle nesting is St. Croix, with an average of 100 nests each on continents. Deforestation and fire, introduction of grazing year between 1980 and 1990 (Eckert, 1992). animals, cultivation and the introduction of weedy plants have all contributed to alteration of the ecosystem. General rec o g n i - At present there are 22,138 acres of mangrove forests in Puerto tion of the importance of the natural environment by local citi- Rico. Mangroves have actually increased due to protection of zens may help reverse this trend. the res o u r ce over the last 20 years. In contrast, marsh areas in 1995 equaled 1,959 acres, a decrease of 42.2 percent since Threats 1936. Key threats for this subregion are listed in Table 1.

Tropical Atlantic seagrass beds in the Caribbean are highly Restoration Plans pr oductive systems. They are the most important grazing area s for the green sea turtle and the West Indian manatee. Seagrass Puerto Rico San Juan Bay Estuary Comprehensive beds also are one of the most common coastal zones in Puerto Conservation Management Plan Rico (Pabon and Carrubba, personal communication). They are Goals of the plan include planting mangroves and native tree s ; most extensive on the southeast side of the island, but also can in c r easing acreage in the nature res e r ve; increasing buffe r be found off the northwest coast. zones; waste management and recycling of marine debris; im p r oving water quality; increasing and protecting existing Pu e r to Rico has about 60 estuaries including small drainages habitat; encouraging community involvement; restoring sea- (Pabon and Carrubba, personal communication). About half of grasses; and protecting habitat. Demonstration projects include these are larger systems with drainages that have headwaters in native tree planting to create buffer zones—especially man- the central mountain ranges and drain to the coast. Note that gr oves—which were severely impacted by Hurricane George s the classical definition of “estuary” does not apply in the in 1998. Caribbean islands, where the coastal zone is confined due to the geography and alternately wet-dry climate of the islands. Saltwater Wetlands Conservation and Management Plan for St. Croix Pu e r to Rico also has a number of fresh and saltwater wetlands, The Division of Fish and Wildlife of the Department of Plan- coastal barriers, and coastal lagoons, in addition to varying ree f ning and Natural Resources formulated a strategy to achieve “no net loss” of saltwater wetlands on St. Croix and long-term REM. In addition, the use of volunteers fosters a better under- gain through restoration of degraded wetlands. Restoration standing and appreciation for the res o u r ce. Partn e r s h i p s pr ojects focus on enhancing wetlands as habitat for fish and between federal and state agencies, universities and citizens are wildlife and increasing educational and rec r eational opportu n i - im p o r tant to the success of restoration projects. In addition, ties for the U.S. Vir gin Islands’ community. A collaborative acquisition effo r ts, primarily in national parks, are critical to planning effo r t will be developed that includes all stakeholders habitat restoration and protection (The Nature Conserva n c y and interested parties. An important part of the process is to also acquires lands and has a res e r ve in the U.S. Vir gin Islands). develop a set of blanket regulations and permit conditions for any proposed development in adjacent wetlands. Information Needs Mo r e res e a r ch is needed on planting methodologies for man- Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve gr oves. In addition, the success of transplanting and res t o r i n g Management Plan corals req u i r es additional res e a r ch. Monitoring increases the The Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- chance of restoration success and can lead to more effe c t i v e lished in 1981 and currently encompasses 2,883 acres of pro- restoration methods. An effective method used in the emer- tected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management gency restoration of corals off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, was plan was approved by NOAA in 2001. Important habitats that reattaching and stabilizing broken pieces of coral using stain- may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include less steel wire and nails. Newly planted mangrove seedlings su b t r opical dry forests, mangroves, salt and mud flats, seagrass and res t o r ed corals (as well as adult mangroves and corals) can beds and coral reefs. Restoration priorities include shorel i n e be vulnerable to natural factors. er osion on offs h o r e cays, hydrological restoration, and man- gr ove and coral reef restoration. Current restoration proj e c t s Successful coral reef, mangrove and seagrass res t o r a t i o n include dike removal, channel filling, and studies of soil condi- req u i r es adaptive management that responds quickly to chang- tion, water quality and mangrove productivity for hydrol o g i c a l ing environmental conditions. This depends on baseline assess- restoration and mangrove res t o r a t i o n . ments and monitoring programs, as well as thorough, long- te r m evaluation of completed restoration actions that track Plan Elements coral reef ecosystem health and rec o v e r y, and reveal significant tr ends in their condition before irreparable harm occurs. Goals Assessment and monitoring also play a vital role in guiding and Goals of Puerto Rico’s restoration plans include habitat prot e c - su p p o r ting the establishment of management strategies. Infor- tion and restoration, especially for mangroves and coral ree f s . mation needs include fish and benthic habitat assessments and They also include “no net loss” of wetlands, watershed res t o r a - monitoring in the Florida Keys, the U.S. Vir gin Islands and tion, mangrove and coral reef habitat restoration and shorel i n e Pu e r to Rico and better planning and additional res o u r ces dedi- er osion control. Plans have also established a goal of shorel i n e cated to comprehensive evaluation of completed res t o r a t i o n debris removal. actions to better guide and develop future restoration effo rt s . Th e r e also is a need to conduct locally focused socio-economic Methods studies of high-risk anthropogenic threats in specific southeast Implementation of restoration plans primarily involves the coral reef habitats in order to resolve important user conflicts planting of mangroves or restoration of coral reef habitats. The af fecting these and other reef areas (Bruc k n e r , personal com- Riley Encased Methodology is used to support the base of mu n i c a t i o n ) . ma n g r ove plantings to improve their chance of success along hi g h - e n e r gy shorelines. Plantings are surrounded by PVC pipe as they grow . Volunteers are key to the success of res t o r a t i o n pr ograms and aid in educating the general public about the im p o r tance of protecting natural res o u r ces.

Elements of Success Ma n g r ove plantings often are successful in the Caribbean. Use of the Riley Encased Method (REM) helps protect mangrov e seedlings from wave action, tides, upland run o f f and debris. Th e r e has been an 87 percent survival rate with the use of

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat RE F E R E N C E S sheds: A Prel i m i n a r y Assessment. In Habitat Hotline Atlantic, Issues of Concern for Atlantic Marine Fish Habitat, No. 27. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. 1990. Blueprint for Action: Atlantic States Marine Fish Commission. USFWS, Lower Grea t The Albemarle and Pamlico Citizens Advisory Committees’ Lakes Fishery Resource Office, N.Y. Re s o u r ce Management Recommendations for the Albemarle- Pamlico Estuarine Study. Newport, N.C.: North Carol i n a Ca u s e y , B., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J.R. Garcia, J. Hig- Coastal Federation. gins, W. Jaap, C.A. Matos, G.P. Schmahl, C. Rogers, M.W. Miller and D.D. Tur geon. 2000. Status of coral reefs in the Allee, R., et al. 2000. Marine and Estuarine Ecosystem and U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas, Puerto Habitat Classification. NOAA-Fisheries, Office of Habitat Rico, U.S. Vir gin Islands and Navassa. pp. 239-258 in: C. Co n s e r vation. Wilkinson, ed. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Cape Fe r guson Queensland and Dampier, Wes t e r n Australia. Allman, R. 1995. Biscayne Bay, Surface Water Improvement and Management: South Florida Water Management District, Plan- Center for Watershed Protection and Land Ethics, Inc. Blue- ning Departm e n t . print to Protect Coastal Water Quality: A Guide to Successful Growth Management in the Coastal Region of North Carolina. Sil- Audubon of Florida. 2000. CCMP Progress Report: A Citizen’s ver Spring, Md.: The Center for Watershed Prot e c t i o n . Assessment of the Implementation of the Indian River Lagoon’s Com- prehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 1996-1998. Win t e r Coastal America. 1999. Meeting the Challenge to Restore and Park, Fla.: Audubon of Florida. Sustain Our Coastal Ecosystems. Coastal America.

Ba r nett, D. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Dahl, T. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the contermi - Division, Atlanta, Ga. 2-22-01. Phone conversation and faxed nous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Inte- in f o r mation on Corps restoration prog r a m s . ri o r , Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bledsoe, B., D. Haupt, L. Sutter, and J. Wue n s c h e r . 1997. A Dahl, T.E. 1999. South Carol i n a ’ s Wetlands - Status and Tren d s Geographic Information System For Targeting Wetland Restoration. 1982-1989. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Interior, Fish No r th Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Nat- and Wildlife Service. ural Resource s . Davis S.M., L.H. Gunderson, W.A. Park, J.R. Richardson, J.E. Boyce S.G. and W.H. Martin. 1993. The future of the terres t r i - Mattson. 1994. Landscape dimension, composition, and func- al community of the southeastern U.S. pp. 339-366 in W.H . tion in a changing Everglades ecosystem. pp. 419-444 in J.M. Ma r tin, S.G. Boyce and A.C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds. Everglades ecosystem and its the southeastern U.S.: lowland terrestrial communities. John restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Wiley & Sons, New Yor k . Ec k e r t, K.L. 1992 Draft WIDECAST sea turtle rec o v e r y action Br own, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington, eds. 2000. United plan for the U.S. Vir gin Islands. UNEP Caribbean Environ - States Shorebird Conservation Plan. Manomet Center for Conser- mental Programme, CEP Technical Report San Diego, Calif. 50 vation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. pa g e s .

Br uce, C., L. Sutter, and A. Stichter. 1998. Atlas of Wet l a n d s En v i r onmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1998. Florida Ca rt e r et County, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carol i - En v i r onmental Resource Permitting GIS (ERPgis). Tal l a h a s s e e , na Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Divi- Fla.: Department of Environmental Protection State of Florida. sion of Coastal Management. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997. Final Bru c k n e r , Robin. National Marine Fisheries Service, Restora- Re p o r t Ecological Integrity Grant. Florida Department of Envi- tion Center. Personal communication. ronmental Protection.

Busch, W., S. Larry and C. Castiglione. 1998. Evaluating Fo u rq u r ean, J.W., and M.B. Robblee. 1999. Florida Bay: a histo- St r eam Habitat for Diadromous Fish in Atlantic Coast Wat e r - ry of recent ecological changes. Estuaries 22 (2B): 345-357. Ge o r gia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Pro- ed States. National Estuarine Inventory, NOAA. tection Division. 2000. Ogeechee River Basin Management Plan 2000. Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia Department of Natural Resource s . Lewis, R.R. and B. Stree v e r . 2000. Restoration of mangrov e habitat. WRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRP- Ge o r gia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Pro- VN-RS-3.2) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development tection Division. 2000. Savannah River Basin Management Plan Ce n t e r , Vic k s b u r g Miss. 2000. Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia Department of Natural Resource s . Light, S.S. and J.W. Dineen. 1994. Water control in the Ever- Ge o r gia Rivers LMER. http://wiegert. m a r s c i . u g a . e d u . glades: A historical perspective. Pp. 47-84 in S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: the ecosystem and its res t o r a t i o n . Gi l m o r e R.G. and S.C. Snedaker. 1993. Mangrove forests. Pp. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Fla. 165-198 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce and A.C. Echterna c h t , editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern U.S.: lowland terres t r i - Ma n g r ove Replenishment Initiative. www.m a n g ro v e . o rg / . al communities. John Wiley & Sons, New Yor k . Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. U.S. Shorebird Holman, R. and W. Childres. 1995. Wetland Restoration and Conservation Plan. ww w. m a n o m e t . o rg / U S S C P / i n t ro . h t m . Creation: Development of a Handbook Covering Six Coastal Wet- lands Types, Report # 289. Water Resources Research Institute of Ma r tin, W.H., and S.G. Boyce. 1993. Introduction: The South- the University of North Carolina. Raleigh , N.C. ea s t e r n Setting. pp. 1-46 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce and A.C. Ec h t e r nacht, eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern U.S.: Low- Il i f f, John. National Marine Fisheries Service, Restoration Cen- land terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, New Yor k . te r . Personal communication. McLellan, S. 2000. Science, Art, and Technology of Wet l a n d Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. 1996. The Indi- Restoration: A Bibliography. Florida Department of Environ - an River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan. mental Prot e c t i o n . Me l b o u r ne, Fla.: The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Pro g r a m . Milano, G. 1999. Restoration of Coastal Wetlands in South- ea s t e r n Florida. pp. 15-29 in Wetland Journal Volume 11 Num- Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Indian River ber 2. Environmental Concern, Inc. Lagoon: A Fragile Balance of Man and Nature. Melbourne, Fla.: The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Prog r a m . Mulliken, J. and J. Van A r man. 1995. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management: Technical Supporting Docu- Ke l l e r , Brian. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Personal ment. West Palm Beach, Fla.: South Florida Water Management co m m u n i c a t i o n . Di s t r i c t .

Knowles, William, 1998. Saltwater Wetlands Conservation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Otter Island Management plan for St. Croix, US Virgin Island. Management Plan. ww w. c s c . n o a a . g o v / o t t e r / h t m l s / m a n a g e / m a n - pl a n . h t m . Laurie, P. and D. Harrigal, eds. The ACE Basin Project. So u t h Ca r olina Department of Natural Resource s . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1977. The Virgin Islands Coastal Management Program and Draft Le o n a r d, D., M. Broutman, and K. Caverly. 1988. The National Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: National Collaborative Shellfish Pollution Indicator Study : Site Selection. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, Md.: Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assess- ments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assess- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmos- 1979. State of South Carolina Coastal Management Program and pheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce . Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Le o n a r d, D., M. Broutman, and K. Harkness. 1989. The Quali- Coastal Zone Management. ty of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast of the Unit-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic 1990. Estuaries of the United States. Vital Statistics of a Fishery Management Council. Charleston, S.C.: The South National Resource Base. A Special NOAA 20th Anniversary Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Re p o rt . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (NOAA)/South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998b. 1992. Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Research Reserve in South Carolina Final Management Plan. Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Region. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- Charleston, S.C.: The South Atlantic Fishery Management is t r a t i o n . Council.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Nelson, D., E. Irlandi, L. Seattle, M. Monaco, and L. Coston- 1992. North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Clements. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Reserve Final Management Plan. Washington, D.C.: National In v e r tebrates in Southeast Estuaries. Silver Spring, Md.: Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Ne u h a u s e r , Hans. 1999. Wetlands Protection: Reversing the 19 9 6 . Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Trend of Wetland Loss on the South Atlantic Coast, Musgrov e Plan/Environmental Impact Statement: Volume I The Management Plantation St. Simons Island, Georgia. Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ww w. n a c w c p . o rg / p l a n / d e f a u l t . h t m . 19 9 6 . Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement: Volume II Development of the No r th American Wat e r fowl Management Plan Committee. Management Plan: Environmental Impact Statement. Na t i o n a l 1998. Expanding the Vision: 1998 Update North American Water- Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. fowl Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servi c e . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1997. The 1995 National shellfish Register of Classified Grow - No r th Carolina Department of Commerce Division of Com- ing waters. Sliver Spring, Md.: Office of Ocean Resource s munity Assistance. 2000. Cape Fear River Assembly Strategic Co n s e r vation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assess- Plan. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Com- ments Division. me rc e .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration No r th Carolina Department of Environment and Natural (NOAA)/Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 1998a. Re s o u r ces, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR). 1999. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Generic Amendment to the Fishery No r th Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program 1999 Annual Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean Including a Re p o r t. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Environ - Draft Environmental Assessment Volume II Appendices. San Juan, ment and Natural Resource s . Pu e r to Rico: Caribbean Fishery Management Council. No r th Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1998. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve Management (NOAA)/Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 1998b. Plan. Wilmington, N.C.: North Carolina National Estuarine Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Generic Amendment to the Fishery Re s e a r ch Reserve. Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean Including a Draft Environmental Assessment Volume I. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Noss R.F., E.T. LaRoe III and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Caribbean Fishery Management Council. ecosystems of the U.S.: A prel i m i n a r y assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological Service Biological Report 28. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 58 pages. (NOAA)/South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998a. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Odum, W., T. Smith III, J. Hoover, and C. McIvor. 1984. The 20 0 0 . Charleston Harbor, Special Area Management Plan. ecology of tidal freshwater marshes of the United States east Charleston, S.C.: South Carolina Department of Health and coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e . En v i r onment Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource FWS/OBS-83/17. Ma n a g e m e n t .

Odum, W.E. and C.C. McIvor. 1990. Mangroves. pp. 517-548 Southeast Watershed Forum. 2000. Survey of Local Wat e r s h e d in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Univer- Activity in the Southeast. Chattanooga, Tenn.: Southeast sity of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Watershed Forum .

Pabon, Aitza and Carrubba, Lisamarie. Personal communica- Stanfill, J. , et al. 1999. Technical Summary Document: ti o n . Ca rt e r et County Wetland Advance Identification. Was h i n g t o n , D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency; Wet - Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans: South Atlantic Coastal lands, Coastal, and Water Quality Branch. Plain, Peninsular Florida, and Subtropical Florida. www.p a r t- ne r s i n f l i g h t . o rg / p i f b c p s . h t m . St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water Management District. 1994. Surface Water Improvement Pa s h l e y , D., et al. 2000. Partners in Flight: Conservation of the and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon. St. Land Birds of the United States. The Plains, Va.: American Bird Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Co n s e rv a n c y . Water Management District.

Po rt e r , J.W., and K.G. Porte r , eds. 2001. The Everglades, Flori- Su t t e r , L., et al. 1999. NC-CREWS: North Carolina Coastal da Bay and coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance. Raleigh, N.C.: so u r cebook. CRC Pres s . No r th Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re s o u r ces, Division of Coastal Management. Re s t o r e America’s Estuaries. 1999. Principles of Estuarine Habi- tat Restoration. Arlington, Va.: Restore America’s Estuaries. Su t t e r , L. 1999. DCM Wetland Mapping in Coastal North Ca r olina. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Envi- Ro b e r tson, W.B., Jr. and P.C. Frederick. 1994. The Faunal ronment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Manage- Chapters: Contexts, synthesis and departu r es. pp. 709-737 in me n t . S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Tursi, F. The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, Where the Rivers Meet the Sea, The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study: San Juan Bay Estuary Program Office. 2000. Comprehensive Con- Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Environ m e n t servation and Management Plan for the San Juan Bay Estuary. San and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. Juan, Puerto Rico: San Juan Bay Estuary Program Offi c e . U.S. Department of Commerce/NASA. 2000. Florida Keys Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1999. Sape- National Marine Sanctuary, Tortugas Ecological Reserve, Draft lo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Supplemental 1999. Sapelo Island, Ga.: Sapelo Island National Estuarine Management Plan. Marathon, Fla.: Billy D. Causey, Sanctuary Re s e a r ch Reserve. Superintendent, NOAA/Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu- ar y. Snyder J.R., A. Herndon and W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida Rockland. pp. 230-280 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status and Trends of Wet l a n d s Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Pres s , in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Or l a n d o . U.S. Forest Service. 1998. The South’s fourth forest: alterna - South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. www.s c c c l . o rg / . tives for the future. U.S. Forest Service, Forest Service Report 24, Washington D.C.. South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Con- tr ol, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2000. The Waite, R. et al., eds. 1994. Comprehensive Conservation and Man- North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A agement Plan, Technical Document, Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Vision of American Bird Conservation. University of Georgi a Study. De p a r tment of Marine Sciences. www.m a r s c i . u g a . e d u . White, P., S. Wilds, G. Thunhorst, et al. 1995. Status and Urbanization and Southeastern Estuarine Systems Proj e c t Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources. Part 2 - Regional (USES). 2000. USES Renewal Project Report 1999-2000. Trends of Biological Resources, Southeast. USGS, Biological ww w. b a ru c h . s c . e d u / u s e s w e b / u s e s h o m e . h t m l . Re s o u r ces Division. C H AP T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 5 – NORTHEAST ATLANTIC

EST UA R I E S O F T H E NO RT H E A ST SU M M A RY AT L A N T I C he Northeast Atlantic region is home to some of the most The Northeast Atlantic region is defined here as densely populated metropolitan areas, including New Yor k the coastal and estuarine areas of the District of Columbia and the stat es of Maine, New Hamp- TCi t y , Washington D.C., and Boston. Some threats to estuar- sh i r e, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti- ine habitats and species of concern in all the Northeast Atlantic subre- cut, New Yor k, New Jerse y , Pen n s y l v a n i a , gions include coastal development, urban run o f f, sewage and septic De l a w a r e, Maryland and Virgi n i a . releases, toxins, overha r vesting of fisheries species, invasion by Phrag- This reg i o n : mites australis sea level rise, and subsidence (see Table 3 for a com- ❖ Includes 103 estuarine and coastal drai n a g e plete list of key threats to estuarine habitats and species of concern in ar eas (NOAA , 1990). the northeast). An excellent monitoring protocol for tidal marshes has

❖ Co v e r s more than 70,000 square miles in been developed through the Global Programme of Action for the Gulf ar ea (NOAA , 1990). of Maine and can serve as a model for other restoration prog r a m s . Examples of effective partnerships and community involvement include the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ Bay Grass Restoration Partnership. This partnership provides a coordi n a t e d ap p r oach for promoting citizen-based restoration of bay grass. Based on a review of restoration plans in the Northeast Atlantic reg i o n , findings indicate that dozens of endangered and threatened plant and animal species depend on Northeast estuaries. Several key res t o r a - tion methodologies are being implemented in the Northeast Atlantic region, including a new method currently being developed for sub- me r ged aquatic vegetation (SAV) transplantation that is being tested by scientists at the University of New Ha m p s h i r e. This method is ref e r red to as Tra n s p l a n t i n g Eelgrass Remotely using Frame Systems (TERFS) and is innovative in that it does not req u i r e the use of divers. Another successful method in this region is the restoration of shellfish beds through the distribution of clean shells or artificial substrate as a settlement substrate. In the Chesapeake Bay area, an experimental technique is being applied using marine limestone as an alternative substrate for restoring oyster ree f s .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat IN T RO D U C T I O N TO T H E NO RT H E A ST AT L A N T I C

Description For this discussion, the Northeast Atlantic is defined as the coastal region of the United States from the Maine-Canada bo r der to the southernmost extent of Chesapeake Bay. This region includes 103 estuarine and coastal drainage areas that cover several thousand square miles in area (see Table 1) (NOAA, 1990). For this analysis, the Northeast Atlantic region is divided into three subregions: the Gulf of Maine (Maine-Canada border south to Cape Cod, Massachusetts); So u t h e r n New England/New York Bight (Buzzards Bay, Gulf of Maine Subregion Massachusetts, south to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New S. New England/NY Bight Subregion York/New Jersey); and Mid-Atlantic (Barnegat Bay, New Jer- Mid-Atlantic Coast Subregion se y , south to the Chesapeake Bay, Vir ginia) (see Figure 1). To en s u r e that this document complements existing prog r a m s and projects, these regions and subregions have been chosen Figure 1. Northeast Atlantic Region and Subregions on the basis of existing ecological boundaries used in other planning effo r ts (e.g., NOAA’s Coastal Assessment and Data Key Habitats and Species Synthesis/Coastal Assessment Framework; NOAA’s Our Living The primary estuarine habitat types found within the North - Oceans Habitat Report; The Nature Conserva n c y ’ s ecoreg i o n a l east Atlantic region include tidal marshes, submerged aquatic planning process; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regions and vegetation (SAV), diadromous fish corridors, coastal embay- pr ograms; Gulf of Maine Council). ments, shellfish beds, beaches and dunes, intertidal flats, salt ponds and salt pannes, and rocky shores and cobble beaches. Six of the ten most populous watersheds are found in the The importance of each habitat and its need for res t o r a t i o n , No r theast (Hudson/Raritan, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island based upon the frequency with which it was mentioned in the Sound, Delaware Bay, Great South Bay and Massachusetts restoration plans reviewed, vary somewhat among subreg i o n s Bay). The entire populations of Rhode Island, Connecticut, (see Table 2) although the values and function remain rel a t i v e l y De l a w a r e, and the District of Columbia fall within coastal un i f o r m throughout the region. counties, as does more than 90 perce n t of the populations of Maine, Massa- TABLE 1. POPULATION AND AREAL EXTENT OF chusetts, New Jersey and Maryl a n d NORTHEAST ESTUARIES and at least 67 percent of the popula- Estuarine Estuarine Total tion of New Hampshire, New Yor k Drainage Watershed Drainage Drainage and Vir ginia (NOAA, 1999b). Humans Northeast Area Pop. Pop. Area Area place a high value on estuarine area s Subregions (1990 Census) (1990 Census) (sq. mi.) (sq. mi.) for living, working and enjoying rec r e- Gulf of Maine 5,208,288 5,974,927 23,300 36 , 100 ational activities. Estuaries prov i d e S. New England/ cooling waters for industry, and energy New Yor k Bight 22,490,075 24,939,807 18,800 37,300 pr oduction and sites for aquaculture; Mi d - Atlantic 16,215,450 22,713,340 29,500 85 , 5 0 0 accommodate the needs of large ships and tanker traffic; buffer coastal area s TOT ALS 43,915,803 53,630,064 71 ,600 158,900 against storm and wave damage; pro- Source: NOAA , 1990 vide wetlands and bottom habitat; supply space for coastal development; and Note: An Estuarine Drainage Area (EDA) is that component of an estuary’s entire wat e r s h e d filter pollutants from the rivers and that empties directly into the estuary and is affected by tides. EDAs may be composed of a por- st r eams entering coastal waters (USGS, tion of a single hydrologic unit, an entire hydrologic unit, more than one hydrologic unit, or sever al complete hydrologic units and portions or sever al adjacent hydrologic units. Ever y EDA has 19 9 8 ) . bo th a land and water component, with the land portion comprising a mainland component and, for certain EDAs, an island component. Total Drainage Area (TDA) is the EDA plus the flu v i a l dr ainage area . Marshes provide a broad range of functions and val- TABLE 2. ESTUARINE HABITATS IN NEED OF ues for a wide variety of living res o u r ces. A number of RESTORATION IN THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC REGION im p o r tant forage fish species utilize the marsh envi- Habitat Gulf of Maine S. New England/ Mid-Atlantic ronment including killifish (Fundulus majalis), At l a n t i c NY Bight silversides (Menidia menidia) and mummichogs (Fun- dulus heteroclitus), all of which are vital components to Tidal salt marsh ● ● ● the overall estuarine and marine food web. These Su b m e r ged species use marsh grasses for protection from storms , aquatic as refuge from wave energy , as visual barriers from ve g e t ation ● ● ● pr edators, and as a food source. For a broader range Di a d r omous fish of species (flounder, mussels, calico crab, butterfi s h ) , co r r i d o r s ● ● ● the marsh habitat provides spawning and nursery Co a s t al gr ounds. Marshes provide aesthetic viewsheds and embayments ● ● ● rec r eational opportunities for people, serve as Sh e l l f ish beds ● ▲ ● st o r mwater containment, bind certain pollutants and Beaches/dunes ● ● ● pr event them from re-entering the water column, and In te r tidal flats ● ▲ ▲ contribute to groundwater rec h a rg e . Salt ponds/ salt pannes ▲ ▲ ❍ Su b m e r ged aquatic vegetation (SAV) serves a number Rocky shore/ of critical functions within the estuarine system. As cobble beach ▲ ❍ ❍ pr i m a r y producers they photosynthesize, rel e a s i n g oxygen into the water column while removing car- KEY: ● High need ▲ Mo d e ra t e need ❍ Low or no need bons. Blades of seagrass dampen tidal currents res u l t - ing in a low velocity zone within the bed itself. The rooted nature of the plants also stabilizes underlying substrates, Generally found in areas of soft or consolidated sand and silts, which prevents scouring and erosion of the bottom. In addition optimal shellfish beds within the northeast are typically zones to primary productivity and erosion control, much of the value of higher dissolved oxygen and improved water quality and placed on SAV comes from its function as a highly prod u c t i v e clarity due to the strong filtration rate of shellfish. Oyster ree f s marine finfish and shellfish nursery and refuge habitat. Eelgrass filter impurities and pollutants from the water column. Reef and other SAV species are often associated with or located near habitats provide forage and protection areas for small finfish shellfish beds. These beds also provide a food source or forage and crustaceans, which use the algae growing on the struc t u r e ar ea for finfish, crab, and birds in the form of adult, seed and for food, and the diversity of the reef surface for hiding from la r val shellfish, and associated organisms. pre d a t o r s .

Su b m e r ged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds are used as attach- In t e r tidal flats are habitat for a diverse array of inverte b r a t e s , ment sites by the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) du r i n g including amphipods, polychaetes and shellfish. This habitat its juvenile state and by the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) also provides forage area for fish and migrating shore birds . during its post-larval period. Juvenile finfish, including winter In t e r tidal flats also are productive shellfish bed and reef habi- flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), black sea bass (Centro- tat, providing a valuable commercial and rec r eational res o u rc e . pristis striata) and scup (Stenotomus chrysops), utilize SAV beds The shallow water associated with tidal flats, which is too deep as a refuge from storm surge and predators. They also depend for some shoreb i r ds but too shallow for certain pred a t o r y fish, on SAV as a direct food source and an indirect food source in acts as a refuge area for juvenile and small fish. the form of epiphytes and suspended particles. Adult finfish spawn in the protection of the beds where the eggs can be A review of restoration plans indicated that dozens of plant safely laid in the sediment or attached to the blades. Many for- and animal species that are endangered, threatened or of con- age fish, such as mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), At l a n t i c ce r n, such as the bald eagle, diamondback terrapin, Shortn o s e silversides (Menidia menidia) and striped killifish (Fundulus st u r geon, Atlantic salmon, eelgrass and American lobster, majalis), utilize the SAV beds as refuge from storm surge and depend on the Northeast Atlantic region. Many species impor- pre d a t o r s . tant to the economy of the Northeast, including commerci a l and rec r eational fisheries, depend on estuaries. Northeast estu-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat aries are ecologically significant habitats providing food, shel- a few examples of key threats in this reg i o n . ter and nursery areas for a variety of living res o u r ces: plants, in v e r tebrates, fish, reptiles and mammals. Shrimp, menhaden, Th r eats to tidal marshes are primarily related to tidal res t r i c - oysters, flounders and blue crab utilize estuarine habitats for tions and other hydrologic alterations, filling and run o f f from pa r t or all of their life cycles, and Atlantic salmon and Atlantic im p e r vious surfaces. Tidal restriction, such as undersized cul- he r ring req u i r e or prefer estuary areas at some time of the year ve r ts, causeways and tide gates, reduce the magnitude of tidal (USGS, 1998). flushing and freq u e n c y , which in turn lowers substrate salinity, may impact elevation of the marsh, and reduces sediment The health of non-estuarine habitats, such as coastal grass- tr a n s f e r . Each of these factors may result in lost functions and lands, riparian areas, coastal forests and nontidal wetlands, values of a salt marsh as upland vegetation and opportu n i s t i c often has an impact on the health of estuarine habitats. Prot e c - species (Phragmites australis, purple loosestrife) are allowed to tion and restoration effo r ts for these habitats may positively colonize the marsh. Filling marshes for commercial develop- benefit species such as American eel, shad and blue-back her- ment, as a component of road construction or as a dredge spoil ring, as well as promote the downstream drift of clean sedi- disposal site creates a similar loss of ecological value and func- ments and vital nutrients into the estuary. Shad and blue-back tions as do tidal restrictions, usually within a shorter time peri- he r ring utilize freshwater habitats upstream of the tidal estuar- od. Hydrologic alterations in the form of ditching, dred g i n g ine system as spawning and nursery grounds and ret u r n to activity or changes in water flow may create increased water coastal habitats. These species are commercially important and velocity through wetlands or expedite surface draining, thereb y se r ve as prey for sport fish such as striped bass. Restoration of reducing substrate salinity and promoting opportunistic species historic anadromous fish runs is a critical component of the invasion. restoration of estuarine ecosystems of the north e a s t . Im p a i r ed water clarity and increased colonization by epiphytes, The restoration of diadromous fish to rivers and streams is usu- caused by nutrient input or algal blooms, shades out sub- ally accomplished with either the complete removal of the dam me r ged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and has been shown to or other obstruction to fish migration or the installation of fish de s t r oy entire beds. In the 1930s, a “wasting disease” destroy e d passage struc t u r es (dam notches, fish ladders, elevators, baffl e s , eelgrass populations along the east coast. Recolonization has ap p r opriately sized culverts, step pools) where obstruc t i o n s been very slow, with small res u r gences of the disease rep o rt e d cannot be removed. In either case, the fish are once again able in many estuaries. Excessive and repeated boat wakes are to access ancestral spawning grounds upriver. In rare cases, fish believed to uproot aquatic vegetation, while a number of may have to be restocked into a water body where they have op p o r tunistic species of bacteria, algae and even slime molds been eradicated by the presence of obstructions over a long outcompete SAV populations by colonizing them as epiphytes. period of time. Removal of obstructions or installation of fish Changes in local hydrology and stronger currents can also passages is often accompanied by restoration of in-stream habi- damage the beds. Finally, the mechanical harvests of shellfish tat such as natural stream meanders, placement of boulders, associated with these beds (such as scallops and clams) have restoration of riffles and pools, and riparian plantings to res t o r e also been shown to adversely impact SAV habitat. st r eambank vegetation. These methods help ensure that the fish will encounter a hospitable environment on their way to Shellfish beds are threatened by a number of factors, including and from their spawning area s . ha r mful algal events, diminished water quality, effluent wastes, siltation and other pollutants, decline of brood stock, overha r - Status and Trends of the Northeast Atlantic Region vesting, shellfish parasites and diseases (MSX, Dermo and A significant portion of the coastal habitats within the north e a s t QPX), and increased predation by opportunistic species. Many have been altered, degraded or destroyed by anthrop o g e n i c historic oyster reefs in the Northeast Atlantic region have been activities. By the late 1930s, about 90 percent of the marshes of lost to disease such as MSX and Dermo, sedimentation, exces- the northeast U.S. coast had been extensively ditched to con- sive predation and harvesting, alterations in hydrol o g y , and tr ol mosquitoes (Nixon, 1982). Filling and diking of marshland contamination by chemicals, effluents and oil. Other threa t s for dredging operations, road construction and commercial and may include the reduction of brood stock or accidental residential development have led to the direct loss of wetland de s t r uction by boat traffi c . complexes. Table 3 summarizes some of the major past, pres e n t and future threats to estuaries in the Northeast Atlantic reg i o n . Hi s t o r i c a l l y , intertidal flats have been filled for development This table is not meant to be comprehensive but rather prov i d e s and land expansion. Since tidal flats often are located within

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning TA B L E 3. KE Y TH R E ATSTO EST UA R I N E HA B I TATS A N D SP E C I E S O F CO N C E R N I N T H E NO RT H E A ST AT L A N T I C R E G I O N

S. New England/ General Threat Specific Threat Gulf of Maine NY Bight Mid-Atlantic Di r ect habitat alter ation Co a s t al development ● ● ● Dr edging ▲ ● ● Filling ▲ ▲ ▲ Tidal restriction ● ● ▲ Dams ● ● ▲ Mosquito ditching ● ● ▲ Point and nonpoint Urban runoff ● ● ● source pollution Ag r i c u l t u r al runoff ▲ ▲ ● Pathogens ● ● ● Aq u a c u l t u r e ● ❍ ❍ Sewage and septic ● ● ● Toxins ● ● ● Resource harve s t i n g Fore s t r y ▲ ▲ ▲ and ext r action Mining ▲ ▲ ▲ Fisheries ● ● ● Nuisance, exotic and Ph r agmites austral i s ● ● ● invasive species Pu r ple loosestrife ● ● ▲ Canada geese ▲ ● ● Na t u r al disturbance Ice scour ❍ ▲ ❍ Sea level rise and subsidence ● ● ● Pr edation and grazing ▲ ▲ ▲ Storms ▲ ▲ ▲

KEY: ● High concern ▲ Medium concern ❍ Low or no concern

*Ph ra g m i t es austral i s is native to the northeast (see sidebar below). Howeve r , it can outcompete other native veg e t ation and create a mo n o c u l t u r al marsh habitat .

A note about the common reed (Phragmites australis) needed to determine why Ph ra g m i t e s is expanding so rap - We know from paleoecological research (data from peat idly and to determine the ext ent to which it affects habi- co r es) that Ph ra g m i t e s is a native plant in the north e a s t tat quality for fish and wildlife, alter s the marsh land- (and other regions of the United Stat es). Howeve r , it is scape and its function, reduces ecological diversity and now appa r ently becoming more invasive (Orson et al., co n t r i b u t es nutrients to the food web. This research will 1997; Wei n s t ein et al., 2000) and is widely thought to be help determine if Ph ra g m i t e s should be managed as part de g r ading essential marsh functions over much of its of the landscape rather than erad i c a t ed. In the fall of range. Large amounts of money and effor t are being 20 0 1 , a workshop and symposium was sponsored by expended to erad i c a t e, control and prevent Ph ra g m i t e s , USGS and Sea Grant, in New Jersey to provide more using herbicides, mowing, burning, tidal flow res t o ra t i o n insight into the Ph ra g m i t e s issue. In any event, res t o ra t i o n and other methods. Recent research indicates that the of Phragmites-d o m i n a t ed marshes should be eva l u a te d pr oblems associated with Ph ra g m i t e s may be more per- based on historic patterns, and research should demon- ceived than documented. Some Ph ra g m i t e s ma r shes, once st ra t e on a site- b y- s i t e basis that replacing a Ph ra g m i t e s - thought to be degraded, are much more productive and do m i n a t ed marsh is truly worth the effor t and money di v e r se than any salt marsh counterp a r t. More research is sp e n t .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat we l l - p r otected areas, many are dredged for use as boating facil- As part of a Natural Resource Damage Assessment proj e c t , ities. Threats and impacts related to development and conver- mo r e than 250,000 Spartina alterniflora plants propagated from sion for boating use include direct loss of habitat; loss of shal- indigenous seeds were used to revegetate marshes in the Arth u r low water habitat; increased freshwater run - o f f; restricted or Kill that were destroyed by the 1990 Exxon Bayway oil spill enhanced rate of water flow during tidal exchange; erosion and (N Y -NJ Harbor Restoration Committee, 1995). In Rhode in c r eased sediment transport out of the flats; and input of fuels, Island, a diverse array of partners (U.S. Army Corps of Engi- oil and other hydrocarbon pollutants. Other impacts related to neers, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manage- human activities include disturbances related to overha rv e s t i n g ment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rhode Island Departm e n t of shellfish and bait species of invertebrates, algal blooms from of Tra n s p o r tation, University of Rhode Island, Save the Bay, in c r eased nutrient loading and alteration of hydrop e r i o d . and Ducks Unlimited), res t o r ed more than 128 acres of salt marsh and 14 acres of tidal creeks at the Galilee Sanctuary, for- Contamination by industrial and residential waste disposal and merly diked off from natural tidal flow and invaded by Phrag- combined sewer overflow (CSO) events have degraded benthic mites, by removing fill and improving tidal exchange with and wetland surface habitats, reduced viable fish passage and innovative self-regulating tide gates (Hubbard, personal com- resulted in the closure of shellfish area harvest because of munication). th r eats to public health. Excess nutrient inputs due to failed septic systems, lawn fertilizers and CSOs along the coast can Since 1969, at least 1,600 acres of Connecticut’s tidal wetlands cause major algal blooms responsible for the degradation of at more than 50 sites have been res t o r ed to more prod u c t i v e shellfish and seagrass populations. use as habitat for fish, birds and plants. Fish passage struc t u re s on Rhode Island’s rivers have opened more than 57 river miles Bulkheading and other impervious shoreline struc t u r es have of habitat to diadromous fish (Lipsky, personal communication; impeded the natural migration of tidal wetlands. The increa s e Na r ragansett Bay NEP, www.n b e p . o r g). in impervious surfaces, such as roads and compacted earth , in c r eases the potential for stormwater run o f f that carri e s Although there are geographic and ecologic diffe r ences among un b u r ned fuels and additives, road salts and sand to estuaries No r theast estuaries, common themes have emerged for impor- and other coastal waters. Changes in sediment transport and tant habitats, planning effo r ts, and information needs essential hy d r ology due to inlet stabilization, culverts, dredging and for the effective restoration of estuary struc t u r e and function. A boat wakes alter the dynamics of wetlands and shellfish beds. number of agencies and organizations have undertaken res t o r a - Im p a i r ments to these vital habitats can be directly linked to the tion planning for coastal and estuarine habitats. Examples of decline of commercially valuable species, such as flounder, cod some region-wide plans for the Northeast Atlantic are listed and scallops, and the overall health of the estuarine ecosystem. be l o w . Additional plans and detailed information are available Tourism and rec r eational opportunities in coastal communities th r ough the National Strategy Restoration Plan Database ar e dependent on the health and aesthetic qualities of estuarine (h t t p : / / r estoration.nos.noaa.gov). habitats. Protection and restoration of these coastal environ - ments also is crucial to the pres e r vation of America’s cultural, Ducks Unlimited Conservation Plan historic and economic res o u rc e s . This plan is the result of a continuing assessment of Ducks Un l i m i t e d ’ s path to ensure it is still in tune with the needs of Regional Planning Efforts wa t e r fowl and wetlands conservation. The plan outlines several Since the early 1970s, habitat restoration has been used im p o r tant habitat areas, their importance to waterfowl, envi- in c r easingly in the Northeast Atlantic region as a means to ronmental risks, current conservation programs, goals, assump- reverse the trends of habitat loss and degradation. Tod a y , all tions and strategies. the northeast states have active and/or completed res t o r a t i o n pr ojects within their boundaries. These restoration effo rt s Essential Fish Habitat Amendments to the Sustainable occur under the auspices of federal, state and local authorities Fisheries Act as well as through the effo r ts of nongovernmental entities such The purpose of the amendments is to identify and describe as business and industry groups, academic institutions, non- essential fish habitat (EFH) for all species of marine, estuarine pr ofit organizations and community groups. In addition, all and anadromous finfish and mollusks managed by the New states in the Northeast Atlantic region have made great strides England Fishery Management Council to better protect, con- in the past years to reduce contaminant loadings through per- se r ve and enhance this habitat. This amendment also identifies mitting discharges. the major threats to EFH from fishing and non-fishing rel a t e d activities and identifies conservation and enhancement meas- marsh water management techniques are used to res t o r e ure s . marsh function and control pests. In areas where nuisance and/or invasive species (e.g., Phragmites, purple loosestrife, Partners in Flight: Conservation of Land Birds of the water chestnut) are dominant, mowing, burning, herbicide, United States manipulation of water level and removal by hand may be Pa r tners In Flight (PIF) is a consortium of public and private ne c e s s a r y. or ganizations and individuals working to conserve land birds th r oughout the Wes t e r n Hemisphere. PIF’s guiding principles A common restoration technique is the removal of Phrag- ar e to res t o r e populations of the most imperiled species and to mites and its rhizome struc t u r es coupled with physical modi- pr event other birds from becoming endangered - “to keep com- fication of the site and the planting of native salt marsh veg- mon birds common.” The PIF partnership has developed a etation (most often Spartina alterniflora, Spartina patens, or co m p r ehensive set of regional Bird Conservation Plans (BCP) other species of concern). Other actions can help res t o r e for land birds in the continental United States. tidal marshes while maintaining the function of traditional st ru c t u r es. Surface vegetation and substrate can be res t o re d Plan Elements by replacing shoreline hardening such as a bulkheads and Many similarities were identified among plan elements for both riprap with bioengineering (soft solutions) devices such as regional and subregional plans in the Northeast. The discus- planted geo-textile tubes. Wave energy deflected off bulk- sion below is based on information from all the plans rev i e w e d heads and riprap walls can lead to erosion of the marsh sur- for the Northeast region, and is applicable to each subreg i o n . face. Bioengineering uses native vegetation and grading to stabilize coastal banks, absorbing wave energy and prot e c t - Goals ing the marsh from reflected energy and possible eros i o n . ❖ A review of restoration plans with a national or reg i o n a l St a n d a r d storm drains can be replaced with systems focus identified similar goals among restoration effo r ts. designed to trap road sand, providing a mechanism to con- ❖ Fo r ming partnerships and cooperative effo rt s . tr ol flooding and to limit indirect filling of marsh surface and ❖ Developing a strong scientific basis for restoration effo r ts or channels. Replacing flapper-style tide gates with self-reg u l a t - identifying this need. ing tide gates can maximize tidal exchange and prov i d e ❖ Setting priorities within a particular geographic zone or flood control during spring tides and storm events. range, which varies for diffe r ent species, habitats, demo- graphics and threats. 2. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) . Restoration tech- ❖ Defining the appropriate geographic scale for given res t o r a - niques for SAV are relatively new, and large-scale effo rt s tion goals. have been primarily unsuccessful. Most SAV restoration was ❖ Planning with an ecological approach, based on a clear attempted by harvesting plants from donor beds and trans- understanding of the cause and effect within the key habitats planting in locations known to historically support SAV. In of a given ecosystem. some cases, the removal of sections of healthy beds adversely affects the remaining plants, and it is not uncommon for Methods removal to severely impact the donor site. Donor plugs are Several restoration plans with a national or regional focus pro- planted using the staple method, horizontal rhizome method vide some information on methods that have been used or rec - in areas conducive to growth (e.g., areas of relatively low ommended for achieving the reg i o n ’ s restoration goals. These wave velocity, areas of historic eelgrass growth). Tra n s p l a n t - methods are briefly outlined below, categorized by key habi- ed plugs may not be capable of gaining enough root stability tats: to survive storms or currents and may release from the substrate and be lost. 1. Tidal marshes. Restoration or creation most often involves reestablishing appropriate hydrology and hydroperiod by Re c e n t l y , new methodology and experimentation has begun replacing undersized culverts, repairing malfunctioning tide to advance the science of SAV restoration through the use of gates, breaching dikes, removing invasive plants and ree s t a b - seed and plugs collected from the shore following storms . lishing marsh vegetation, reconfiguring stream channels, and Methods such as TERFS (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely regrading the substrate to enhance sediment prop e r ties that using Frame Systems), which creates an anchoring device to su p p o r t growth of marsh species. In areas where the marsh pr ovide the plants with the necessary stability to allow has been grid-ditched in the past for mosquito control, open development of root mass, and greenhouse germination of

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat collected seed is being coupled with site selection criteria to Elements of Success add increased ecological benefits and success of SAV res t o r a - Of the documents reviewed, most effo r ts identified the follow- tion projects. More importa n t l y , effo r ts are increasing to pro- ing elements of successful res t o r a t i o n . tect seagrass habitats through proactive management (e.g., ❖ Restoration plans that are part of an overall estuary or water- avoiding impacts or losses and reducing nutrient inputs). shed-wide plan. ❖ A priority-setting and ranking scheme to select potential 3. Shellfish beds. Restoration effo r ts most often involve qua- restoration sites. hogs (Mercenaria mercenaria), oysters (Crassostrea virginica) ❖ A number of criteria for success or perfo r mance standards to and soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria). Restoration or enhance- gauge the prog r ess of restoration projects after a project is ment methods are distinct for each of these organisms. Oys- completed. ter restoration involves the distribution of clean shell materi- ❖ A series of appropriate local ref e r ence sites to provide a al as settlement substrate for juveniles and “seeding” of the comparison between the restoration site and the desired out- shell material with sub-adult-stage oysters. Quahogs and come of the project. clam beds are res t o r ed by spreading (“seeding”) juvenile ❖ A well-designed pre- and post-project ecological monitoring stage individuals over an open flat. This method can be pr ogram which ensures an evolution of knowledge from enhanced by mixing juveniles with various size adults to cre- ev e r y restoration project to build on successes and adaptive- ate a range of year classes and by placing a protective cover ly manage as necessary. over the seeded substrate to exclude predators. Once an area ❖ Sustainable funding to carry the project through completion has been successfully res t o r ed, it is important to set aside and post-construction monitoring. refuge areas, closed to harvesting, as sources for brood stock ❖ A comprehensive education and outreach strategy to secure or seeds. Properly managing the refuge and harvested area s the support and involvement of stakeholders (e.g., general can provide a self-sustaining shellfish population. public, elected officials, grassroots groups) in the process. ❖ Public involvement in the project to generate support for the 4. Shellfish ree f s . Oyster reef restoration has advanced with- eff o r t and provide volunteer assistance. in the past decade throughout the region. The most com- ❖ Pa r tnerships with government agencies, scientists, nonprof i t mon process is placing oyster or clam shell on the bottom to or ganizations, private citizens, and the formation of multi- cr eate a submerged, three-dimensional reef struc t u r e, mim- di s c i p l i n a r y teams (e.g., scientists, planners, economists, icking the design of natural reefs. These new reefs are some- community rep r esentatives) to create a consensus-based times planted with juvenile oysters. Shellfish reefs also have ap p r oach to project planning. been established or enhanced through the use of natural or ❖ The use of geographic information systems (GIS) for the ar tificial reef materials (e.g., shell, rock or stone, concret e identification of restoration sites, baseline mapping and the modules, decommissioned ships). If shellfish have been habitat inventory process. totally eradicated from an area, the seeding or stocking of ❖ A standard database and tracking system to help gauge la r val, juvenile and adult shellfish may be needed to jump- pro g r ess and identification of restoration projects toward st a r t the rec r uitment proc e s s . regional restoration goals.

5. Intertidal flats. A few intertidal flat restoration proj e c t s Information Needs have been attempted in the Gulf of Maine, primarily con- Fr om the plans reviewed for the Northeast Atlantic reg i o n , nected with mitigation effo r ts at port facilities (e.g., res e a r ch and information are still needed. Po r tsmouth, N.H., and Revere, Mass.). The restoration usu- ❖ Cr eating a comprehensive region-wide inventory and map- ally involves the removal of contaminated sediments and ping existing habitats, both functioning and degraded, to replacement with clean dredged material; removal of fill su p p o r t restoration effo rt s . material and regrading substrate to re-establish the historic ❖ Gaining a better understanding of ecosystem struc t u r e, func- high tide line; the use of best management practices that tion and the effects of habitat alterations. include diversion of stormwater run - o f f and sediment control ❖ Identifying indicators of impacts on and rec o v e r y of habitats and reduction in the frequency of combined sewer overfl o w and living marine res o u rc e s . events to minimize nutrient input. Other restoration tech- ❖ Developing criteria for selection and placement of res t o r a - niques include restoring historic tidal regime by removing or tion sites. opening causeways, tide gates and culverts, seeding shellfish ❖ Designating scientifically defensible criteria for res t o r a t i o n and establishing no-harvest area s . success and developing the best assessment methodology to

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning me a s u r e ret u r n of ecosystem functionality after res t o r a t i o n . scot, Merrimack, and Kennebec rivers in Maine and the St. ❖ Developing and testing of quantitative models, at several Cr oix and St. John Rivers in Canada. The Gulf of Maine spatial scales, to predict rec o v e r y rates and success of includes more than 23,000 square miles of estuarine and coastal restoration for all habitats, especially salt marsh and sub- drainage area. Estuaries in this region were formed by glaciers me r ged aquatic vegetation (SAV) . that removed soil cover and left behind rocky shorelines and ❖ Pr oviding technical and planning assistance for habitat steep-sided river channels. These estuaries are smaller on aver- restoration at the local and grassroots levels. age and generally deeper than those found in other reg i o n s ❖ Building partnerships with federal, state, provincial, munici- (NOAA, 1990). The region is influenced by areas of dense pal and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., land trus t s , human population (Boston, Mass., Portsmouth, N.H., Portl a n d , watershed associations), and landowners, to protect and Maine) as well as large rural, forested and agricultural area s res t o r e estuary habitats. (such as in northeast Maine). More than five million people ❖ Pr edicting the impacts of climate change and rising sea level live within the Gulf of Maine’s estuarine drainage areas, and on restoration projects. almost six million people live within watersheds that drain into ❖ Cr eating mechanisms for information exchange among sci- the Gulf of Maine (NOAA, 1990). entists and restoration practitioners. Pa r tnerships in this subregion are often multi-state and interna - In the Northeast Atlantic region, materials and techniques are tional, because the Gulf of Maine borders Massachusetts, New ne e d e d . Ha m p s h i r e and Maine and the Canadian provinces of New ❖ Development and testing of new synthetic materials (non- Br unswick and Nova Scotia. toxic and cost-effective) for physical habitat manipulation. ❖ Beneficial use of dredged material for habitat res t o r a t i o n . Habitat Issues ❖ Ne c e s s a r y and effective dimensions for riparian buffer zones. ❖ Re s e a r ch on the effectiveness of bioremediation at red u c i n g Status and Trends contaminant levels. Maine was third among all U.S. states, behind Alaska and ❖ Development and implementation of cost-effective methods Louisiana, in total value of commercial fishery products landed to control eutrophication, erosion and run o f f (e.g., Tot a l in 1999 ($265.2 million) (NMFS, 2000). Commercial fisheries Maximum Daily Loads). in the Gulf of Maine have directly involved some 20,000 per- sons in harvesting more than 500,000 metric tons of fish and Northeast Atlantic Subregions shellfish valued at $650 million each year (Apollonio and Among the subregions of the Northeast Atlantic region, the Mann, 1995). Lobsters, clams, mussels and marine worms have functions and values, threats and concerns and res e a r ch needs long been commercially important in various parts of the Gulf for estuarine habitats are similar. For example, a healthy tidal of Maine. It is estimated that in Maine alone, the annual value marsh in Massachusetts typically provides the same basic func- of the fishery for these three species is $13 to $15 million tion and value as one in New Jersey or Maryland. It has similar (H a r vey et al., 1995). The port of Boston generates more than th r eats from changing hydrol o g y , tidal restriction and fres h w a - $2 billion in economic activity each year, and tourism in the ter intrusion. However, subtle distinctions among the subre- ar ea brings in about the same amount of income annually gions , specifically with reg a r d to threats, were identified that (Platt, 1998). req u i r e further review and analysis. A subregional brea k d o w n follows. Many of the coastal habitats within the Gulf of Maine subregion have been altered, degraded, or destroyed. Of the original 11,771 acres of spawning and nursery habitat available to GU L F O F MA I N E SU B R E G I O N Atlantic salmon, only 52 percent (6,115 acres) remains in Ma i n e ’ s rivers today (USFWS, 1991). Of the approx i m a t e l y Description 6,200 acres of salt marsh remaining in New Hampshire, about The Gulf of Maine is a semi-enclosed gulf bounded landward 1,000 acres are seriously degraded by tidal restrictions or other by the north e a s t e r n states of Maine, New Hampshire and pr oblems (USDA, 1994). In Maine, many of the 255,608 acres Massachusetts, and the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and of shellfish beds are periodically closed to harvesting, and New Brunswick, and seaward by the north Atlantic Ocean. other coastal areas are often closed to swimming because of The Gulf of Maine is strongly influenced by both tides and bacterial contamination (Maine State Planning Office, 1997). fr eshwater inflow, primarily from the Androscoggin, Penob- Only about 15 percent of the original salt marshes remain in

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat the Bay of Fundy region, and less than half remains along much education, technical assistance, regulation and enforce m e n t , of the rest of the Gulf of Maine coast (Burdick et al., 1994). and planning and assessment) as well as a detailed monitoring Massachusetts has lost more than 50 percent of its original salt plan to measure prog r ess in implementation of the plan. marsh acreage, and only 36,000 acres remain today in the Massachusetts Bay region (www.s t a t e . m a . u s / m a s s b a y s / Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve habitat.pdf) . The Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was established in New Hampshire in 1989 and currently encompasses Ho w e v e r , since the early 1970s, habitat restoration has been 5,280 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The in c r easingly used in the Gulf of Maine subregion to reverse the res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1989 and tr ends of habitat loss and degradation. More than 700 acres of is currently being revised. Important habitats that may be use- salt marsh habitat have been enhanced or res t o r ed in New ful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include upland fields Ha m p s h i r e since 1990 (New Hampshire Estuaries Prog r a m , and mixed woods, salt marshes, mud flats, rocky interti d a l ww w .epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nhe.htm). Since the early 1990s, ar eas, shellfish reefs and eelgrass beds. Restoration priorities mo r e than 2,000 acres of degraded salt marsh habitat have include oyster reef and soft shell clam restoration and anadro- been res t o r ed in the Gulf of Maine (Cornelison, 1998). mous fish habitat restoration. Current restoration proj e c t s include eelgrass and salt marsh restoration, Phragmites control , Threats and preparation of a restoration plan for coastal New Hamp- Hu n d r eds of dams obstruct the migrations of diadromous fish sh i re . (e.g., salmon, herring) to and from their spawning grou n d s , and diking and water control struc t u r es have converted more Gulf of Maine Council Action Plan 2001-2006 than half of the marshes in the Bay of Fundy to agricultural This plan is a sequel to the first ten-year Gulf of Maine Action lands. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine, a majori- Plan adopted in 1991 which defined priorities, objectives and ty of salt marshes have been ditched and drained for mosquito timetables for cooperative work. This plan focuses on the next co n t r ol, and roads and coastal development have severed links five years and identifies the Council’s new focus on coastal and between land and sea. Dredging for public and private water marine habitats. access and dockage is resulting in a loss of shallow water habitat. Populations of waterfowl, seabirds and diadromous fish Management Plan for the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine have declined significantly with increased pres s u r es and Research Reserve impacts on coastal habitats. Less obvious impacts, such as poor The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was water quality, have contaminated shellfish beds and decimated established in Massachusetts in 1988 and currently encompass- meadows of seagrass, which many species of fish and inverte - es 2,600 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The brates depend on for survival (Cornelison, 1998.) res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 2001. Im p o r tant habitats that may be useful for investigation and as Restoration Plans ref e r ence sites include pine and oak forest, salt ponds, coastal Some examples of restoration plans in the Gulf of Maine subre- sand plains, salt marsh, and barrier beaches and dunes. Restora- gion are listed below. Additional plans and detailed informa - tion priorities include riverine habitat for sea run fish, eelgrass tion is available through the National Strategy Restoration Plan meadows and water column, coastal sand plain habitat, salt Database (http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov). pond wetlands and coastal dunes. Current habitat res t o r a t i o n pr ojects include nitrogen loading reduction, endangered plant Casco Bay Comprehensive Conservation and restoration in a meadow area, controlled burns to maintain a Management Plan coastal sand plain area, salt pond wetlands restoration, river The Casco Bay Plan was developed through a collaborative restoration of sea trout and herring runs and coastal bird pr ocess involving hundreds of individuals and dozens of orga n - restoration by controlling human impacts in habitat area s . izations and government agencies. The plan’s goal is to minimize adverse environmental impacts to ecological communities Management Plan for the Wells National Estuarine Research fr om the use and development of land and marine res o u rc e s . Reserve Five priority issues of importance to the health of the bay are The Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve was established identified: stormw a t e r , clam flats and swimming areas, habitat in Maine in 1984 and currently encompasses 1,600 acres of pr otection, toxic pollution, and stewardship. In addition, the pr otected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan also identifies actions to protect the bay (including public plan was approved by NOAA in 1996. Important habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include Be d f o r d, Mass., is second only to Dutch Harbor, Alaska, in upland fields and forests, tidal rivers, salt marsh, forested wet- value of commercial fishery products landed in 1999 (National lands, dune forest and beaches. Restoration priorities include Marine Fisheries Service, 2000). More than 90 percent of the regional restoration of tidal flow in salt marshes, control and Atlantic mackerel, an estuarine-dependent fish, caught in the elimination of invasive upland plants and restoration of fish United States in 1999 were landed in New Jersey (20 million passage for migratory fish in coastal watersheds. Curren t pounds) and Rhode Island (4.3 million pounds) ports (National restoration projects include hydrological restoration of Marine Fisheries Service, 2000). impounded salt marshes and shoreb i r d restoration throu g h monitoring and protection activities for least terns and piping Habitat Issues pl o v e r s . Status and Trends Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Mo r e than 35 percent of Long Island Sound’s tidal wetlands have Management Plan been lost over the past century (Long Island Sound Study, The Massachusetts Bays CCMP will serve as the blueprint for 1994). Dams are present on all of Rhode Island’s major rivers, co o r dinated action among all levels of government to res t o r e pr eventing or seriously limiting the spawning migration of and protect water quality and the diverse natural res o u r ces of di a d r omous fish. At least 33 percent of Narragansett Bay’s shell- the Massachusetts Bays estuary. The plan provides specific fish beds (36,000 acres) are closed to harvest because of in f o r mation on the Bay’s five coastal subregions as well as pathogen contamination. Rhode Island has lost 50 percent of its in f o r mation on a number of major construction projects of coastal wetlands since European colonization. Of those that regional scope and impact in the Bays region. The centerpiece remain, 70 percent suffer from restricted tidal flow, 60 perce n t of the plan is the outline of 15 major action plans for pres e r v- ar e affected by dumping and filling activities and 60 percent are ing and protecting the Bays’ res o u r ces. Implementation of these af fected by invasive species (Lipsky, personal communication; action plans is presented as a series of targeted steps to be Na r ragansett Bay NEP, www.n b e p . o r g). Almost 75 percent of all taken by federal, state and local agencies. tidal (fresh and salt) marshes in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary have been lost to development (Wil l n e r , personal communication).

SO U T H E R N NE W EN G L A N D/ NE W YO R K BI G H T Threats SU B R E G I O N The extinction and extirpation of several species of plants and animals in this area, population declines of others, and conse- Description quent biological diminution of the region can be attributed to The Southern New England/New York Bight subregion is char- many factors. Most prominent are the destruction of natural acterized by a diverse system of sounds, bays, lagoons, harbors, habitats through dredging, filling, ditching and draining of coastal streams, tidal rivers, and associated habitat. Because the wetlands; highway and building construction; and pollution of estuaries (Long Island Sound, Connecticut/New York, Hudson- sediments and waters by environmental contaminants such as Raritan, and New York/New Jersey Harbor) span multiple juris- chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, oil, pathogens and dictions, partnerships are often multi-state. This area has been nutrients associated with various human activities. Other fac- historically renowned for its rich fisheries, abundance of water- tors include overha r vesting of fishery res o u r ces, intensive fowl, diverse wildlife, productive marshes, scenic beaches, and rec r eational use of shoreline beaches, and expanding popula- outstanding rec r eational opportunities. As one of the most tions of certain nuisance and exotic species and their competi- populous and heavily industrial coastal areas in the world, it tive displacement of native species (USFWS, 1991, 1997). has also been an area of unprecedented human population gro w t h — m o r e than 22 million people live in this subreg i o n ’ s Restoration Plans estuarine drainage area—and massive urban coastline develop- Some examples of restoration plans in the Southern New Eng- ment that in recent decades has resulted in dramatic declines in land/New York Bight subregion are listed below. Additional its living res o u r ces and the large-scale loss and degradation of plans and more detailed information are available through the essential estuarine and coastal habitats (NOAA, 1990; USFWS, National Strategy Restoration Plan Database (http://res t o r a - 1991, 1997). tion.nos.noaa.gov).

The estuaries of the Southern New England/New York Bight su b r egion are economically valuable. The fishing port of New

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for gr oups is key to implementing a management program that Narragansett Bay ad d r esses the pressing issues in the estuary and evaluates those The CCMP establishes a res o u rc e - r elated objective for each needs and programs over time. chapter and recommends detailed strategies for resolving a specific aspect of an identified environmental “issue of concern” Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve for Narragansett Bay. The overall issues of concern include: The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve was impacts of toxic pollutants, impacts of nutrients and eutrop h i - established in New York in 1982 and currently encompasses cation, land-based impacts on water and habitat quality, health 4,838 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The and abundance of living res o u r ces, fisheries management, res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1993. health risk to consumers of seafood, and environ m e n t a l Im p o r tant habitats at the four res e r ve components that may be impacts on commercial and rec r eational uses of Narra g a n s e t t useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include mixed Ba y . The plan is divided into three sections: source control and fo r ests, tidal freshwater wetlands, tidal flats and marshes, and reduction, res o u r ce protection and areas of special concern. subtidal meadows. Restoration priorities include completing a restoration plan for the Hudson River estuary and a functional Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan assessment model for tidal wetlands. Current restoration proj - for the NY/NJ Harbor ects are freshwater tidal marsh restoration, eagle winter roo s t The CCMP is a comprehensive plan for the Harbor/Bight cr eation, nutrient load reduction and Phragmites control. The watershed. Five primary causes of concern are identified: habi- res e r ve also serves as a ref e r ence site for local res e a r chers and tat loss and degradation, toxic contamination, pathogen con- restoration practitioners. tamination, floatable debris, and nutrient and organic enrichment. A comprehensive set of commitments and rec o m m e n d a - Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve tions for each section is provided. A major strength of the The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve at CCMP is that it includes many commitments for action from Mullica River and Great Bay was established in New Jersey in federal, state, interstate and local agencies and also builds on 1998 and currently encompasses 114,665 acres of prot e c t e d existing base programs of these diffe r ent agencies. estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was ap p r oved by NOAA in 1998. Important habitats that may be Habitat Restoration Plan for the Peconic Estuary useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include lowland This plan outlines criteria for selecting habitat restoration pri- fo r ests, salt marshes, and barrier islands and dunes. The res e rv e orities and presents several habitats chosen through a nomina- se r ves as a ref e r ence site for the restoration of former salt hay tion process as priorities for restoration. The goals of the plan pr oduction areas and salt marsh restoration proj e c t s . include: 1) identifying specific habitat restoration proj e c t s within the Peconic Estuary and watershed that are ready for Long Island Sound Study Comprehensive Conservation and immediate funding and 2) identifying natural habitats throu g h - Management Plan out the region that are most in need of restoration as well as This plan characterizes the priority problems affecting Long developing criteria for inclusion of projects in a prioritized Island Sound and identifies specific commitments and rec o m - restoration list. mendations for actions to improve water quality, protect habitat and living res o u r ces, educate and involve the public, Hudson River Estuary Management Action Plan im p r ove the long-term understanding of how to manage the This action plan addresses key issues and actions that have sound, monitor prog r ess and red i r ect management effo rt s . been identified through consideration of the Hudson River Es t u a r y Management Plan, public comment at hearings and Management Plan for the Narragansett National Estuarine meetings and the Final Generic Environmental Impact State- Research Reserve ment. These issues include managing aquatic res o u r ces; pre- The Narragansett National Estuarine Research Reserve was se r ving upland habitat; open space and scenery; enhancing established in Rhode Island in 1980 and currently encompasses rec r eation, interpretation and tourism; revitalizing the river- 4,369 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The based economy through environmental protection; and pro- res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1999. moting stewardship through partnerships. The plan aims to Im p o r tant habitats that may be useful for investigation and as meet ecological needs of the estuary while serving the many ref e r ence sites include upland fields and forests, fres h w a t e r user groups that place demands on it. Identifying, res p o n d i n g wetlands and ponds, tidal flats, salt marshes and eelgrass. to and addressing the needs of the estuary’ s many diverse user Restoration priorities include restoring flow to a salt marsh bisected by a road and restoring eelgrass . Current res t o r a t i o n of Natural Resources, citizens and res e a r chers to res t o r e bay pr ojects include salt marsh and eelgrass restoration, pres c r i b e d grass in areas with suitable habitat conditions. bu r ning, and meadow restoration by altering mowing practices. Habitat Issues Narragansett Bay Critical Habitat Restoration Plan This plan identifies critical habitat status and restoration goals Status and Trends and outlines strategies for achieving those goals. The goals Mo r e than 30 percent (37,000 acres) of coastal habitat in outlined in the plan include the restoration of 1,000 acres of Ocean County, N.J., was lost between 1953 and 1973 eelgrass and 5,000 acres of salt marsh and the reopening of 152 (B a r negat Bay Estuary Program, www.b b e p . o r g). At least 25 miles of river passage. pe r cent of the Delaware Estuary’ s original wetlands have been lost, and more than 33 percent of tidal wetlands in Delaware Natural Resource Restoration Plan for Oil and Chemical Es t u a r y are invaded with Phragmites (D e l a w a r e Estuary Pro- Releases in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary gram, 1996). More than 25 percent of tidal wetlands in This document is a regional restoration plan containing rec o m - De l a w a re ’ s Inland Bays were lost between 1938 and 1973 mendations to res t o r e, replace or acquire the equivalent of nat- (D e l a w a r e Inland Bays Estuary Program, 1995), and more than ural res o u r ces injured by the release of petroleum or hazardo u s 2,000 acres of estuarine habitats have been lost in Maryl a n d ’ s substances into the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. The plan includes a coastal bays since the 1930s, mainly from development (Mary- discussion of the major water bodies emptying into the harbor land Coastal Bays Program, 1997). The restoration of oyster and the major threats to these areas; criteria for choosing reefs and shellfish beds is a primary concern in the Mid- restoration projects; and possible options for restoring area s Atlantic. Shellfish habitat in Chincoteague Bay has declined and res o u r ces injured by spills or rel e a s e s . fr om 2,000 acres in the early 1900s to less than 200 acres today (Maryland Coastal Bays Program, 1997). The Chesa- peake Bay has lost more than 60 percent of its historical wet- MI D- AT L A N T I C SU B R E G I O N lands, and it is estimated that there are more than 2,500 ob s t r uctions (e.g., dams, culverts, bridge aprons) to migration Description of diadromous fish in tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The The estuaries of the Mid-Atlantic subregion are mostly bar- Chesapeake Bay had an estimated 600,000 acres of submerge d built and drowned river valley-type estuaries. The Mid-Atlantic aquatic vegetation beds at the time of European colonization. su b r egion is characterized both by intensely developed urban In 1997 only 67,000 acres remained (an 88 percent decline) as ar eas like Wilmington, Del., Baltimore, Md., Was h i n g t o n , a result of disease, nutrient enrichment, development and D.C., and Norfolk, Va., as well as large rural areas where agri- st o r m disturbance. Populations of the famous Chesapeake Bay cu l t u r e dominates the landscape. More than 22 million people oyster have dwindled to two percent of their historical levels live in the Mid-Atlantic watershed, yet 30 percent of the estu- because of overha r vest and oyster diseases (Chesapeake Bay arine drainage area in the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay and Pr ogram, 1999). De l a w a r e Inland Bays is agricultural (NOAA, 1990). The Mid- Atlantic has the largest estuarine and total drainage areas in the As part of a large-scale mitigation project related to Public Ser- No r theast Atlantic region (29,500 and 85,5000 square miles vice Electric and Gas Company’s Salem Nuclear Power Station, respectively), with almost half of all freshwater entering estuar- mo r e than 20,500 acres (32-plus square miles) of degraded tidal ies in the Northeast Atlantic region flowing through its tribu- marshes in the Delaware Estuary are being res t o r ed, enhanced taries (NOAA, 1990; USGS, 1998). or pres e r ved through the Estuary Enhancement Prog r a m (PSE&G, 1999a). A partnership between Ducks Unlimited and In this subregion, the partnerships are often multi-state, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has res t o r ed more than 3,300 because the estuaries (Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay) span ac r es of habitat on public and private lands in the Chesapeake multiple jurisdictions. For example, the Maryland Departm e n t Bay watershed (www.c b f . o r g/about_cbf/rpp/du.htm). The pop- of Natural Resources Bay Grass Restoration Partnership pro- ulation of Chesapeake Bay striped bass (Morone saxatilis), vides a coordinated approach for promoting citizen-based se v e r ely overfished in the late 1970s, has rec o v e r ed as a res u l t restoration of bay grass. The program provides the res o u rc e s of harvest restrictions and improved habitat conditions (Chesa- and direction necessary for productive restoration projects by peake Bay Program, 1999). Through 1998, more than 645 river individuals, watershed associations, private organizations and miles of habitat in tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were others. It is a cooperative effo r t of the Maryland Departm e n t made available to diadromous fish with the removal of obstruc -

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat tions and the installation of fish passage struc t u r es (Chesapeake tion and as ref e r ence sites include freshwater and flooded hard- Bay Program, 1999). wood marshes, brackish marshes, and riverine wetlands. Restoration priorities include submerged aquatic vegetation Threats (S A V) at Otter Point Creek and Jug Bay and restoration of wild The key threats to habitats and species of concern in the Mid- rice at Jug Bay. Current restoration projects include SAV moni- Atlantic subregion, in decreasing order of occurrence in the toring and plantings at Otter Point Creek and Jug Bay and the restoration plans reviewed, are: pr otection of existing wild rice beds and re-establishment of ❖ di r ect habitat alterations due to development, dredging, fill- wild rice in previously existing beds at Jug Bay. ing, diking, draining, tidal restriction and alteration, shoreline armoring and hardening, dams, water diversions and low Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve fl o w , mosquito ditching, and fishing gear; (Virginia) ❖ pathogens such as E. coli, Pfiesteria, oyster disease (Dermo , The Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was MSX), red / b r own tide, and other viruses, bacteria, algae and established in 1991 and currently encompasses 4,435 acres of pr otozoans that can contaminate or kill shellfish beds; pr otected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management ❖ nutrient loading from agricultural run o f f, urban and plan was approved by NOAA in 1991. Important habitats at st o r mwater run o f f, sewage and septic run o ff ; the four res e r ve components that may be useful for investiga- ❖ toxic contamination by heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs, pesti- tion and as ref e r ence sites include upland and forested wet- cides and other contaminants; lands; tidal fres h w a t e r , brackish, and salt marshes; interti d a l ❖ nuisance, exotic and invasive species (e.g., Phragmites, pu r p l e sand and mudflats; and extensive submerged aquatic vegetation loosestrife, Canada geese); beds. Current restoration projects include riparian rev e g e t a t i o n ❖ oil and chemical spills; and and development of stream drainages. ❖ natural disturbance (e.g., storms, subsidence, rising sea level, pr edation, grazing). Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Restoration Plans This plan establishes a guide for action to achieve its stated Some examples of restoration plans in the Mid-Atlantic subre- goals for the Delaware Estuary Watershed. Several actions gion are listed below. Additional plans and more detailed infor- we r e proposed as habitat enhancement opportunities such as mation are available through the National Strategy Restoration restoring and enhancing poorly functioning tidal wetland Plan Database (http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov). impoundments (restoration of 10,000 acres of tidal wetland impoundments within 10 years) and restoring fish passages. Barnegat Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Delaware Inland Bays Comprehensive Conservation and This CCMP is a comprehensive environmental management Management Plan plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that identifies priority In 1988 the Inland Bays Estuary Program convened a manage- en v i r onmental problems and issues of concern. These include ment conference to decide what actions to take to protect and st o r mwater and nonpoint source pollution, nutrient loading, res t o r e the estuary. The management conference agreed on pathogens, water supply, habitat loss and alteration, human goals and objectives for the program which, along with the activities and competing uses, and fisheries decline. Four action findings of the rep o r t The Characterization of the Inland Bays plans and management strategies are put forth to address these and other studies, formed the basis for the CCMP. Five action pr oblems. Also included in the CCMP are a public parti c i p a - plans are outlined in the plan including an education and out- tion and education plan, a monitoring program plan, and a sec- reach plan, an agricultural source action plan, an industrial, tion that addresses data management. municipal and septic system action plan, a land-use action plan, and a habitat protection action plan. Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Maryland) Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve The Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was The Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve was estab- established in 1985 and currently encompasses 4,820 acres of lished in 1993 and currently encompasses 8,600 acres of pro- pr otected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management tected estuarine lands and waters. The res e r ve management plan was approved by NOAA in 1990. Important habitats at plan was approved by NOAA in 1993 and is currently being the three res e r ve components that may be useful for investiga- revised. Important habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e r ence sites include forests, freshwater marshes and and Community and Economic Development. Each section ponds, salt marshes and mud flats. Restoration priorities pr ovides information on priority issues, such as bay grasses and include tidal wetlands, Phragmites control, shoreline res t o r a - fish and shellfish populations, and solutions and actions to tion, ref o r estation of disturbed uplands and purple loosestrife ad d r ess those issues. co n t r ol. Current restoration projects include shellfish habitat restoration and prescribed burning of Phragmites. Phragmites-Dominated Wetland Restoration Management Plans Maryland Coastal Bays Watershed Conservation and Th r ee plans have been developed: the Alloway Creek Wat e r - Management Plan shed, the Cohansey River Watershed, and the Delaware Phrag- This plan pinpoints conservation goals for the 177 square miles mites-dominated Wetland Restoration Management Plans. All of the Coastal Bays area and strategies needed to accomplish th r ee plans provide a description of the pre- r estoration natural those stated goals. The plan is divided into four sections: and cultural res o u r ces of the various Phragmites sites and the Water Quality, Fish and Wildlife, Recreation and Navigation, restoration design and management provisions for each site.

RE F E R E N C E S De l a w a r e Estuary Program. 1996. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary. De l a w a r e Estuary American Bird Conserva n c y . Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Pro g r a m . Plans. ww w. p a rt n e r s i n f l i g h t . o rg . De l a w a r e Inland Bays Estuary Program. 1995. Comprehensive Apollonio, S. and Mann, K. 1995. A peculiar piece of water: Conservation and Management Plan for Delaware’s Inland Bays Understanding fish distribution in the Gulf of Maine. pp. 77- (Chapters 1-5). De l a w a r e Inland Bays Estuary Prog r a m . 95. In: Conkling, P.W ., ed. 1995. From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy: An Environmental Atlas of the Gulf of Maine. Cam- Ducks Unlimited. 2001. Ducks Unlimited Conservation Plan: bridge, Mass.: MIT Pres s . Meeting the annual life cycle needs of North America’s waterfowl. Pre p a r ed for the Boards of Directors of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Ba r negat Bay Estuary Program. 2000. Draft Comprehensive Con- Ducks Unlimited Canada, and Ducks Unlimited de Mexico. servation and Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay Estuary. Toms River, N.J.: Barnegat Bay Estuary Prog r a m . Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 2000. Gulf of Maine Council Action Plan 2001-2006. Bu r dick, D., Dionne, M. and Short, F. 1994. Restoring the ww w. s p a t i a l . m a i n e . e d u / ~ s c h ro e d r / g o m / a c t i o n p l a n s u rv e y. h t m l . interaction of emergent marshes with Gulf of Maine waters: in c r easing material and energy flows, water and habitat quality, Ha rv e y , J., Mann, K., Podolsky, R. and Conkling, P.W . 1995. and access to specialized habitats. pp. 89-91. In: Stevenson, D. The thin edge between land and sea. pp. 120-143. In: Con- and Braasch, E., eds. Gulf of Maine Habitat. Workshop Pro- kling, P.W ., ed. 1995. From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy: an ceedings 12-13 April, 1994. Maine Dept. of Marine Resource s . en v i r onmental atlas of the Gulf of Maine. Cambridge, Mass.: RARGOM Report 94-2. MIT Pres s .

Casco Bay Estuary Project. 1996. Casco Bay Plan. Portl a n d , Hu b b a r d, William. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal Maine: Casco Bay Estuary Proj e c t . co m m u n i c a t i o n .

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999. The State of the Chesapeake Bay: Hudson River Estuary Management Program. 1998. Draft Hud- A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. Annapolis, Md. son River Estuary Management Plan. Al b a n y , N.Y.: New Yor k State Department of Environmental Conserva t i o n . Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agree m e n t . Li p s k y , Andy. Save the Bay, Inc. Personal communication. Co r nelison, C. D. 1998. Restoration of coastal habitats and species in the Gulf of Maine. Gulf of Maine Council on the Long Island Sound Study. 1994. Long Island Sound Comprehen- Marine Environment, Halifax, Nova Scotia. sive Conservation and Management Plan. St a m f o r d, Conn.: Long

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Island Sound Study. NY -NJ Harbor Restoration Committee. 1995. Natural Resource Restoration Plan for Oil and Chemical Releases in the NY-NJ Har- Maine State Planning Office. 1997. The Maine Coastal Plan: bor Estuary. NY -NJ Harbor Restoration Committee. 1998-2000. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Offi c e , Maine Coastal Prog r a m . Nixon, S.W. 1982. The ecology of New England salt marshes: a community profile. Prep a r ed for National Coastal Ecosystems Maine State Planning Office. 2001. Maine Coastal Plan: Assess- Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Servi c e , ment and Strategy Under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Manage- U.S. Dept. of Interior, Wash. D.C. FWS/OBS-81. ment Act. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Office, Maine Coastal Prog r a m . Orson, R.A., R.S. War ren, W.A. Niering, and P. Van Patten, eds. 1997. Research in New England Marsh-Estuarine Ecosys- Ma r yland Coastal Bays Program. 1997. Today’s Treasures for tems: Directions and Priorities into the Next Millennium. New Tomorrow: Status and Trends Report on Maryland’s Coastal Bays. London, Conn.: Connecticut Sea Grant Prog r a m . Ma r yland Department of Natural Reources, MCBP 97-02. Peconic Estuary Program Habitat Restoration Wor k g ro u p . Ma r yland Coastal Bays Estuary Program. www.d n r .state.md. 2000. Habitat Restoration Plan for the Peconic Estuary. Pe c o n i c Es t u a r y Program Habitat Restoration Wor k g ro u p . National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Fisheries of the United States – 1999. Silver Spring, Md.: National Marine Platt, David, ed. 1998. Rim of the Gulf: Restoring Estuaries in the Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Tec h n o l o g y , Fisheries Gulf of Maine. Augusta, Maine: J.S. McCarthy Company. Statistics and Economics Division. Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). 1999a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Environmental Enhancement Program: Program Overview. RE F 1990. Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a EE P 9 9 1 9 7 . National Resource Base. Rockville, Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Offi c e Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G). 1999b. of Oceanography and Marine Assessment. Alloway Creek Watershed Phragmites-Dominated Wetland Restora- tion Management Plan. Public Service Electric & Gas Company. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Essential Fish Habitat Amendments to Fishery Management Plans of Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G). 1999c. the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Cohansey River Watershed Phragmites-Dominated Wet l a n d ww w. n e f m c . o rg / d o c u m e n t s / h a b i t a t / E F H _ a m e n d m e n t . h t m . Restoration Management Plan. Public Service Electric & Gas Co m p a n y . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999. Coastal Assessment and Data Synthesis (CA&DS) Sys- Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G). 1999d. tem. Silver Spring, Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric De l a w a r e Phragmites-Dominated Wetland Restoration Man- Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Proj e c t s agement Plan. Public Service Electric & Gas Company. Of fice. http://cads.nos.noaa.gov. Re s t o r e America’s Estuaries. 1999. Principles of Estuarine Habitat National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. Our Restoration. Living Oceans: A Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources. ht t p : / / s p o . n w r. n o a a . g o v / o l o 9 9 . h t m . Save the Bay, Inc. 1997. Narragansett Bay Critical Habitat Restoration Plan. Pr ovidence, R.I.: Save the Bay, Inc. NY -NJ Baykeeper. 1996. Blueprint for Habitat Preservation and Restoration in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Sandy Hook, N.J.: Save the Sound, Inc. 1998. Long Island Sound Conservation Blue- American Littoral Society. print. St a m f o r d, Conn.: Save the Sound, Inc.

NY -NJ Harbor Estuary Program. 1996. Final Comprehensive U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Evaluation of Conservation and Management Plan for the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Restorable Salt Marshes in New Hampshire. U.S. Department of and Bight. NY -NJ Harbor Estuary Prog r a m . Ag r i c u l t u r e, Soil Conservation Servi c e . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Clean Water U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Status and Trends of Action Plan: Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy. Was h i n g - the Nation’s Biological Resources. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological ton, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Su rv e y , Biological Resources Division. http://biology.u s g s . g o v / s+ t / S N T / i n d e x . h t m . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. 1992. Com- prehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Naragansett Weinstein, M.P., J.M. Teal, J.H. Balletto, and K.A. Strait. 2001. Bay. Boston, Mass.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Restoration principles emerging from one of the world’s large s t tidal marsh restoration projects. Wetlands Ecology and Man- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. North e a s t agement 9: 387-407. Coastal Areas Study: Significant Habitats of Southern New England and Portions of Long Island, New York. Submitted to Wil l n e r , Andy. New York/New Jersey Baykeeper. Personal the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Approp r i a - Co m m u n i c a t i o n . tions and the U.S. Senate Committee on Approp r i a t i o n s . August 1991.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Southern New Eng- land-New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. 1997. Sign- ficant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. Charlestown, R.I.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat C H A P T E R 4 c o n t i n u e d Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning

PART 6 – GREAT LAKES

EST UA R I E S O F T H E GR E AT LA K E S SU M M A RY

Si t u a t ed on the mid-western border between the he Great Lakes region contains many habitats that are con- Un i t ed Stat es and Canada, the Great Lakes is the si d e r ed rare in this region because of the unique forma t i o n world’s largest syst em of fresh surface water . T of ecosystems (due to large freshwater lake influence). This reg i o n : Coastal wetland restoration planning across this region as a whole is ❖ Co n t ains nearly 95 percent of the United still in its beginning stages. Most coastal wetland planning effo r ts are S ta tes’ supply and 20 percent of the global conducted as part of a broader ecological effo r t. Many estuarine-like su pp l y . systems have only recently been formally identified as target areas for ❖ Co v e r s a surface area of 94,710 square miles pr otection or restoration by agencies or nongovernmental orga n i z a - and has over 5,500 cubic miles of water ; with tions. One of the most significant environmental agreements in the a combined U.S.-Canadian shoreline measuring 10,210 miles, including islands and con- hi s t o r y of the Great Lakes took place with the signing of the Grea t necting channels (excluding the St. Lawren c e Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the United River). States and Canada. The agreement committed both parties to addres s water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a coordinated, joint fashion. For the purposes of this discussion, the ter m es t u a r y includes near coastal water s and wet- Both parties agreed to develop and implement Lakewide Management lands of the Great Lakes that are similar in for m Plans (LaMPs) for lake basins and Remedial Action Plans for Areas of and function to estuaries (Section 103[2] Estu- Concern. LaMPs have been developed for all of the Great Lakes ar y Restoration Act of 2000) and is limited to the U.S. shoreline of the Great Lakes (Lakes except Lake Huron and include specific objectives for coastal habitat Su p e r i o r , Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontar i o ) res t o r a t i o n . and their connecting water s (St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River and the St. Lawrence River to the Quebec bo r d e r ) . IN T RO D U C T I O N TO T H E GR E AT LA K E S RE G I O N

Description Situated on the mid-western border between the United States and Canada, the Great Lakes is the world’s largest system of fresh surface water. The Great Lakes extend approx i - mately 850 miles east to west and 700 miles north to south. Covering a surface area of 94,250 square miles and having over 5,500 cubic miles of water, the total U.S. and Canadian sh o r eline measures 10,210 miles, including islands and connecting channels. Of that figure, approximately half of the Gr eat Lakes shoreline is in Canada and the remainder occurs Lake Superior Subregion Lake Erie Subregion in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Lake Michigan Subregion Lake Ontario Subregion Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Lake Huron Subregion

Although each of the Great Lakes has its own separate char- Figure 1. The Great Lakes region acteristics, they are all part of one massive integrated water system. The lakes act as their respective drainage for their trib- Although there are substantial estuarine systems on the Cana- ut a r y waters. Lake Superior drains to Lakes Huron and Michi- dian shore, and the ecosystem processes that are influenced by gan (which are at the same level) through the St. Marys River. the lakes do not respect political boundaries, this discussion is Lakes Huron and Michigan drain to the south and east though limited to coastal wetlands on the U.S. shoreline of the Grea t the St. Clair River into Lake St. Clair, and then through the Lakes (Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario) De t r oit River to Lake Erie. Lake Erie drains into Lake Ontario and their connecting waters (St. Marys River, St. Clair River, via the Niagara River. Tog e t h e r , the lakes discharge 6.5 billion Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River and St. Lawren c e gallons every hour into the St. Lawrence River at the east end Ri v e r ) . of Lake Ontario (EPA, 1980). In 1981, Herde n d o r f et al., surveyed and mapped all wetlands For the purposes of this discussion, the term estuary includes gr eater than one acre in size that occur wholly or parti a l l y near coastal waters and wetlands of the Great Lakes that are within 1,000 feet of the Great Lakes shoreline. However, not similar in form and function to estuaries (Section 103(2) Estu- all wetlands identified in this study are directly influenced by ar y Restoration Act of 2000). Great Lakes coastal wetlands dif- Gr eat Lakes water levels. Wilcox and Maynard (1996) and fer from inland wetlands due to the influence of large lake Chow-Fraser and Albert (1999) have re-analyzed Herde n d o r f pr ocesses, including large waves, wind-driven tides (seiches), as part of providing information for SOLEC (State of the Lakes and especially the seasonal and long-term fluctuations of Grea t Ecosystem Conference) conferences. For the purposes of pro- Lakes water levels (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). viding summary data for this rep o r t, these studies and additional data provided by Minnesota and Wis c o n s i n ’ s Coastal Zone Seiches with an amplitude of 20 to 30 centimeters and period Management Programs were combined. There are at least 883 of four to 14 hours occur regularly on the Great Lakes or with- di ff e r ent coastal wetland ecosystems covering at least 393 in large embayments. Extreme seiches have been rec o r ded on sq u a r e miles on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. It is impor- Lake Erie with amplitudes as great as five meters. Great Lakes tant to note that these numbers are approximate and that they levels fluctuate annually, in periods of 30 years, and periods of mo r e than likely under rep o r t Great Lakes estuarine systems. 150 years. Annually, high lake levels occur in early summer and low lake levels in early winter. The range between annual highs Key Habitats and Species and lows since 1918 to present varied from as little as 1.19 Gr eat Lakes coastal wetlands include the following basic wet- meters on Lake Superior to as much as 2.04 meters on Lake St. land types: aquatic beds dominated by floating-leaved and sub- Clair (USACE 1999, in Wilcox and Whillans, 1999). During me r gent macrophytes, emergent marshes dominated by emer- the past 4,700 years, short- t e r m fluctuations with a range of .5 gent macrophytes, beach strands dominated by annual herbs, to .6 meters occurred about every 30 years and longer-t e r m wet meadows and fens dominated by sedges, dune and swale fluctuations occurred with a range of .8 to .9 meters about complexes, bogs dominated by Sphagnum sp., and swamps ev e r y 150 years (Wilcox and Whillans, 1999). fo r ested by a variety of lowland conifers and deciduous tree s .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat TA B L E 1. EST UA R I N E HA B I TATS I N NE E D O F The Great Lakes coastal wetlands are critical to the Grea t RE STO R AT I O N I N T H E GR E AT LA K E S A N D Lakes ecosystem as a whole. Coastal wetland systems are TH E I R CO N N E C T I N G CH A N N E L S the most productive aquatic systems in the Great Lakes, and su p p o r t diverse assemblages of invertebrates, fish, rep t i l e , Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake amphibians, birds and mammals. Whillans (1987) deter- Habitat Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario mined that over 90 percent of the roughly 200 fish species aquatic beds ❍ ● ● ● ● in the Great Lakes are directly dependent on coastal wet- em e r gent lands for some part of their life cycle. In terms of waterfo w l , ma r shes ● ▲ ● ● ● 24 species of ducks, four species of geese, and three species beach strands ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ of swans are known to use Great Lakes coastal wetlands. These areas are important for many birds other than water- wet meadows fowl, including shoreb i r ds, wading birds and neotrop i c a l and fens ▲ ● ● ▲ ▲ migrants (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). dune and swale co m p l e xes ▲ ● ▲ ▲ ● The Great Lakes coastal systems are important regional and ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ bogs global res e r voirs for biological diversity. In a 1994 rep o r t on swamps ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ the conservation of biological diversity in the Great Lakes region, The Nature Conservancy identified 131 natural her- KEY: ● High Need ▲ Medium Need ❍ Low/No Need itage elements (species and natural ecological community Based on a review of the existing information and res t o r a t i o n types) within the Great Lakes Basin that are critically imper- plans, the natural occurrence and need for restoration, based iled, imperiled or rare on a global basis. Of these, 91, or 70 upon the frequency with which it was mentioned in the pe r cent of the occurrences, are associated with coastal systems restoration plans reviewed, varies somewhat between each (TNC, 1994). Gr eat Lake (see Table 1). In addition to providing critical fish and wildlife habitat, Grea t Marshes are the most common type of coastal wetland and are Lakes coastal wetlands perfo r m a variety of ecological func- dominated by emergent macrophytes. This vegetation type can tions important to the healthy functioning of the Great Lakes tolerate the short- and long-term fluctuations in water levels ecosystem, including flood storage, sediment control, water that occur in the Great Lakes. In fact, they actually req u i r e quality improvement, shoreline erosion protection, food web these fluctuations to maintain their species diversity (Wil c o x pr oduction and nutrient export. and Maynard, 1996). Fen communities in the coastal Grea t Lakes are characterized by moderately decomposed peat, and Habitat-Dependent Activities have diverse plant communities dominated by sedges. Swamps Estuarine systems served as the focal point for settlement of the ar e found along the upland margin of coastal wetlands, many Gr eat Lakes region by Native Americans and Europeans. His- of which are influenced by the Great Lakes only during periods to r i c a l l y , due to the ecological functions they provide, estuaries of high water. Peatlands or bog communities usually occur have been pref e r red as human habitat, and today they are to w a r ds the landward margin of coastal wetlands and in some linked inextricably to our economy and our quality of life. The cases form floating mats that adapt to lake-level changes co m m e r cial success and the economic importance to the coun- (W ilcox and Maynard, 1996). tr y of cities such as Duluth, Green Bay and Detroit rel a t e di r ectly to the ecological functions that estuaries prov i d e . Coastal wetlands occur along the Great Lakes shorelines where Tod a y , coastal wetland systems contribute to rec r eational, comer osive forces of ice and wave action are low, allowing the forme r cial, residential, agricultural and industrial activities. mation of wetland plant communities. They can occupy a wide variety of geomorphological settings that can be grouped into Coastal marshes are great places for non-consumptive rec r e- th r ee broad categories based on their physical and hydrol o g i c ational uses such as bird watching, nature study, photography characteristics: open coast, drowned river mouth/flooded delta, and general tourism. Recreational fishing is very important in and protected. A continuum exists between these categories, coastal wetlands. The most sought-after species that use these and given the dynamic nature of the shorelines, many coastal systems include north e r n pike, muskellunge, large- and small- wetlands have systematically or episodically migrated along the mouth bass, yellow perch, white and black crappie, bluegill, continuum (Keough et al., 1999). channel catfish, black and brown bullhead, carp and bowfin (W ilcox and Maynard, 1996). In 1983, there was a total of critical boost to local economies but also put stress on coastal 110,341,000 angler days logged on the Great Lakes (GLNPO, res o u r ces. Beyond the direct loss of wetland as a result of filling 1988). Wat e r fowl hunting provides the basis for the rec re a t i o n - for development, improper stewardship by landowners can al hunting industry in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. result in additional stress on the coastal wetland habitats. Many Re c r eational boating is very popular in the Great Lakes, with residents who develop in these areas, for example, attempt to Michigan sporting the largest number of reg i s t e r ed boaters in co n t r ol the dynamic nature of the system by removing vegeta- the country. Recreational fishing and hunting contribute to tion to achieve an unfettered view during periods of low water local economies through the purchase of food, lodging, equip- levels. When the lake levels again rise and their shorel i n e ment and guide services. Although no aggregate numbers of er odes due to lack of wetland vegetation, they then pres s u r e rec r eation and tourism revenue are available for the Grea t state and federal agencies to regulate water level fluctuations in Lakes Basin as a whole, tourism in Michigan alone is a $10 bil- the Lakes. lion per year industry. The various habitat-dependent activities affect both the struc - Co m m e r cial fisheries associated with coastal wetlands have tu r e and function of the estuarine res o u r ces on which they operated in the Great Lakes for over 125 years. In addition to depend. Estuaries have experienced some of the most severe fish such as north e r n pike, bass and walleye taken for human human-caused degradation of any habitat type on earth . consumption, various minnow species are also caught in coastal Th r oughout the Great Lakes, estuarine systems have been wetlands as part of an important bait fishery (Wilcox and May- al t e r ed by many of the factors affecting estuaries worldwide. As na r d, 1996). However, not all commercial use of coastal wet- Gr eat Lakes coastal areas continue to increase in population lands has been sustainable. Due to the steady supply of fres h and popularity, the human impacts on estuarine res o u r ces can water and access to the Great Lakes for inexpensive shipping be expected to increase as well. of goods and services, many estuarine systems were developed as industrial centers. For example, the Rouge River delta Habitat Status and Trends (D e t r oit, MI) is the home of the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Th e r e are approximately 883 diffe r ent coastal wetland ecosys- Plant. At one time this marsh habitat was used by Native tems covering approximately 393 square miles on the U.S. side Americans to harvest wild rice, fish, and fur bearers. Today the of the Great Lakes. The extent of coastal wetlands (and knowl- en t i r e lower stretch of the Rouge has been channelized and edge about them) varies for each of the Great Lakes. Specific practically all wetlands have been filled (Stapp, personal com- status and trend data is noted in the discussions of each of the munication, 2001). Likewise, the river mouths of the Milwau- Lakes below. Based on a review of available literature and kee (Milwaukee, Wis.), Calumet (Gary, Ind.), Cuyahoga restoration plans, Table 2 offers a general summary of key (Cleveland, Ohio) and other rivers have been completely th r eats to estuarine habitats in the Great Lakes and connecting urbanized. ch a n n e l s .

Coastal wetlands in Michigan and Ohio also have suffe re d Th e r e are numerous natural and human-induced factors that se v e r e impacts from drainage for the purpose of agriculture. have impacted, and continue to impact, Great Lakes coastal Because the entire system is fres h w a t e r , there are no prob l e m s wetlands. Natural stressors include water level fluctuations with saltwater intrusion in coastal agricultural fields. Drained (both long- and short- t e r m), damage from ice and storms, sedi- wetlands are the most productive agricultural lands in the ment supply and transport, and biological stressors such as Gr eat Lakes Basin. Hundreds of square miles of wetlands have invasive native species or disease (Keough et al., 1999). It is been drained around Michigan’s Saginaw Bay and in the im p o r tant to note that Great Lakes coastal wetland systems Maumee Watershed (formerly known as the Black Swamp). benefit from natural stressors such as water level fluctuations. Despite the huge loss of wetlands to agriculture, wetlands Sediment supply and transport can be both a positive and a drained for agricultural purposes that have not been filled or negative for the health of a particular system. The formation of co n v e r ted to other uses provide the greatest potential for wet- ba r rier beaches or sand spits can protect macrophytes from land res t o r a t i o n . waves, but their erosion can expose wetlands to wave action.

Because of the rec r eational opportunities provided by Grea t Human induced stressors include drainage, filling, dred g i n g , Lakes estuaries, and their scenic beauty, these areas are sought sh o r eline armoring and modification, changes in water level after for res o rt - r esidential or second home development. regime, toxic and nutrient pollution, fragmentation, urban Re s o r ters, or “cottagers,” are seasonal residents who provide a run o f f, exotic species invasion, diking of wetlands and global

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat TA B L E 2. KE Y TH R E ATSTO EST UA R I N E HA B I TATS I N T H E GR E AT LA K E S A N D TH E I R AS S O C I AT E D CO N N E C T I N G CH A N N E L S

Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake General Threats Specific Threats Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario

Di r ect Habitat Alter ation Co a s t al Development ▲ ● ● ● ● Dr edging ▲ ● ● ● ▲ Filling ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Veg e t ation Removal ❍ ▲ ● ▲ ❍ Sh o r eline Armoring and Modification ❍ ▲ ● ● ● Road Crossings ● ● ● ● ● Hy d r ologic Modifications Dams ❍ ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ A rt i ficial Changes in Wat er Level Regime ● ❍ ❍ ❍ ● Dr ainage ❍ ● ● ● ● Diking ❍ ● ▲ ● ▲ Nonpoint Source Pollution Urban Runoff ▲ ● ● ● ● Ag r i c u l t u r al Runoff ❍ ▲ ● ● ● Sewage and Septic ❍ ● ● ● ● Toxic Loading Point Sources ● ● ● ● ● Atmospheric Deposition ● ● ● ● ● Resource Extrac t i o n Mining ● ▲ ▲ ❍ ❍ Fore s t r y ● ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ Fisheries ❍ ❍ ▲ ▲ ▲ Cl i m a t e Change ● ● ● ● ● Nuisance, Exotic, and Pu r ple Loosestrife ❍ ● ● ● ● Invasive Species Ph r agmites austral i s ❍ ▲ ● ● ● Ca r p ❍ ▲ ▲ ● ● Ze b r a Mussel ▲ ▲ ● ● ● Ca t ta i l s ❍ ▲ ● ● ● Ot h e r s (+130 exotics in Great Lakes ) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Na t u r al Stres s o r s Wat er Level Changes ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Sediment Supply and Tran s p o r t ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ Ice and Storms ▲ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ Na t u r al Biological St re s s o r s ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

KEY: ● High Concern ▲ Medium Concern ❍ Low or No Concern climate change. This range of stressors has resulted in the loss Gr eat Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), between of coastal wetland habitats and the degradation of the habitat the United States and Canada. The agreement committed the that remains. U.S. and Canada (the Parties) to address water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a coordinated, joint fashion. The GLWQ A It is important to note that these specific threats seldom occur was amended in 1987 and the Parties agreed to develop and as discrete isolated events. There is interaction between human implement, in consultation with state and provincial govern- and natural stressors (e.g., effo r ts to armor the shoreline during ments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for lake basins, period of high water or to plow shoreline vegetation during low and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern water levels) and substantial interactions among human-induced (AOCs). LaMPs have been developed for all of the Grea t st r essors (e.g., coastal development is typically associated with Lakes except Lake Huron and include specific objectives for some sort of hydrologic alteration and always results in non- coastal habitat restoration. LaMPs for each lake are briefly point source pollution). The cumulative impacts of multiple described below. Forty - t h r ee AOCs were identified: 26 located st r essors operating in the same time and place can have syner- en t i r ely within the United States; 12 located wholly within gistic effects well beyond the sum of the individual stres s o r s . Canada; and five shared by both countries. Some RAPs have been completed and are now in the implementation stages, Although no comprehensive studies have been conducted to others are still in the development process. Many RAPs contain evaluate the coastal wetland loss rates for the Great Lakes Basin coastal wetland restoration as a key component. as a whole, studies of specific coastal wetland systems suggest that the losses have been substantial. A study comparing cur- Lake Huron does not have a Lakewide Management Plan. rent land use data in Michigan with historical informa t i o n The Great Lakes Office of the Michigan Department of Envi- gleaned from General Land Office (GLO) Surveys conducted ronmental Quality, with the U.S. Environmental Prot e c t i o n in Michigan prior to widespread European settlement found Agency and Environment Canada as partners, has underta k e n that coastal communities in southeast Michigan (along Sagi- the development of the Lake Huron Initiative Action Plan. naw Bay, the Detroit River, and the western shore of Lake Erie) One purpose of the plan is to determine priority issues and have lost between 90 percent and 97 percent of their original fu t u r e effo r ts needed to ensure a sustainable Lake Huron water- em e r gent wetlands (many of which were associated with the shed. Immediate future effo r ts focus on two key issues: critical Gr eat Lakes coast) (Comer, 1996). Similar losses have been pollutants and use impairments, and critical habitat and diversi- rep o r ted in southern Ontario. For example, 83 percent of the ty of fish and wildlife populations. original 9,367 acres of western Lake Ontario coastal wetlands fr om Niagara River to Oshawa have been lost, with some sec- The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Planning tions suffering 100 percent loss due to filling. In 1996, The Nature Conserva n c y ’ s (TNC) Great Lakes Pro- gram launched a collaborative initiative to develop an ecore- The impacts of these losses have not been compreh e n s i v e l y gional plan that would identify high priority biodiversity con- assessed. As noted above, there are numerous species and eco- se r vation sites in the Great Lakes Region. In 1999, TNC com- logical communities that are globally rare or imperilled in the pleted a major portion of the plan; this first iteration focussed coastal zone of the Great Lakes. Although the loss of coastal primarily on selecting sites important for target species and wetland habitats has slowed since the heyday of dred g i n g , natural communities. Published in 2000, Tow a r d a New Con- draining and filling wetlands, losses in area and wetland func- se r vation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Itera- tion continue to occur. tion expands the plan to include sites that are important for aquatic systems, reptiles and amphibians. Through the ecore- Regional Planning Efforts gional planning process, The Nature Conservancy and partn e r s The unique qualities of the Great Lakes and their importa n c e have identified 271 sites that rep r esent the tremendous biologi- to the U.S. and Canada—both ecologically and economically cal diversity of the Great Lakes region. Of the 271 sites, 166 —have made conservation and restoration of coastal habitats a sites (over 60 percent) are irreplaceable—meaning that these key objective for bi-national, federal, state and regional plan- places rep r esent the only opportunity to protect certa i n ning effo r ts. Regional effo r ts of note are highlighted below. species, natural communities, aquatic systems, or assemblages of these targets in the Great Lakes region. Over three - q u a rt e r s Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans of the sites will need attention within the next 10 years, and One of the most significant environmental agreements in the mo r e than two-thirds of the sites need more immediate action. hi s t o r y of the Great Lakes took place with the signing of the Ver y few of the sites have completed site conservation plans.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Completed plans that contain a restoration component have example, selected wildlife management areas are briefly been included in the discussions for each subregion below. described in the body of this text.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Great Lakes Subregions The Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Ven - In an overview of controlling abiotic factors, Dr. Leah Minc tu r e Implementation Plan establishes the reg i o n ’ s goals for the divided the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline into 77 regions charac- No r th American Wat e r fowl Management Plan (NAWMP). It terized by distinctive conditions for coastal wetland develop- identifies specific habitat objectives for focus areas with the ment based on diffe r ences in climate, bedrock geology, glacial overall objective of increasing populations of waterfowl and ge o m o r p h o l o g y , shoreline configuration and soils, as well as other wetland wildlife by protecting, restoring and enhancing land use and disturbance factors (Minc, 1997). In an effo r t to wetland and associated upland habitats within the Joint Ven - simplify and to minimize the number of subregions for the pur- tu r e region. poses of this rep o r t, the Great Lakes Region has been divided into five subregions based on geographic boundaries. Each sub- State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences region includes the U.S. terri t o r y of one of the Great Lakes The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are and the associated downstream connecting channels. The Lake hosted every two years by the U.S. Environmental Prot e c t i o n Superior subregion includes Lake Superior and the St. Marys Agency and Environment Canada on behalf of the two Coun- Ri v e r . The Lake Michigan subregion includes Lake Michigan to tries in response to the binational Great Lakes Water Quality the Mackinac Bridge. The Lake Huron subregion encompasses Ag r eement. The conferences are intended to provide a forum Lake Huron, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroi t for exchange of information on the ecological condition of the Ri v e r . The Lake Erie subregion includes Lake Erie and the Nia- Gr eat Lakes and surrounding lands. SOLEC conferences are gara River. The Lake Ontario subregion encompasses Lake intended to focus on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem Ontario and the St. Lawrence River downstream to the Que- and the major factors impacting it. In addition to rep o r ting on bec borde r . the health of the living system, the conferences rep o r t on the underlying conditions. This reflects the increased rec o g n i t i o n that the condition of the ecosystem is being determined by LA K E SU P E R I O R SU B R E G I O N th r ee major factors: habitat loss, pollution and exotic species. Description State Wetland Management Strategies The Lake Superior subregion includes Lake Superior and the Th r ough the US EPA’s state wetland development grant pro- St. Marys River, which flows from the southeast corner of Lake gram, various states in the Great Lakes Basin have developed Superior into Lake Huron. Lake Superior is the largest and state-wide wetland management plans. These plans prov i d e coldest of the Great Lakes and is the largest (by surface area ) in f o r mation reg a r ding the status of wetlands in the state, reg u - body of freshwater on earth. The lake itself is characterized as la t o r y frameworks, non-reg u l a t o r y management and prot e c t i o n ol i g o t r ophic, with low levels of nutrients, little plant life, high eff o r ts, and in some cases, recommendations for restoration of levels of dissolved oxygen, and a long retention period (191 the state’s wetland res o u r ces. State Wetland Management years). Coastal wetland development is constrained by large Strategies have been completed for Minnesota, Michigan, Indi- ar eas of bedrock at or near the surface, shallow soils and a ana, Illinois, Ohio and New York. no rt h e r n climate. This north e r n climate is reflected in the more bo r eal nature of the wetlands that are typically rich in bog or State and Federal Public Land Management poor fen species (Minc, 1997). The St. Louis River Estuary and Th e r e are numerous state game areas, federal wildlife ref u g e s , the Bad River and Kakagon Sloughs are significant estuarine Fo r est Service land, and national parks and lakeshores throu g h - systems which comprise a large prop o r tion of the total coastal out the Great Lakes Basin. Due to the ecological functions pro- wetlands in Lake Superior. vided by coastal wetlands, many wildlife management area s include substantial coastal wetland systems. Many national The St. Marys River extends 112 kilometers, draining Lake wildlife refuges in the coastal areas of the Great Lakes are man- Superior into Lake Huron. The river drops 6.7 meters along its aged as wilderness. For many state wildlife areas, management length, mostly at the 1.2 kilometer-long St. Marys Rapids in plans focus on re- c r eating or manipulating the system to bene- Sault Ste. Marie. The upper river above the St. Marys Rapids fit certain species or hunting opportunities. Wetland res t o r a - has sandy and rocky shores, with emergent wetlands occurri n g tion is a high priority in many state game areas. By way of an only in protected areas. The lower river is borde r ed by extensive emergent marshes in shallow areas of the large lakes, bays manipulation, shipping and exotic species invasion. At the and islands (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). other end of the lake, the primary threats to the St. Marys River system include res o r t and residential development and Habitat Issues co m m e r cial shipping. The passing of large commercial vessels in the narrow reaches of shipping channels causes increa s e d Status and Trends cu r rent speed, greater wave action, more erosion, and more Th e r e are no comprehensive estimates of coastal wetland losses turbidity in these coastal wetlands, affecting plant rooting and for Lake Superior. In highly developed areas, such as Duluth, gr owth, and associated invertebrates and fauna (Manny et al., Minn. and Superior, Wis., impacts to coastal wetlands have 1987 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Vessel speed controls the been severe. Because the shoreline is sparsely populated and de g r ee of damage caused by this particular stres s o r . These sh o r eline development has been minimal, coastal wetlands th r eats were addressed in 1998 by a historic multi-party agree - along Lake Superior are comparatively less affected by human ment placing permanent speed limits and other conditions on st r essors than those of the other Great Lakes. However, due to vessel passage (Kavetsky, personal communication). the relative rarity of wetlands in the Lake Superior system as a result of abiotic factors, those estuarine systems that do exist Restoration Plans ar e particularly important to fish and wildlife populations. (W ilcox and Maynard, 1996). Species of management concern Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan include a variety of freshwater mussels, birds such as the piping The Lake Superior LaMP contains appropriate funded and pro- pl o v e r , peregrine falcon, bald eagle and many rare neotrop i c a l posed (non-funded) actions for restoration and protection to passerines, and fish such as the lake sturge o n . bring about improvement in the ecosystem. Actions include commitments by the Parties, governments and reg u l a t o r y pro- Water level regulation is the most widespread stressor and grams, as well as suggested voluntary actions that could be many other stressors affect wetlands on a site-specific basis. taken by nongovernmental partners. Lake Superior habitat Water level regulation has affected all coastal wetlands in Lake objectives include addressing nearshore, shoreline and wetland Su p e r i o r . Water levels on Lake Superior have been reg u l a t e d habitats through identification, protection and restoration of for much of the 20th century as a result of the locks at Sault sites for rep r oduction and rearing of fish, water birds, mammals Ste. Marie (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). and other wildlife and plants.

Si t e -specific stressors include shipping, dredging, filling, har- Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program bor and marina development, shoreline development, roa d Co o r dinated by the Minnesota Department of Natural co n s t r uction, nutrient enrichment, logging, and toxic contami- Re s o u r ces, this program was designed to meet the req u i re m e n t s nation. Watershed run o f f of sediments, especially from logging for participation in the federal Coastal Zone Management Pro- ac t i v i t y , can dramatically increase sediment inputs into tributar- gram. The goal of this program is to pres e r ve, protect, develop ies which also can affect coastal wetlands near river mouths, and where possible, res t o r e and enhance coastal res o u r ces for especially in western Lake Superior where watersheds are dom- pr esent and future generations. It was developed to encourage inated by fine clay soils. There are three Areas of Concern gr eater cooperation, to encourage simplification of governm e n - (AOCs) on the U.S. shoreline of Lake Superior. AOCs are tal processes, and to provide tools to implement existing poli- defined as severely degraded areas where beneficial uses are cies, authorities and programs within the area defined by the th r eatened or impaired due to toxic contamination. The entire pr ogram boundary. It is not another plan to implement, but St. Marys River has been designated an AOC due to elevated rather a new tool to implement existing programs in the most contaminants in the water and the sediment. ef ficient manner, and to provide funding for unique or under- funded opportunities. Threats Ongoing threats to estuarine systems vary depending on the Chequamegon Bay Watershed Site Conservation Program location of the shoreline. Remote areas are seeing a growth in A program of The Nature Conserva n c y , the Chequamegon Bay res o r t residential development which results in additional pres - Watershed Site Conservation Program encompasses two large su r e on the estuarine res o u r ces. In more developed areas, such and numerous small watersheds, and covers three counties in as Duluth, Minn., and its sister city, Superior, Wis., the threa t s no rt h e r n Wisconsin. Conservation targets for the prog r a m ar e many and severe, including dredging and filling, polluted have been identified and include the Kakagon and Bad River run o f f, resuspension of contaminated sediments, hydrol o g i c a l Sloughs. Called ‘Wis c o n s i n ’ s Everglades,’ the Slough system

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat covers 16,000 acres and is the largest undeveloped system in been found that need to be inventoried. the upper Great Lakes. Goals for the Slough include: maintaining the integrity and diversity of natural communities; main- Michigan Upper Peninsula Coastal Wetland Project taining the natural processes, including lake level fluctuations, A Ducks Unlimited proposal to the North American Wet l a n d s flooding, ground water rec h a r ge and water quality; control l i n g Co n s e r vation Council, the Michigan Upper Peninsula Coastal ag g r essive exotic species; and increasing forest cover within Wetland Project is a multi-partn e r , multi-phase landscape-scale the watershed to reduce indirect stres s e s . pr oject to protect, res t o r e and manage coastal wetlands and associated uplands within nine focus areas in the Lake Superior Habitat Plan for Lower St. Louis River and St. Marys watersheds in Michigan. The peninsula has not In 1987, the Lower St. Louis River was designated by the Inter- seen the same great wetland losses as lower Michigan, with the national Joint Commission as one of 43 Areas of Concern exception of the Rudyard Clay Plain, and for this reason the (AOC). Development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) res u l t - pr oject focuses on preventing destruction of coastal wetland ed in 43 recommendations. Published in 1995, the RAP con- ar eas and associated uplands with habitat restoration and tains many habitat-related recommendations. Recommendation enhancement as a secondary objective. Phase I of the proj e c t 38 calls for the creation of the Habitat Plan for Lower St. Louis will protect and/or res t o r e 2,826 acres of wetlands and associ- Ri v e r . The goal of the Habitat Plan is to design and implement ated uplands through land acquisition in seven focus area s , a coordinated comprehensive plan for the protection and fur- restoration projects (such as constructing ditch plugs, rem o v i n g therance of biodiversity and ecological diversity within the drain tile, and scraping basins in the clay soils) in three focus Ar ea of Concern, without seeking to res t o r e the estuary to its ar eas, and enhancement (such as increasing food and habitat pr esettlement condition, through the creation, res t o r a t i o n , res o u r ces in a deteriorating impoundment through drawdown reclamation, enhancement and management of a desired mix of and reflooding) in four focus areas. Three additional phases are ecosystems and habitat. The Habitat Plan, managed by the St. an t i c i p a t e d . Louis River Citizens Action Committee, will focus on the lower 21 miles of the river, a 12,000-acre freshwater estuary Munuscong Wildlife Area Management Plan fr om below Fon du Lac, Minn., to its outlet in Lake Superior. The Munuscong Wildlife Area is adjacent to Munuscong Lake and the St. Marys River in east-central Chippewa County in Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Mi c h i g a n ’ s Upper Peninsula. The management goal for this The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) was ar ea is to res t o r e and maintain biotic communities and public established in 1978 under the federal Coastal Zone Manage- use opportunities through practices and improvements that do ment Act to protect, res t o r e and enhance Wis c o n s i n ’ s Lake not disturb existing unique features and which complement, Michigan and Lake Superior coastal res o u r ces. The WCMP is a rather than combat, natural processes. Examples of primary vo l u n t a r y program that works through a governo r- a p p o i n t e d objectives are to: “naturalize” a dysfunctional dike and res t o r e council to award federal funds to local governments and other the open-system dynamics of the Munuscong Bay coastal entities for the implementation of coastal initiatives. The pro- marsh while enhancing rep r oduction opportunities for island- gr a m ’ s goal is to achieve a balance between natural res o u rc e nesting wildlife; maintain upland grassland communities for pr otection and coastal communities’ need for sustainable eco- wildlife species currently using this cover type and crea t e nomic development. “e m e r gent-marsh” wetlands to enhance grasslands for species dependent on grassland-wetland complexes; and acquire The WCMP provides grants to encourage the protection and coastal wetlands, grasslands and other tracts within the dedi- wise use of Wis c o n s i n ’ s coastal res o u r ces. One of the four types cated wildlife area boundary and manage them as sustainable, of matching grants is wetlands protection. A Data Compilation naturally functioning systems. Coastal wetland management and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wis c o n s i n ’ s Grea t strategies include work on the dike system, prescribed burns Lakes was funded in part through this grant program. Goals of and control measures for purple loosestrife. this project were to compile existing information on coastal wetlands for Lakes Superior and Michigan in Wisconsin, select Plan Elements ecologically significant primary coastal wetland sites, and identify existing data or inventory gaps. There are 28 primary sites Goals in Wis c o n s i n ’ s Lake Superior coastal region. The rep o r t notes Habitat goals for the Lake Superior subregion focus on pre- that there are relatively few known information gaps in this se r ving, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands, biodiversity coastal zone, but that recently some very rare species have and ecosystem diversity, by restoring natural ecological pr ocesses and addressing the myriad of natural and human land systems along the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline (Lake induced threats to the system. Michigan Technical Committee, 2000).

Methods Lake Michigan may be the most diverse of any of the Grea t To achieve the subreg i o n ’ s goals, both general methods, such Lakes. Its shoreline changes from one major landform to as creating partnerships and building networks, and specific an o t h e r , with each type extending for hundreds of miles. Given methods were discussed. Examples of specific methods include the Lake’s north-south axis, climate plays a major role in deter- restoring hardened shorelines and inactive boat slips to natural mining the community composition of the various wetland habitats, eliminating sewer overflows and failing septic systems, habitats (Minc, 1997). It has lakeplains, high clay bluffs, low toxic remediation, working with local zoning commissions to er odible bluffs, vast dune fields, rocky cliffs, glacial drift bluffs , modify current zoning regulations to ensure appropriate land sand ridge shores, and clay and pebble embayments flanked by uses within the watershed, restoring hydrologic regimes, and ancient ridges. Lake Michigan’s coastal wetlands are equally facilitating consolidation of coastal development including diverse, including embayed, barrier beach, lagoon, and riverine relocating businesses, and using existing facilities versus con- habitats. Deltaic formation occurs in some Green Bay sites, but st r ucting new ones. sh o r e currents quickly carry away alluvium or detrital accumu- lations in other areas (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Lake Elements of Success Mi c h i g a n ’ s coastal systems are host to a wide variety of plants, All of the plans have evolved through, and stress the need for, fish and wildlife, including several state and federally listed continued broad participation from federal, state, local and species such as the Houghton’s goldenrod, dwarf lake iris, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations and citizens in Pi t c h e r ’s thistle and the piping plover. or der to succeed. Most acknowledge the value of supplement- ing current effo r ts versus duplicating or rec r eating existing Habitat Issues plans. Site specific measures of success include making measurable prog r ess toward the long-term abatement of critical Status and Trends th r eats and the sustained maintenance or enhancement of con- Lake Michigan’s water quality and wetlands have been severel y se r vation target viability at identified sites. degraded. There are ten Areas of Concern in the Lake Michi- gan Basin, more than any other Great Lake. The Green Bay Information Needs ar ea has suffe r ed severe losses and degradation of its wetlands All plans specify the need to identify highest priority areas for as a result of conversion to agriculture, urbanization, and toxic restoration, continue the acquisition of information throu g h contamination. Along the western shore from Sturgeon Bay, res e a r ch, and secure additional funding sources. The Habitat Wis. to Chicago, Ill., urbanization has virtually eliminated for- Plan for the Lower St. Louis River identifies the need to fill mer wetlands that once existed near river mouths. South of data gaps, determines the degree of degradation at specific Chicago and around the bottom of Lake Michigan are many sites, and determines the need for unified compilation of his- smaller and remnant wetlands and larger interdunal wetlands torical rec o r ds and res o u rc e s . that survived the heavy industrialization of the area. The dr owned river mouths of the Michigan shoreline have had their hydrology altered by road crossings (increasing sediment LA K E MI C H I G A N SU B R E G I O N deposition) and have been affected by ditching, agricultural practices and colonization by invasive plant species. In the less Description populated, north e r n extent of Lake Michigan, many of the The only Great Lake entirely within the United States, Lake estuarine systems remain intact. Michigan is the third largest Great Lake, the sixth large s t fr eshwater lake in the world, and has a retention time of 99 Threats years. The Lake Michigan watershed includes part of Indiana, In addition to the ongoing problems noted above, curren t Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. The north e r n watershed is th r eats to Lake Michigan’s coastal wetlands are primarily rel a t - co v e r ed with forests, sparsely populated and economically ed to ever-i n c r easing pres s u r e to develop the shorel i n e . dependent on natural res o u r ces. The southern portion is heavi- Attracted by the rich rec r eational opportunities and scenic ly populated with intensive industrial development and rich be a u t y , the counties at the north e r n tip of Michigan’s lower ag r i c u l t u r e areas along the shores (Marine Advisory Servi c e , peninsula have the fastest growing populations in the state. 1985). Lake Michigan contains 40 percent of the coastal wet- The vibrant tourist and res o r t economy puts exceptional pres -

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat su r e on the coastal wetland ecosystems. In addition to direc t wise use of Wis c o n s i n ’ s coastal res o u r ces. One of the four types impact on wetlands through dredging and filling for res o r t res i - of matching grants is wetlands protection. A Data Compilation dential and marina development, the additional polluted run o f f and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wis c o n s i n ’ s Grea t th r eatens the very res o u r ces that tourists and res o r ters are Lakes was funded in part through this grant program. Goals of flocking to the area to enjoy. this project were to compile existing information on coastal wetlands for Lakes Superior and Michigan in Wisconsin, select Restoration Plans ecologically significant primary coastal wetland sites, and identify existing data or inventory gaps. There are 36 primary Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan 2000 coastal wetland sites in Wis c o n s i n ’ s Lake Michigan coastal The Lake Michigan LaMP contains appropriate funded and region. The rep o r t identified several major gaps for this reg i o n pr oposed (non-funded) actions for restoration and prot e c t i o n including outdated site descriptions, outdated or missing ele- to bring about actual improvement in the ecosystem. Fifteen ment occurrence data, inventory of other coastal areas, bird recommended management actions and activities have been in f o r mation and dams. developed and are expected to be completed in the next 14 years. Recommendation Management Action 4, Protect Habi- Indiana Dunes: Dunes Creek and the Great Marsh tat, addresses wetland restoration with an emphasis on area s The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Indiana Dunes connecting to Lake Michigan. State Park protect a large portion of Dunes Creek and what remains of the Great Marsh in north e r n Indiana. Plans include Site Conservation Plan for the Red Banks and enhancement of 4,600 acres of currently degraded wetlands Door Peninsula and Islands Landscape th r ough the National Lakeshore’ s effo r ts to res t o r e hydrol o g y The North e r n Door Peninsula and Islands Landscape site begins by plugging man-made ditches and tile drainage and rem o v i n g near the city of Sturgeon Bay, Wis. and covers the north e r n fill that obstructs surface water. Specific sites for placement of po r tion of Door County. This portion of the Door Peninsula the ditch plugs and road fill cuts are based on a priority system extends about 50 miles in a northeast bearing, separating Gree n as determined by need and impact. The Indiana Dunes State Bay from the larger body of Lake Michigan. This plan was Park is developing a comprehensive res o u r ce management plan developed by The Nature Conservancy through a series of for the park. The plan includes Dunes Creek and Dunes meetings with their conservation partners including the Door Na t u r e Pres e r ve. In addition, Indiana is developing the Lake County Land Trust, Wisconsin Department of Natural Michigan Coastal Program in partnership with the federal Re s o u r ces and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The plan Coastal Zone Management Program. The Lake Michigan includes two planning units: Red Banks, and the North e r n Door Coastal Program will work with local governments and orga n i - Peninsula and Islands Landscapes. The combined acreage of the zations to protect and res t o r e important tributaries and natural two sites is 190,000 acres; 2,000 and 188,000 res p e c t i v e l y . Each communities such as Dunes Creek and the Great Marsh. planning unit has site conservation targets with specified goals. Several of the sites, such as Mink River Estuary, North Bay-Mud Lower Green Bay and Fox River Remedial Action Plan Lake-Ridges and Kangaroo Lake provide specific strategies to (RAP) co n s e r ve these important coastal wetland systems. The Lower Green Bay and Fox River RAP was developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the Lower Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Gr een Bay and Fox River Area of Concern (AOC), consisting The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) was of the lower 11.2 kilometers of the Fox River below DePere established in 1978 under the federal Coastal Zone Manage- Dam and 55 square kilometers of southern Green Bay out to ment Act to protect, res t o r e and enhance Wis c o n s i n ’ s Lake Point au Sable and Long Tail Point. The three-phase plan Michigan and Lake Superior coastal res o u r ces. The WCMP is a includes a multi-stakeholder partnership with four technical vo l u n t a r y program that works through a governo r- a p p o i n t e d ad v i s o r y committees and a citizen’s advisory committee. Since council to award federal funds to local governments and other the RAP was adopted in 1988, 38 of the 120 rec o m m e n d e d entities for the implementation of coastal initiatives. The pro- remedial actions have been implemented. Some of the actions gr a m ’ s goal is to achieve a balance between natural res o u rc e taken to enhance fish, wildlife and habitat are: species rei n t r o- pr otection, and coastal communities’ need for sustainable eco- duction; creation of walleye spawning habitat; construction of nomic development. a permanent barrier to sea lamprey at three Fox River sites; and acquisition of 68 hectares of wetlands along the West Shore The WCMP provides grants to encourage the protection and Wildlife Area . Muskegon State Game Area Master Plan Information Needs The Muskegon State Game Area is located in west central The Site Conservation Plan for Red Banks and the Door Penin- Michigan along a 10-mile stretch of the Muskegon River. It lies sula provides a detailed matrix of res e a r ch and inventory needs mostly in a flood plain, which is forested with lowland hard- for conservation targets and assigns a priority to each of the wood or open marsh, and is largely wetlands wildlife habitat. needs. Determining the hydrologic links in the Dolomite-sand- The major objective of this plan is to maximize management peat landscape, feasibility of exotics control, and rel a t i o n s h i p eff o r ts toward waterfowl production, to encourage use of the of the matrix landscape to the health of the identified targe t s , ar ea by migrant waterfowl, and to provide a quality waterfo w l ar e a few examples. The Lake Michigan LaMP identifies the hunting area for sportsmen of Michigan. Wetland habitat pro- need to fill in gaps of information and verify that available tection and restoration will be accomplished primarily throu g h in f o r mation is still curren t . land acquisition and water level control measures .

Plan Elements LA K E HU RO N SU B R E G I O N

Goals Description Plans in the Lake Michigan subregion identify both short- t e r m The Lake Huron subregion includes Lake Huron, the St. Clair and long-term actions and goals to protect and pres e r ve Lake Ri v e r , Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. At 59,600 square Michigan coastal regions. The Lake Michigan LaMP identifies kilometers, Lake Huron is the second largest of the Grea t 15 management actions for the next 14 years. Examples of Lakes (after Superior). Lake Huron includes the two large s t these are developing standards or guidelines for ballast water bays on the Great Lakes, Georgian Bay (in Canada) and Sagi- co n t r ol; completing work on all Clean Legacy Sites by 2005; naw Bay (Michigan Seagrant, 2000). Lake Huron features a mix de t e r mining a priority for habitat pres e r vation sites; and filling of bedrock and glaciated landforms. Rocky shores associated in data gaps. For the Door Peninsula, The Nature Conserva n c y with the Precambrian shield cover the north e r n and eastern sets specific goals for each conservation target, which correl a t e sh o r es and limestone underlies the Drummond Island-Mani- with strategies for the ecoregional sites. For example, goals for toulin Island Group; glacial deposits of till, gravel and sand the Hine’s emerald dragonfly include maintaining at least two pr edominate further south. The diversity of the shoreline and br eeding areas within each sub-population on the Door Penin- la n d f o r ms in this subregion is reflected in the wetland habitats, sula, protecting all sub-populations reg a r dless of size, establish- which range from and include sheltered bays and river mouths ing a monitoring plan for each population, and protecting the in Lake Huron to the broad deltaic wetland systems in Lake St. habitat and processes supporting the species. Clair (Minc, 1997). Along the U.S. shoreline, Saginaw Bay has been identified as an Area of Concern (AOC). Methods Several methods are suggested for achieving the plans’ goals. The St. Clair River, 64 kilometers long, drains Lake Huron into By 2005, the Lake Michigan LaMP plans to identify and map Lake St. Clair. It is located on the international border between critical habitats in the watershed for all listed species, which the U.S. and Canada and is a major shipping channel. It forms will assist in filling data gaps of coastal habitat. For priority a large bird-foot delta with many distribution channels and co n s e r vation sites in the Door Peninsula, The Nature Conser- wetlands where it meets Lake St. Clair. The river above the vancy utilizes acquisition and conservation easements to con- delta is a uniform channel with few bends, no cutoff channels se r ve and protect habitat for species such as the Hine’s emerald or oxbow lakes, and only two islands. Most of the U.S. shore- dr a g o n f l y . line is now artificial and the lack of shoreline complexity, along with the fast current, depth of the river and wave forces gener- Elements of Success ated by large commercial vessels limit wetland development As with the other subregions, the ability to build partn e r s h i p s , along the banks of the river. The entire St. Clair River has been link with existing planning effo r ts, educate and involve the de c l a r ed an AOC. public, and secure continued funding will contribute to the success of the plans. Prog r ess toward reaching tangible Lake St. Clair is a shallow productive lake located between the im p r ovements (in wetland areas or target species populations) St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. Where the St. Clair River meets is also a key measure of success. Lake St. Clair, an expansive bird-foot delta—the largest fres h - water delta in the world—has formed with many distribution channels, islands and wetlands. The entire U.S. shoreline of

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Lake St. Clair consists of flat, clay lakeplain characterized by wetlands were lost between 1873 and 1968. These losses slopes of less than one percent with wet loamy clayey soils oc c u r red mostly in the St. Clair Delta, along Anchor Bay and pr evalent (Minc, 1998). At the time of European contact, the near the mouth of the Clinton River. In 1868 the Clinton River Lake St. Clair shoreline was borde r ed by extensive swamp had over 1,295 hectares of wetlands, but by 1973 that amount fo r ests, wet prairies and wet meadows. Shallow water area s had been reduced to 221 hectares (Edsall et al., 1988 in Wil c o x contained a nearly continuous band of emergent marsh, while and Maynard, 1996). Agriculture and urban, residential, and deeper water supported large beds of Vallisneria americana, an rec r eational development (e.g., marinas) are the major causes im p o r tant food for waterfowl (Minc, 1997). The Clinton River, of wetland loss. a tributary to the lake, has been declared an AOC. Fr om depth surveys of the Detroit River in the 1870s, wetlands The Detroit River connects Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie. It is 51 and large submergent macrophyte beds were nearly continuous kilometers long and drops only 0.9 meters along its length. along the shores in historic times. Emergent marshes extended The shoreline stretches 127 kilometers on the U.S. side and inland from 0.3 meters to 2.0 meters in depth and were some- several islands occur in the river, with the largest, Grosse Isle, times over one kilometer wide, especially near the mouths of trib- near its mouth. About 95 percent of the total flow in the river utaries such as the Rouge River. Tod a y , around 87 percent of the enters from Lake St. Clair, and the remainder flows from tribu- U.S. shoreline of the Detroit River has been filled and bulkhead- taries and sewer systems, which drain a watershed of 1,844 ed (Manny and Kenaga, 1991 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). sq u a r e kilometers. The natural shoreline consists of clay banks, but 87 percent of the U.S. shoreline is now artificial with Threats revetments and other shoreline hardening struc t u r es. Commer- Th r eats to the estuarine systems in this subregion become more cial traffic on the river is heavy and Detroit is the busiest port se v e r e in the southern portions and connecting channels. The on the Great Lakes. The Detroit River and the Rouge River (a no rt h e r n Lake Huron watershed is still mostly forested, with the tr i b u t a r y) have both been identified as Areas of Concern main impacts to coastal wetlands resulting from rec re a t i o n a l (W ilcox and Maynard, 1996). boating and marina development, shoreline development, and mechanized vegetation clearing in the coastal zone. Due to its Habitat Issues la r ger population relative to the north e r n half of Lake Huron , the stressors on Saginaw Bay’s wetlands are even grea t e r . In Status and Trends addition, toxic contamination due to resuspension of contami- No comprehensive estimates of coastal wetland loss are avail- nated sediment, continued drainage for agricultural purposes, able for this subregion. Main causes for wetland losses have and exotic species such as zebra mussels, carp, and purple been shoreline modification, road construction, filling for loosestrife threaten the integrity of Saginaw Bay wetlands. urban and res o r t residential development, and dredging and channelization associated with marina development. The Sagi- On the St. Clair River, continued shoreline hardening, filling, naw Bay area historically contained some of Michigan’s most channelization and dredging along the shores fragment the few extensive coastal wetlands, but extensive drainage for agricul- remaining wetlands along the river, and urban encroa c h m e n t tu r e and ongoing pumping of diked wetlands for farming pur- continues to cause wetland loss and impairment. Ship wakes poses have resulted in substantial losses. fr om large commercial vessels are an important stressor to sh o r eline habitats, including remnant coastal wetlands, by Some wetland loss appears to have occurred along the shores er oding the shoreline and hampering the establishment of of the St. Clair River above the delta, but there is no compre- aquatic macrophytes (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). hensive estimate of the extent of loss. Almost all of the U.S. sh o r eline of the St. Clair River consists of residential, rec r e- Most of the U.S. shoreline of Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair ational and industrial developments and has been extensively Delta is now developed with marinas, urban or res i d e n t i a l modified. Wetland loss in the river appears to be largely rel a t - developments. Urban, rec r eational and agricultural encroa c h - ed to extensive bulkheading, shoreline hardening, filling, chan- ment continues to threaten existing wetlands and make res t o r a - nelization and dredging along the shores of the river. tion very challenging. Another major stress is the diking of wetlands. About half of the wetlands in Lake St. Clair and the Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair Delta have been extensively St. Clair Delta have been diked. They are managed mainly for studied in terms of wetland loss. On the Michigan side of the wa t e r fowl hunting at the expense of other wetland functions. lake and delta, 4,375 hectares, or 51 percent, of the original Diking isolates these wetlands from the upland and lake environments, and many wetland functions are impaired. Furth e r - Tobico Marsh Hydrologic Study mo r e, the diversity of wetland habitats are decreased since Tobico Marsh Hydrologic Study was completed by Resource water level controls are used to maintain particular vegetation Management Group, Inc., under contract to Bay County, utiliz- and environmental conditions. Other stressors to these wet- ing funds provided by the Michigan Department of Natural lands include sediment and nutrient loading from tributaries Re s o u r ces under the Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initia- and invasive species (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). tive. The purpose of the study was to determine the nature and extent of historic changes within the Tobico Marsh watershed Many human stressors continue to impact remaining wetlands and determine marsh management options for the future. on the Detroit River, including erosion from shipping, shoreline modification, dredging and channelization, excess nutri- Crow Island State Game Area Master Plan ents, contamination of water and sediments with toxic chemi- State ownership of the Crow Island State Game Area began in cals, agricultural and urban encroachment, and invasive non- 1953. The Game Area lies within the Saginaw Bay lakeplain, for- indigenous species (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). merly characterized by swamp forest, wet and wet-mesic prairie and emergent marshes. The management plan was developed for Restoration Plans the purposes of providing rec r eation, protecting biodiversity and im p r oving waterfowl production. Examples of habitat manage- Lake Huron Initiative Plan ment objectives include restoring specified areas (including prior Initiated by the Department of Environmental Quality’s Michi- co n v e r ted wetlands) to functional marshes through control l i n g gan Office of the Great Lakes with the U.S. Environ m e n t a l water levels, plantings and prescribed burns . Pr otection Agency and Environment Canada as partners, The Lake Huron Initiative Action Plan identifies issues of impor- Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area Master Plan tance to Lake Huron, actions that need to be taken to prot e c t The Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area is located in the east cen- and res t o r e the Lake Huron ecosystem, and development of tral portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, lying along the pa r tnerships to begin undertaking effo r ts that cannot be west side of the Saginaw Bay. The Michigan Department of accomplished by individual agencies alone. The plan identifies Natural Resources’ overlying intent of management at Nayan- immediate future actions focusing on two key issues: critical quing Point is based on providing suitable habitat to enhance pollutants and use impairments, and fish and wildlife popula- the welfare of the wildlife res o u r ce. Improved habitat will serve tions (habitat and biodiversity). the needs of local and migrant waterfowl, shoreb i r ds and other wetland wildlife species. Specific management goals and Measures of Success: Addressing Environmental Impairments actions are outlined for species, water level control, land acqui- in the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay sition and a barrier beach in the Wildlife Area . The Saginaw Bay Watershed, located along Michigan’s east coast on Lake Huron is Michigan’s largest watershed and is the Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area Management Plan la r gest contiguous freshwater coastal wetland system in the The Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area (WBWA) has an east and west United States. The Measures of Success rep o r t was prep a re d unit, both located in Michigan’s Arenac County in the Saginaw and produced under the guidance of the Partnership for the Bay area. The Plan’s goals and objectives were developed in Saginaw Bay Watershed and rep r esents the collective thoughts response to the Michigan Department of Natural Resource s ’ of technicians, public officials (federal, state and local), stake- co n c e r n for the protection and propagation of wildlife and holders and watershed citizens. It provides a brief account of enhancement of the associated habitat types, as well as the the historical practices responsible for impairments identified pu b l i c ’ s desire for the rec r eational use of the area. The goal is in the Saginaw River/Bay Remedial Action Plan, celebrates to provide essential habitat for migratory and resident wildlife pro g r ess to date in addressing the problems, and prop o s e s and rec r eational opportunities for hunting, trapping and measurable goals for the future. In reg a r d to wildlife and habi- wildlife viewing. Its objectives are: to maintain viable popula- tat, it identifies protecting the ecological integrity of the tions of all plants and animal species native to the area with an remaining coastal marsh areas for use by fish and wildlife as the emphasis on waterfowl and other wetland-related species; to single most important goal in sustaining the diversity and operate and maintain facilities in a cost- effective manner with abundance of species. The area below the 585-foot contour agricultural practices (intensive management) not prom o t e d ; within Saginaw Bay and the lower portions of the Bay’s tribu- and to manage for specific rec r eational and species targe t s . ta r y streams are identified as the critical coastal marsh areas in Land acquisition activities are noted as a primary management need of protection and res t o r a t i o n . co n s i d e r a t i o n .

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Quanicasse Wildlife Area Management Plan with related action items, such as installation of specified water The Quanicasse Wildlife Area is located along the south shore level control systems. of Lake Huron ’ s Saginaw Bay. This part of the Saginaw Bay is a valuable marsh and wetland wildlife habitat. The Michigan Plan Elements De p a r tment of Natural Resources’ primary management goal is to pres e r ve this area for wildlife, thereby preventing future res i - Goals dential or commercial development which would ultimately Goals in the Lake Huron subregion focus on restoring and de s t r oy wildlife values. As such, the main objective relates to maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of land acquisition with management of the area consisting of the waters, tributaries, and nearshore terrestrial and aquatic pre s e r ving the marsh in its natural condition. ecosystems. This includes identifying and protecting existing high-quality fish and wildlife habitat sites, as well as the Saginaw Bay Wetlands Initiative - Phase II ecosystem processes req u i r ed to sustain such areas. The Sagi- A proposal prep a r ed by Ducks Unlimited and presented to the naw Bay’s Measures of Success plan ref e r ences the goal of cre- No r th American Wetlands Conservation Council, the Saginaw ating 500 acres of wetlands annually for the next 15 years. Bay Wetlands Initiative - Phase II continues and broadens a successful multi-year multi-partner effo r t to protect and res t o r e Methods wetlands and adjacent habitat on public and private lands with- The Lake Huron Initiative discusses many actions needed to in Michigan’s Saginaw Bay watershed. The focus of Phase II pr otect and res t o r e habitat for the short- t e r m (one to three will be protection and restoration of Great Lakes coastal years) and long-term (longer than three years). Examples marshes and their associated habitats along Saginaw Bay, include identifying dams and other barriers that are having expansion of existing state and federal wildlife areas with the major ecological impacts; pursuing long-term rem e d i a t i o n restoration of newly acquired lands where possible, and eff o r ts; supporting development of upstream fishways and restoration and enhancement of small wetlands and associated do w n s t r eam passage facilities; and developing lakewide or uplands important for waterfowl production on private lands sh a r ed policies on dams, dam removals, maintaining run - o f - th r oughout the watershed. the-river flows, and dam ret i r ement funding approaches.

St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area Master Plan Elements of Success The St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area is located in southeastern In discussing key concepts for protecting and restoring impor- Michigan on the delta of the St. Clair River as it enters Lake tant habitats, the Lake Huron Plan identifies achieving no net St. Clair and is managed by Michigan’s Department of Natural loss of productive capacity of habitats as a sign of success. The Re s o u r ces. Some of the primary objectives to pres e r ve or Saginaw Bay’s Measure’ s of Success plan ref e r ences the goal of im p r ove wetland type habitat for game and non-game species cr eating 500 acres of wetlands annually for the next 15 years ar e: to provide a refuge and food supply for migrating water- and states that it is not the physical limitations but rather the fowl, shoreb i r ds and wading birds; and provide more hunting economic and social implications of wetland restoration that op p o r tunities and improved quality hunting experiences. Sev- may make this goal difficult to achieve in the short- t e r m. The eral work items are discussed reg a r ding wetland wildlife includ- social and economic cost of removing land from agricultural ing vegetative control, water level management, control l e d pr oduction may be too high. For this reason, protecting the bu r ns and land acquisition. ecological integrity of the remaining coastal marsh areas for fish and wildlife is the most important single goal for success- St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area Habitat Development Plan fully sustaining the diversity and abundance of species in the The St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area is located in southeastern Saginaw Bay. As with the other subregions, involving stake- Michigan, along the north e a s t e r n shoreline of Lake St. Clair’s holders and coordinating with other effo r ts are important to Anchor Bay. The marsh makes up the north e r n portion of the the success of the plans. St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area. The Habitat Development Plan’s goal is to pres e r ve, protect and enhance existing marsh and Information Needs upland habitats (3,000 acres), to meet the needs of bree d i n g Th e r e is a need for additional information to better understand and migratory waterfowl, along with other wildlife species, the natural processes that support the estuarine systems and while providing practical rec r eational opportunities for the the ecology of species of concern in order to ensure that con- benefit of all people. To meet the plan’s goal, the Michigan se r vation management is most effective. Additional informa t i o n De p a r tment of Natural Resources established 17 objectives reg a r ding economic assessment of wetlands and alterna t i v e ecologically sustainable economic activities will also be very few wetlands and beds of submergent macrophytes are pres e n t im p o rt a n t . in the upper reaches of the river associated with the low sandy sh o r es of islands (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996).

LA K E ER I E SU B R E G I O N Habitat Issues

Description Status and Trends The Lake Erie subregion includes Lake Erie and the Niagara Along the U.S. shore of Lake Erie, large areas of coastal wet- Ri v e r . Lake Erie is the smallest of the Great Lakes in water vol- lands have been lost over the past 150 years, especially in the ume, as well as the most shallow, and has a ret e n t i o n / re p l a c e - we s t e r n basin of the lake. Prior to 1850, an extensive coastal ment time of 2.7 years. Lake Erie is the most southern of the marsh and swamp system covered an area of approx i m a t e l y Gr eat Lakes, and its more moderate climate is marked by the 122,000 hectares between Ver milion, Ohio and the mouth of appearance of a distinctively southern floristic component. In the Detroit River in Michigan, and extending up the valley of addition, the shallow waters of Lake Erie respond rapidly to the Maumee River. This was part of the Black Swamp, a vast the annual thermal heating and cooling cycle, creating a dis- wetland complex 160 kilometers long and 40 kilometers wide tinct growing season environment. However, its east-west ori- (H e rd e n d o r f, 1987 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). As a res u l t entation parallel to the prevailing storm track makes Lake Erie of the development of Toledo at the mouth of the Maumee ve r y susceptible to the passage of storms. Lake Erie is noted for and the extensive agricultural drainage throughout the water- its severe storms, intense wave action and rapid water level shed, this extensive estuarine system has been nearly complete- changes (Herde n d o r f and Krieger, 1989 in Minc, 1997). ly converted. Tod a y , only about 5,300 hectares of western Lake Er i e ’ s coastal marshes remain (Bookhout et al., 1989 in Wil c o x A large number of coastal wetlands border the low-lying shore- and Maynard, 1996). Site specific incremental loss is still lines and estuaries of western Lake Erie in Michigan and Ohio. oc c u r ring from dredging and filling, especially near harbors, Along the U.S. shoreline of Lake Erie there are 87 wetlands, marinas and waterfr ont developments. encompassing more than 7,937 hectares (Herde n d o r f et al., 1981b in Minc, 1997). Wetlands of Lake Erie are pred o m i n a n t - Th e r e have been no specific studies on wetland loss in the Nia- ly lagoon, embayed and drowned river mouth emergent marsh- gara River, but many wetlands have been reduced in size or es. Many have barrier beaches, but several have been diked for lost, and both the Niagara and Buffalo Rivers have been in c r eased shoreline protection and intensive wetland manage- de c l a r ed AOCs. A large portion of the U.S. shoreline is devel- ment (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). oped, especially in the Buffalo area where extensive filling has oc c u r red. For instance, the Tif ft Street area in Buffalo was for- The coastal wetlands of Lake Erie support the largest diversity merly the largest emergent marsh on the eastern end of Lake of plant and wildlife species in the Great Lakes. The moderate Erie; it was fragmented and largely filled for industrial and rail- climate of Lake Erie and its more southern latitude allow for road development. Similarly, the marsh and submergent macro- many species not found along the north e r n Great Lakes. As a phyte beds around Rattlesnake Island and in small embayments result of this diversity, coastal wetlands of Lake Erie prov i d e in the Tonawanda Channel have been filled or dredged for res - habitat for many rare species of plants and wildlife, such as idential or marina developments (New York State Departm e n t Pennsylvania smartweed, Jeffe r s o n ’ s salamander, spotted gar of Environmental Conservation, 1994 in Wilcox and Maynard, and king rail, and rare wetland communities such as coastal 1996). meadow marsh (shoreline fen) occur at several locations (W ilcox and Maynard, 1996). Threats The quality of many of Lake Erie’s remaining wetlands has The Niagara River drains Lake Erie into Lake Ontario. It flows been and continues to be degraded by numerous stres s o r s , no r therly from Lake Erie at Buffalo, N.Y., to Lake Ontario, at especially excessive loadings of sediments and nutrients, con- Niagara-on-the-Lake. Over the river’s 58-kilometer course, it taminants, shoreline hardening, dredging, filling, changes in dr ops almost 100 meters in elevation; 56 meters occurring as sediment budgets, exotic species and diking of wetlands. the river cascades over the Niagara Escarpment at Niagara Falls. The fast flow of the river has historically precluded wet- While excess loadings of phosphorus from point and nonpoint land development along some reaches of the river (Minc, so u r ces have reduced over the last two decades due to control 1998), and many wetland areas have been degraded or lost. A me a s u r es, nitrogen loadings from nonpoint sources, mainly

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat agricultural run o f f, have increased in several watersheds dation for developing a Lake Erie habitat restoration and pro- (R i c h a r ds and Baker, 1993 in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). tection plan and outlines screening criteria to assist in selecting Many stretches of the U.S. shoreline in western Lake Erie have and highlighting habitat projects that will most strongly sup- been modified with dikes, revetments or other shoreline struc - po r t the goals of the Lake Erie LaMP. tu r es for protection of built-up areas and agricultural fields against periodic high water levels and potential for flooding, Management Plan for Old Woman Creek National Estuarine er osion and prop e r ty damage. While diking allows for more Research Reserve and State Nature Preserve intensive management of waterfowl and other fauna, it also iso- The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve lates it from the open waters of the lake, thus impairing many was established in Ohio in 1980 and currently encompasses wetland functions. 571 acres of protected estuarine lands and waters. The res e rv e management plan was approved by NOAA in 2000. Importa n t The extensive use of revetments and other struc t u r es has limit- habitats that may be useful for investigation and as ref e re n c e ed the supply of sediments in the littoral drift in western Lake sites include upland forests and old-field succession, swamp Erie. As a result, the barrier beaches and sand spits that prot e c t fo r ests, freshwater marshes, streams and a barrier beach along wetland plants from wave action are no longer being rep l e n - Lake Erie. Restoration priorities include stream corridor buffe r ished at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of erosion. As a strips and exclusion of carp from the estuary, and serving as a result, these wetlands are becoming increasingly exposed to ref e r ence site. Current restoration projects include stream bank wave erosion. Examples occur along Cedar Point in Ohio and st a b i l i z a t i o n . Woodtick Peninsula in Michigan. The restoration of Metzger Marsh, a 300-hectare wetland embayment protected from Erie Marsh Restoration Project waves by a barrier beach, involved the establishment of a dike The Erie Marsh Restoration Project is a proposed project of to mimic the protective function of the lost barrier beach. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Erie Marsh, located 15 miles Fi n a l l y , one of the most common stressors in wetlands along southwest of Monroe, Mich., is composed of 1,100 acres of the shore of Lake Erie is invasive non-indigenous species diked marshland and 1,068 acres of open water. The area sited including purple loosestrife, zebra mussels and carp. for restoration, Widgeon Hole, is 83 acres near the center of the marsh. The area will be managed for Phragmites australis In addition to many of the stressors discussed above, the Nia- co n t r ol. Necessary steps include draining the Widgeon Hole, gara River also is impacted by water withdrawal. More than pr escribed burning to remove biomass, and herbiciding the half of the flow of the Niagara River is diverted for power pro- Phragmites followed by flooding. The site will be managed to duction, causing dewatering of some marsh areas. This is exac- pr omote native plant species and attract waterfowl by rec re a t - erbated in some areas by road crossings, which restrict wetland ing marsh habitat. The restoration will serve as a pilot proj e c t hy d r ology (Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). to determine whether Great Lakes marsh habitat can be res t o r ed within a system that is controlled by dikes. It will be Restoration Plans mo n i t o r ed by TNC to determine the success of invasive species removal, viability of native seed bank versus manual Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan seeding of the site, and locations and abundance of the state- The Lake Erie LaMP is being developed by 20 federal and state th r eatened Eastern fox snake. agencies along with the Lake Erie Binational Public Forum, a gr oup of Lake Erie citizens interested in improving the lake. Lake St. Clair/Western Lake Erie Watershed Project The LaMP contains appropriate funded and proposed (non- A Ducks Unlimited proposal to the North American Wet l a n d s funded) actions for restoration and protection to bring about Co n s e r vation Council, the Lake St. Clair/Wes t e r n Lake Erie actual improvement in the ecosystem. Actions include commit- Watershed Project will continue and broaden existing effo r ts to ments by the Parties, governments and reg u l a t o r y programs, as pr otect and res t o r e wetlands and adjacent habitat on public and well as suggested voluntary actions that could be taken by non- private lands within the Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie go v e r nmental partners. watershed including the Detroit River. The focus of the proj e c t will be on protection and restoration of Great Lakes coastal The Lake Erie LaMP has defined loss of habitat as a major marshes and their associated habitats, expansion of existing state st r essor and a beneficial use impairment. Several habitat proj - and federal wildlife areas, and restoration and enhancement of ects have been completed over the years and a number of oth- small wetlands and associated uplands important for waterfo w l ers are underway or proposed. Additionally, it proposes a foun- pr oduction on private lands throughout the watershed. Erie State Game Area Master Plan of emergent and submergent aquatic plant communities. Man- Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Erie State Game agement practices including de-watering (drawdown), or flood- Ar ea is located in the extreme southeastern corner of Michi- ing by pumping or gravity flow, may be necessary to assist ga n ’ s Monroe County on Maumee Bay, an estuary of Lake Erie. na t u r e in maintaining the desired balance. The primary objectives of the master plan are to pres e r ve and maintain wetland habitat for game and non-game species; to Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan res t o r e and create up to 2,000 acres of marsh; to prov i d e The Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan was prod u c e d in c r eased nesting cover, food and resting area for migrating by the Ohio Lake Erie Commission (Commission), a state wa t e r fowl; to provide increased rec r eational hunting opportu - agency comprised of the directors of the Ohio Department of nities near a heavily populated area in Michigan, and to pro- Natural Resources, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, vide for public uses such as wildlife viewing, photography and and the Departments of Agriculture, Development, Health, trapping. The plan proposes a barrier island be constructed to and Tra n s p o r tation. In 1998, the Commission released the Lake pr event further erosion and installation of water control struc - Erie Quality Index, which evaluated 10 separate indicators of tu r es and pumps. Lake Erie quality, including habitat. The evaluation of indicators showed positive trends, as well as areas with little prog re s s Lake Erie Marshes Focus Plan to w a r d mitigating impacts of past practices. The Quality Index A flagship project under the North American Wat e r fowl Man- set environmental, rec r eational and economic goals and objec- agement Plan’s Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Basin Joint tives. The plan identifies 84 specific recommendations to Ven t u r e, the Lake Erie Marshes Focus Plan encompasses the accomplish these goals and objectives and includes prot e c t i o n Ohio counties of Lucas, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky and Erie. and restoration of valuable coastal prop e rt i e s . Managed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Divi- sion of Wildlife in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wil d l i f e Strawberry Island/Motor Island Shallows Restoration Plan Se r vice, the proj e c t ’ s goal is to provide at least 17,540 addi- The Strawberry Island/Motor Island Shallows is located near tional acres of high quality wetland habitat in the Lake Erie the southern tip of Grand Island where it has been endangered Marsh (Great Black Swamp) region. To meet this goal, two due to gravel dredging and the erosive forces of the Niagara major habitat objectives have been identified: 1) wetland habi- Ri v e r ’s strong currents and ice flows. Strawberry Island, the tat protection; and 2) wetland habitat restoration and enhance- up s t r eam sentinel of the complex, once totaled more than 200 ment. Wetland habitat protection is defined in a broad sense ac r es of wetland habitat and forest but now consists of only and includes any legal arrangement that results in habitat pro- five acres. The New York State Department of State offi c i a l l y tection and/or req u i r es an expenditure of time or money to designated this area a “significant coastal fish and wildlife habi- bring about. The protection goal is 10,764 acres, with 7,639 in tat.” A $1 million restoration project is underway to prot e c t fee title acquisition. The wetland habitat restoration and sh o r elines and res t o r e the endangered aquatic habitat. The enhancement goal is 6,776 acres on federal, state and private pr oject is jointly sponsored by a variety of federal, state and la n d s . local government and natural res o u r ce management orga n i z a - tions, and it is funded by the New York State Clean Pointe Mouillee State Game Area Master Plan Water/Clean Air Bond Act and State Department of Tra n s - The Pointe Mouillee State Game Area is located on the Lake po r tation funds. Erie shoreline in the southeast corner of Michigan between De t r oit and Toledo. Phase 1 of the project called for res t o r a - Plan Elements tion of 1,900 acres of marsh through construction of dikes and installation of water control struc t u r es, duplicating the forme r Goals cr eeks and channels that existed in the marsh in the early Goals in lakewide plans that benefit wetlands are general, 1950s. Phase II of the plan involves basic marsh management including coordination of management effo r ts, protection of (no construction) such as de-watering the lake bottom between existing estuarine systems, reducing contaminant loading, man- the barrier island and dikes by pumping and establishing emer- aging phosphorus, managing changes in land use, control l i n g gent plant communities on the exposed mud flats. The res t o re d exploitation by sport and commercial harvest, and creating and marsh will be maintained in as natural a condition as possible restoring natural landscapes. with free flow of waters from Lake Erie. Changes in this basic plan will take place only where changes in Lake Erie water lev- Methods els or other factors cause deterioration in the optimum grow t h Methods include reducing toxic and sediment loads, perma -

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat nent land protection (through purchase or easement), expand- en t i r e lake ecosystem. ing res e a r ch, coordinating management among various agencies, controlling exotic species through herbicide use and pre- The St. Lawrence River is the sole outlet of the entire Grea t scribed burning, managing rec r eation, re-establishing native Lakes. From its origin near Wolf Island, it flows north e a s t vegetation, restoring natural littoral processes, restoring natural between New York and Ontario for 182 kilometers before lake level fluctuations, and expanding education and outreach. entering the Province of Quebec. Water level and flows for this section of the St. Lawrence River have been reg u l a t e d Elements of Success since the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. Key elements of success include public education and involve- Since then, dams and water control struc t u r es have grea t l y ment, cooperation and coordination of a wide range of stake- changed the character of the river and its wetlands. The Thou- holders, and achieving prog r ess on measurable indicators of sand Islands section lies in the uppermost reach of the river. It success related to the particular estuarine system to be res t o re d has a rocky shoreline and many islands, bays and shoals with (e.g., increase in target species population and expansion of extensive wetlands. Downstream from the Thousand Islands, vegetated area s ) . the St. Lawrence River goes from a single deep and wide channel with fast currents and a relatively uniform shoreline to a Information Needs lacustrine-like system (created as a result of dam construc t i o n The plans acknowledge the need for additional information to for the Seaway) with extensive wetlands located at cree k apply sufficient understanding of the natural processes that mouths, in embayments and surrounding islands (Grant, 1995 su p p o r t the estuarine systems and the ecology of species of in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). co n c e r n in order to ensure that conservation management is most effective. The response of target species to the res t o r a t i o n Habitat Issues activities will be monitored, and this information will be used to modify future restoration effo r ts. Status and Trends Along the entire U.S. shore, Lake Ontario wetland losses have been estimated to be near 60 percent (Busch et al., 1993 in LA K E ON TA R I O SU B R E G I O N Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Most of the losses are associated with the heavily populated areas surrounding Oswego and Description Ro c h e s t e r , but losses have also occurred as a result of res o r t The Lake Ontario subregion includes Lake Ontario and the St. residential and marina development, especially around large La w r ence River to the Quebec borde r . Lake Ontario is the ba r rier beaches. Three Areas of Concern (AOC) are located in smallest of the Great Lakes in surface area (18,960 square kilo- the Lake Ontario subregion including Eighteen Mile Cree k , meters) but is relatively deep, with an average depth second Rochester and Oswego in New Yor k . only to Lake Superior. Water levels in the lake are controlled by dams and locks in the St. Lawrence River, and natural lake level Water levels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have fluctuations have been dampened significantly (Minc, 1997). been regulated in the lake since construction of the St. La w r ence Seaway in 1959. Prior to regulation, the range of Along the U.S. side, Lake Ontario is borde r ed by low glacial water level fluctuations during the 20th century was about two till bluffs. As a result, most of Lake Ontario’s shoreline (85 per- meters. Following regulation, this range was reduced slightly cent) is characterized by regular shorelines sloping rapidly into between 1960 and 1976 and was reduced to about 0.9 meters deep waters, which preclude extensive wetland development after 1976. The lack of alternating flooded and de-watered (Minc, 1997). In the U.S. portion of Lake Ontario, 168 wet- conditions at the upper and lower edges of the wetlands lands covering 5,529 hectares are present (Herde n d o r f et al., de c r eased wetland area and the diversity of plant and wildlife 1981a in Wilcox and Maynard, 1996). Wetlands are most communities (Busch et al., 1990; Wilcox et al., 1993 in Wil c o x abundant along the eastern end of the lake owing to sand accu- and Whillans, 1999). Upland species became more prev a l e n t mulation in the form of barrier beaches. Dominant wetland along the upper edges of the wetlands, emergent communities types include barri e r -beach lagoons and partially barred lacus- declined in area, aquatic macrophyte beds increased, and inva- trine estuaries (Minc, 1997). In addition to these emergent and sive plants began to dominate wetland communities. Extensive su b m e r gent marsh communities, there also are some swamps stands of cattail are now established in these wetlands, and and a few rare shoreline fen communities. These coastal wet- many areas are dominated by purple loosestrife, reed canary land systems provide important fish and wildlife habitat for the grass and various shrubs. The St. Lawrence River has experienced a wide variety of envi- Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s St. Lawrence Valley and Northwest Counties ronmental disturbances since the channel was modified for focus areas. The plan sets five-year goals which include pro- shipping purposes. The largest disturbance was associated with tecting 5,000 acres of wetland and associated upland habitat the construction and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway. th r ough acquisition and conservation easements, restoring and Impacts include inundation from dams, regulation and stabi- enhancing 9,000 acres of wetland habitat, and reducing sedi- lization of water flows, and direct impacts from dredging and ment, nutrient and toxic loading into Lakes Erie and Ontario. filling. The St. Lawrence River is a focal point for a stron g res o r t residential and tourist economy. Like other parts of the French Creek Wildlife Management Project Gr eat Lakes system, this has brought with it shoreline develop- The French Creek Wildlife Management Area is located in the ment, road construction, and dredging and filling associated town of Clayton in Jefferson County, 20 miles north of Wat e r - with marina development and operation. town, N.Y. It consists of 2,265 acres of small streams, cattail marshes, open meadows and upland hardwood forest that pro- Threats vide habitat for endangered, threatened and species of concern The remaining wetlands in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawren c e including the American bald eagle, osprey , black tern, Bland- River are affected by several human stressors, including manip- ings turtle, pugnose and blackshin shiners, and a variety of ulation of lake levels, toxic contaminants, high sediment loads, mi g r a t o r y waterfowl and fur-bearing species. In order to miti- excess turbidity related to urban and agricultural run o f f, excess gate the negative effects of the St. Lawrence Seaway System’s nutrients, shoreline modification, dikes and rev e t m e n t s . hy d ro l o g y , the restoration project involves design and con- Sm a l l -scale wetland loss continues as a result of shorel i n e st r uction of an earthen dam and innovative gate water level development, especially around large barrier beaches and near co n t r ol system. The system provides the flexibility for curren t la r ger cities, and dredging and filling associated with harbors, and future biodiversity management needs with the ability to marinas and waterfr ont developments. adjust water levels while allowing fish passage.

Restoration Plans Plan Elements

Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan 2000 Goals The Lake Ontario LaMP contains appropriate funded and pro- Goals in these plans range from the very broad (e.g., society posed (non-funded) actions for restoration and protection to acts with responsible stewardship of the Lake Ontario basin) to bring about actual improvement in the ecosystem. the more specific. Specific goals include long-term maintenance of functioning dune and bluff barrier systems, managing Eastern Lake Ontario Megasite Site Conservation Plan rec r eation on undeveloped portions of the barrier dune and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has prep a r ed a Site Conserva - beach systems, and maintaining a mosaic of healthy wetlands tion Plan for the Eastern Lake Ontario Dune and Wet l a n d to support populations of the vast assemblage of rare and com- Complex, which includes a core of 16,000 acres, along 17 mon plants and animals. miles of Lake Ontario shoreline in Oswego and Jeffe r s o n Counties, New York. The plan identifies long-term conserva - Methods tion goals and describes a proposed five-prong approach to Methods include reducing toxic and sediment loads, prot e c t i n g co n s e r vation and restoration of ecoregional targets. Targ e t s land through conservation easement or purchase; expanding include Great Lakes dunes and the coastal marsh ecosystems, res e a r ch and the application of scientific information; coordi - and species such as the Champlain beachgrass, bog buckmouth nating management among various agencies; controlling exotic and bog turtle. The plan also identifies the following declining species; managing rec r eation; re-establishing native vegetation; and vulnerable bird targets: black tern, American bittern, sedge restoring natural lake level fluctuations; and expanding educa- wr en, and migratory stopover habitat for landbirds, shoreb i rd s , tion and outreach. raptors and waterbirds . Elements of Success Eastern Great Lakes Lowlands Program Area Strategic Plan Key elements of success include public education and involve- Ducks Unlimited’s Eastern Great Lakes Lowlands Program Area ment, cooperation and coordination of a wide range of stake- Strategic Plan covers 32,500 miles of low-lying lake plain habi- holders, and achieving prog r ess on measurable indicators of tats in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Plan establishes su c c e s s . focus areas, with some addressing coastal wetlands such as

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Information Needs su p p o r t the estuarine systems and the ecology of species of The plans acknowledge the need for additional information to co n c e r n in order to ensure that conservation management is apply sufficient understanding of the natural processes that most effe c t i v e .

RE F E R E N C E S

Ch o w - F r a s e r , P., and D. Albert. 1999. Biodiversity Investment Hy d r ogeomorphic Factors and Ecosystem Responses in Ar eas Coastal Wetland Ecosystems: Version 3: State of the Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands, Vol. 9, No. 4., Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998. Jo u r nal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.

Co m e r , P. J. 1996. Wetland Trends in Michigan Since 1800: a Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Work Group. 2000. Lake pre l i m i n a r y assessment. Erie Lakewide Management Plan.

Ducks Unlimited. 1999. Michigan Upper Peninsula Coastal Lake Michigan Technical Committee. 2000. Lake Michigan Wetland Proj e c t . Lakewide Management Plan.

Ducks Unlimited. 2000. Eastern Great Lakes Lowlands Program Lake Superior Binational Program. 2000. Lake Superior Lakewide Area Strategic Plan. Management Plan.

Ducks Unlimited. 2000. Saginaw Bay Wetland Initiative - Phase Marine Advisory Service. 1985. Lake Michigan. Extension Bul- II. letin E-1867.

Ducks Unlimited. 2001. Lake St. Clair/Wes t e r n Lake Erie Me r ryfield, N., E. Epstein, A. Galvin, E. Judziewicz, W. Smith. Watershed Proj e c t . 2000. A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wet - lands of Wis c o n s i n ’ s Great Lakes. En v i r onmental Protection Agency. 1980. Great Lakes America. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of the Gr eat Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of Environ - Gr eat Lakes. March 2000. Lake Huron Initiative Action Plan. mental Protection Agency. 1988. The Great Lakes: An Envi- ronmental Atlas and Resource Book. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. 1977. Erie State Game Area Master Plan 1977-1987. He rd e n d o r f, C.E. and S.M. Hartl e y , and M.D. Barnes, eds. 1981. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Great Lakes Coastal Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. Wetlands within the United States. Volume one: Overvi e w . 1977. Muskegon State Game Area Master Plan 1977-1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. FW S / O B S - 81/o2-v1. 469 pages. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. 1977. Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area Master Plan 1977-1987. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Indiana Wet- lands Conservation Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. 1977. Quanicassee Wildlife Area Master Plan 1977-1987. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana Lake Michi- gan Coastal Program. 2001. Indiana Dunes: Dunes Creek and Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. the Great Marsh. 1977. St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area Master Plan 1977-1987.

Ka v e t s k y , Robert. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lansing, Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. Michigan. Personal Communications. 1977. Wildfowl Bay State Game Area 10-Year Management Plan 1977-1987. Keough, J.R., T.A. Thompson, G.R. Guntenspergen, and D. Wilcox. 1999. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division.

C 4 • Regional Analyses of Restoration Planning 1991. St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area Habitat Development Plan Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wil d l i f e , 1991-2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Lake Erie Marshes Focus Area Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. 19 9 2 . Tobico Marsh State Game Area Master Plan. Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 2000. Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. 1994. Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area Management Plan. Ohio Wetlands Task Force. 1994. Report & Recommendations.

Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1999. 1995. Munuscong Wildlife Area Management Plan: An Ecosystem Management Plan for Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Conservation and User Accommodation Approach. Research Reserve and State Nature Preserve.

Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. Public Sector Consultants Inc. 2000. Measures of Success: 1996. Crow Island State Game Area 5-Year Master Plan. Ad d r essing Environmental Impairments in the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay. Michigan Department of Natural Resource s - W ildlife Division. Point Mouillee State Game Area Master Plan. Re s o u r ce Management Group. 1995. Tobico Marsh Hydrol o g - ic Study. Michigan Sea Grant, and Michigan State Extension. 2000. The Gr eat Lakes Basin. Stapp, William B. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michi- gan. Personal Communications. Michigan Wetland Advisory Committee. 1997. Michigan’s Wetland Conservation Strategy. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee. 2001. Draft Habitat Plan for the Lower St. Louis River. Minc, L.D. 1997. Vegetative Response in Michigan’s Coastal Wetlands to Great Lakes Wat e r -Level Fluctuations: Michigan The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 1994. The Conservation of Natural Features Inventory. Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Op p o rt u n i t i e s . Minc, L.D. 1998. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: An Overvi e w of Controlling Abiotic Factors, Regional Distribution, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000. Chequamegon Bay Species Composition: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Watershed Site Conservation Plan.

Minc, L.D., and D.A. Albert. 1998. Great Lakes Coastal Wet - The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000. Eastern Lake Ontario lands: Abiotic and Floristic Characterization: Michigan Natural Megasite Site Conservation Plan. Fe a t u r es Inventory. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000. Site Conservation Plan Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Departm e n t for Red Banks and the Door Peninsula and Islands Landscape Sites. of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, and Minnesota The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000. Tow a r d a New Con- De p a r tment of Tra n s p o r tation. 1997. Minnesota Wetlands Con- se r vation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Itera- servation Plan. tion.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Minneso- The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2001. Erie Marsh Restora- ta ’ s Lake Superior Coastal Prog r a m . ti o n .

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wisconsin Departm e n t Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Ven t u re . of Natural Resources. April 1995. The St. Louis River System 1998. Implementation Plan. Remedial Action Plan Progress Report.

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Wilcox, D., and L. Maynard. 1996. Coastal Wetlands: State of New York State Department of Environmental Conserva t i o n , the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996. and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1998. Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario. Wilcox, D., and T. Whillans. 1999. Techniques for Restoration of Disturbed Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wet l a n d s , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Coastal Prog r a m . Vol. 9, No. 4., Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists. 2001. 2001 Planned Activities.

Whillans, T.H. 1987. Wetlands and aquatic res o u r ces. In: M.C. Healey and R.R. Wallace, eds. Canadian Aquatic Resource s , Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 215, 321- 35 6 . C H A P T E R 5

Conclusions

National Strategy calls for habitat restoration on an regions reviewed. These species use estuarine and coastal habi- Aun p r ecedented scale. We are now ready to undertake this tats as nesting and nursery grounds, and play an important rol e new level of coastal and estuarine habitat res t o r a t i o n . in the economy of many coastal communities. Key threa t s ❖ Tens of thousands of people already participate in res t o r a - (past, present and future) identified in all the regions include: tion activities through schools and community groups. di r ect habitat alteration; point and nonpoint source pollution; ❖ Advances in restoration science have enabled countless suc- invasive species; sea level rise; res o u r ce harvesting and extrac- cessful restoration projects and an increased understanding tion; subsidence; and modification to hydrol o g y . of coastal and estuarine systems. ❖ All levels of government, from towns and counties, to state The restoration plans reviewed for each region also rev e a l e d and federal agencies, are leading restoration effo r ts. similar goals, methods, elements of success and informa t i o n ❖ The emerging industry of restoration is ready to be engaged. needs among the regions. Common restoration goals include restoration of lost or degraded habitat and function, forma t i o n The findings and recommendations presented here provide a of partnerships and cooperative effo r ts, development of a framework for a coordinated and consistent response to the st r ong scientific basis for restoration, setting regional priorities, loss and degradation of coastal and estuarine habitat. This developing plans with an ecological approach, enhancement of National Strategy is based on knowledge gained in prior public education and outreach effo r ts, and utilization of best decades, existing planning effo r ts, and the recognition that available science and technology. Common res t o r a t i o n public and private interests must work together to achieve methodologies were found in restoration plans from several of restoration goals. the regions reviewed. These methods include eradication of nuisance species, removal of fill, creation of fish passages, con- A National Strategy pr ovides all those concerned about the st r uction of shellfish beds, and the transplantation of sub- fu t u r e of coastal and estuarine habitats with tools to set priori- me r ged aquatic vegetation from nurseries or existing seagrass ties and allocate res o u r ces to achieve our target – ensuring that be d s . we can achieve sustainable, productive and diverse coastal and estuarine habitats for present and future generations. The success of restoration projects can be attributed to a number of key factors. Several restoration plans from diffe re n t RE STO R AT I O N PL A N N I N G I N T H E regions identified similar elements of success, including effe c - COA STA L UN I T E D STAT E S tive partnerships, education and outreach effo r ts, availability of adequate and sustained funds, use of best available technology, Common Elements implementation of scientifically sound monitoring prot o c o l , In the review of restoration plans within each region, many use of defined success criteria, and a standard tracking system. common elements were identified in terms of key habitats, In most of the regions, plans acknowledged coordination and species and threats, as well as common plan elements such as connectivity among restoration planning and programs, but goals, methods and elements of successful restoration. The th e r e is a need to encourage and build on what is already being regional analyses also revealed many similarities among the done. In all of the regions, many of the most successful res t o r a - regions and indicate similar needs for restoration and res t o r a - tion projects were those that were part of an overall watershed- tion planning throughout the United States. wide plan.

Shellfish beds, marshes and intertidal flats were identified as The science of restoration is still evolving and growing. Many key habitats in at least three of the regions reviewed. These of the regions identified similar information and res e a r ch needs habitats are critical to estuarine and coastal ecosystems and are to expand the body of knowledge that exists today. Informa - im p o r tant for many aquatic species. Several key species grou p s , tion needs range from basic information reg a r ding ecosystem including submerged aquatic vegetation, commercial and rec r e- st ru c t u r e and function and an assessment of current status and ational fish, and migratory birds, were found in most of the needs to the effects of habitat alterations. Many regions identi-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat fied a need for better definitions of success for monitoring and In the Northeast Atlantic region, planning and res t o r a t i o n evaluation of projects. In addition, a need was identified for eff o r ts are underway from the Gulf of Maine to Chesapeake prioritization of critical habitats and restoration needs, as well Bay to res t o r e the health of the estuaries. A variety of federal, as an effective means of information synthesis and transfer. regional and state plans have been developed to address habitat restoration issues. Local entities, including city and county Unique Findings go v e r nments, nonprofit conservation organizations and other The review of restoration effo r ts across the United States also community groups also are participating in many successful revealed some significant diffe r ences in the level of res t o r a t i o n restoration planning effo r ts. planning in diffe r ent regions. In some regions, extensive regional and subregional plans were identified, while other In the Great Lakes region, it is important to note that coastal regions were found to be in the very beginning stages of wetland restoration planning as a whole is still in the beginning planning. stages. Most coastal wetland planning effo r ts are conducted as pa r t of broader ecological effo r ts. Many estuarine systems have Although regional estuarine restoration planning is still devel- only recently been formally identified as target areas for pro- oping in the Pacific Northwest, examples of regional planning tection or restoration by agencies or nongovernmental orga n i - ar e the Salmon Recovery Plan in Washington and the Lower zations. Additionally, there are many coastal wetland areas that Columbia River Estuary Plan for Oregon and Was h i n g t o n . have been res e a r ched and inventoried, or identified as needing Plans also exist for individual estuaries and sub-basins. A restoration, but have yet to undergo formal restoration or man- national estuarine restoration strategy and federal funding agement planning. would contribute significantly to the development and implementation of comprehensive regional estuarine res t o r a t i o n FI N D I N G S A N D RE C O M M E N DAT I O N S st r a t e g i e s . ■ Habitat Restoration Ca l i f o r nia has several regional restoration planning effo rt s , including San Francisco’s coastal zone management effo r t and Finding So u t h e r n Californi a ’ s Wetlands Recovery Restoration Strategy. Estuaries are uniquely productive natural systems that perfo r m In the Pacific Islands, there are very few compreh e n s i v e vital and irreplaceable ecosystem services. Healthy estuaries are restoration plans for estuarine habitats. This absence of plan- cr ucial to continued economic and ecological pros p e r i t y . Tak - ning is alarming because the populations of these islands are ing action to res t o r e these vital res o u r ces will provide long- in c r easing at an extremely high rate and the majority of the te r m benefits. populations inhabit coastal areas. Several government agencies ar e gathering baseline data that would allow planning effo r ts to Discussion pro c e e d . Healthy estuaries and coastal habitats contribute to our economic base through tourism, rec r eational and commercial fish- Several excellent programs and plans have been developed for ing, aquaculture and other income-producing business sectors. restoration of the Gulf Coast. The Gulf of Mexico Prog r a m Healthy coastal habitats such as wetlands and riparian fores t s pr ovides an example of the effective use of partnerships in trap sediment and nutrients and serve as a buffer to prot e c t restoration effo r ts. This program is a partnership of 18 federal communities from devastation caused by flooding. By res t o r i n g agencies, state agencies from the five Gulf sates, and diverse function to these important habitats, we can res t o r e the invalu- public and private organizations. The Coast 2050 plan is a able services they provide. Coordinating restoration activities strategic plan for the survival of Louisiana’s coast and coastal in the same watershed or estuary enables evaluation of overall communities and promotes restoration and protection on a benefits to the ecosystem. coast-wide basis, involving federal, state, and local entities as well as landowners, environmentalists and scientists. Recommended Action Implement coordinated restoration projects to provide healthy In the Southeast Atlantic region, restoration programs and ecosystems that support wildlife, fish and shellfish; improve the plans are being primarily implemented as regional or state- quality of surface water and ground water; enhance flood con- strategies. A review of restoration plans and programs deter- tr ol; and increase opportunities for outdoor rec r eation. mined that there is significant duplication of effo r t within and among federal and state initiatives. ■ Restoration Partnerships tats. The knowledge, skills and technologies exist to make substantial improvements in the near term. Finding Pa r ticipation and coordination among diverse public and pri- ■ Science and Technology vate groups is a necessary component of successful res t o r a t i o n . Mo r e than sixty federal programs are equipped to play a role in Finding habitat restoration, and dozens of state and local programs and The best available restoration science and technology is no n g o v e r nmental organizations are actively restoring habitat. req u i r ed for successful project design, implementation and monitoring. In every coastal region of the United States, more Discussion in f o r mation is needed on how to best res t o r e the basic func- In order to maximize effectiveness at the federal, state and tions of habitat. local levels, public and private restoration partnerships need to be created and implemented. Restoration plans should encour- Discussion age partnership development among diverse stakeholders and Re s e a r ch on restoration science and technology is ongoing, include a high degree of hands-on community involvement. and restoration planning and projects should reflect this chang- Sharing and disseminating effective models for program coor- ing body of knowledge. Coastal regions have much to offe r dination will encourage new and stronger partnerships. one another in terms of innovative and successful approa c h e s to restoration. It is important to develop a mechanism for Recommended Action br oad distribution of information and share lessons learned in Cr eate and maintain effective restoration partnerships that the field of restoration. Technical guidance is needed on res t o r - include diverse public and private organizations and agencies ing priority habitats, potential benefits and drawbacks of rec - to maximize effectiveness at the federal, state and local levels. ommended restoration techniques, monitoring plans, and me a s u r es for evaluating project success. Sharing information on ■ Restoration Planning and Priority-Setting restoration case studies, applied restoration techniques and me a s u r es for evaluating project success on a regional and a Finding national scale also is rec o m m e n d e d . Th e r e are substantial gaps in estuarine habitat restoration planning in every region of the coastal United States. In many estu- Recommended Action aries, no planning effo r t has focused directly on estuarine habi- Apply the best appropriate restoration science and technology tat restoration. in project design and implementation.

Discussion ■ Evaluation and Monitoring Ap p r oaches to estuarine habitat restoration will vary accordi n g to specific local and regional needs, including loss of historic Finding habitat and associated values, and current priorities and goals. Evaluating prog r ess in coastal and estuarine habitat res t o r a t i o n On - t h e - g r ound restoration projects are most effective when at the project, estuarine and national scales is essential to long- they are part of a larger planning effo r t that sets goals and pri- te r m success. orities. In order to promote regional approaches to res t o r a t i o n planning and evaluate the success of existing regional res t o r a - Discussion tion planning effo r ts, regional workshops should be held with Th r ough project monitoring and tracking of prog r ess at the rep r esentatives from agencies and organizations engaged in watershed level, restoration program managers and practition- restoration. ers can assess the effectiveness of their effo r ts and incorporate new information and techniques in project design and water- Recommended Action shed-level priorities. In order to evaluate the success of res t o r a - Use the Regional Analyses and planning frameworks in A tion planning, regional workshops should be held with rep r e- National Strategy to take the next step in habitat res t o r a t i o n sentatives from agencies and organizations engaged in res t o r a - planning in each estuarine and coastal region of the United tion and planning to identify existing gaps in informa t i o n , States. In most cases, this will include completing coastal and develop mechanisms for information exchange, and highlight estuarine habitat restoration plans. This action should not pre- successful techniques and partnerships. clude or delay restoration action in coastal and estuarine habi-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Recommended Action ■ Funding Regularly evaluate prog r ess toward restoring function to coastal and estuarine habitat to determine whether the Finding ap p r oaches in A National Strategy ar e making a diffe r ence. A The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 authorizes $275 million national database with regional focus should serve as a tool for over five years for estuarine habitat restoration projects and restoration practitioners and managers to assist in evaluation. calls for leveraging existing public and private res o u r ces to maximize the effectiveness of restoration effo rt s . ■ Outreach and Education Discussion Finding The Estuary Restoration Act provides an excellent opportu n i t y The restoration and maintenance of healthy estuaries will to fund restoration activities that otherwise would go unfund- req u i r e the long-term support of a broad cross-section of the ed. Sufficient funding, both public and private, should be made public, including those who live on or near the coast and those available to implement restoration planning activities, on-the- who live inland. gr ound projects, monitoring and outreach measures rec o m - mended in the Act. Because estuaries provide substantial bene- Discussion fits to the regions in which they are located, governments at all Successful restoration effo r ts req u i r e an informed public willing levels should demonstrate strong support for estuarine res t o r a - to support the policies, funding and changes in lifestyle neces- tion. Funded restoration projects should be cost-effective, tech- sa r y to res t o r e and maintain estuaries as healthy and prod u c t i v e nically feasible, scientifically sound and address restoration pri- ecosystems. Local stewardship will facilitate long-term conser- orities in their local, regional and national plans. vation and success at these restoration sites. Recommended Action Recommended Action Fully fund the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 and maintain or Facilitate community and volunteer involvement in construc - in c r ease existing state and federal funding source s . tion, maintenance and monitoring of coastal and estuarine habitat restoration projects. A P P E N D I X

Federal Restoration Programs

U.S. AR M Y CO R P S O F EN G I N E E R S PRO G R A M S navigation projects may be implemented. These projects are co s t - s h a r ed (75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal) Contact: Ar my Corps of Engineers District Offi c e s with public entities and nongovernmental orga n i z a t i o n s . ww w. u s a c e . a rm y. m i l / i n e t / f u n c t i o n s / c w / c u s t o m e r / a d d re s s 1 . h t m Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206) Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 Ma n d a t e : Section 206 of the Water Resources Development De s c r i p t i o n : Encourages the restoration of estuarine habitats Act of 1996, as amended. th r ough enhanced coordination of federal and non-federal De s c r i p t i o n : Section 206 authorizes a cost-shared prog r a m eff o r ts, and through financing of efficient and innovative local, (65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal with a $5 mil- state and regional projects. Subject to annual appropriations by lion per project federal limit) to carry out aquatic ecosystem Co n g r ess, the legislation authorizes $275 million over five restoration projects that will improve the quality of the envi- years to implement a comprehensive approach that will call ronment, are in the public interest and are cost effective. It fos- upon public-private partnerships to reverse the deterioration of ters partnerships with public and nonprofit sponsors. Proj e c t s estuaries by restoring essential habitat that has been degraded pe r mitted under this program are those that res t o r e aquatic by population growth, dams and pollution. ecosystem struc t u r e and function.

Civil Works Specifically Authorized Projects Project Modifications for Improvement of the Ma n d a t e : Various Water Resources Development Acts. Environment (Section 1135) De s c r i p t i o n : As authorized by Congress and working with Mandate: Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development local sponsors, the Army Corps of Engineers may study and Act of 1986, as amended. co n s t r uct estuarine restoration projects. Several studies are De s c r i p t i o n : Section 1135 provides authority to modify the ongoing in the Pacific Northwest and Gulf Coast areas. Studies st ru c t u r es or operations of previously constructed Army Corps ar e cost-shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal, of Engineers water res o u r ces projects, or address areas degrad- and the ecosystem restoration portions of authorized proj e c t s ed by Corps projects, to improve the quality of the environ - ar e cost-shared 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal. ment in the public interest. This is a cost-shared program (75 pe r cent federal and 25 percent non-federal with a $5 million Planning Assistance to States (Section 22) per project federal limit) involving public entities and non- Ma n d a t e : Section 22 of the Water Resources Development go v e r nmental organizations. Act of 1974, as amended. Description: Pr ovides authority for the Army Corps of Engi- Flood Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Program neers to assist states, tribes, local governments and other non- (Challenge 21) federal entities with the preparation of comprehensive plans for Ma n d a t e : Section 212 of the Water Resources Development the development, utilization and conservation of water and Act of 1999, as amended. related land res o u r ces. This is a cost-shared program (50 per- De s c r i p t i o n : As authorized, the Flood Mitigation and Riverine cent federal and 50 percent non-federal) and funds are limited. Restoration program emphasizes the use of nonstruc t u r a l Each state and tribe may receive a maximum of $500,000 annu- ap p r oaches to preventing or reducing flood damages, and al l y , but they typically receive much less. co o r dination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal, state and local agencies and tribes. Proj e c t s Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204) ca r ried out under this authority may have structural elements. Ma n d a t e : Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Pr ojects must significantly reduce potential flood damages, Act of 1992, as amended. im p r ove the quality of the environment, and be justified con- De s c r i p t i o n : Pr ojects for the protection, restoration and cre- sidering all costs and beneficial outputs. Partnerships with ation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including other agencies, especially the Federal Emergency Management wetlands, in connection with dredging and authorized federal Ag e n c y , are stressed in developing projects under this cost-

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat sh a r ed program (approximately 65 percent federal and 35 per- nomic, rec r eational and aesthetic values. cent non-federal with a federal limit of $30 million per proj - Co n t a c t : Coastal Management Branch (NEP Headquarte r s ) ect). U.S. EPA (4504F) 401 M Street SW EN V I RO N M E N TA L PRO T E C T I O N AG E N C Y Washington, DC 20460 PRO G R A M S phone: (202) 260-6502 fax: (202) 260-9960 Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management ww w. e p a . g o v / o w o w / e s t u a r i e s / t e x t / n e p . h t m Program Ma n d a t e : Clean Water Act FI S H A N D WI L D L I F E SE RV I C E PRO G R A M S De s c r i p t i o n : Under Section 319, states, territories and Indian tribes receive grants for technical assistance, financial assis- Coastal Program tance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration De s c r i p t i o n : The Coastal Program focuses the Fish and pr ojects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific non- Wildlife Servi c e ’ s effo r ts in bays, estuaries and watersheds point source implementation proj e c t s . ar ound the U.S. coastline. The purpose of the Coastal Prog r a m Co n t a c t : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats to support Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503F) healthy coastal ecosystems. The Service provides funding Ariel Rios Building th r ough the program to 15 high-priority coastal ecosystems. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Co n t a c t : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e Washington, DC 20460 Branch of Habitat Restoration, Room 400 ww w. e p a . g o v / o w o w / n p s / c w a c t . h t m l 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Clean Water State Revolving Fund phone: (703) 358-2201 Mandate: Clean Water Act. fax: (703) 358-2232 De s c r i p t i o n : The Clean Water State Revolving Fund ww w. f w s . g o v / c e p / c e p c o d e . h t m l (CWSRF) program is a partnership between EPA and the states. It allows states the flexibility to provide funding for National Coastal Wetlands Conservation pr ojects that will address their highest-priority water quality Grant Program needs and leverage limited dollars. The Clean Water State Ma n d a t e : The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Revolving Fund prog r a m ’ s primary mission is to promote water Restoration Act. qu a l i t y . Description: The goal of the National Coastal Wetlands Con- Co n t a c t : Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch se r vation Grant Program is to acquire, res t o r e and enhance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wetlands of coastal states and the trust terri t o r i e s . 401 M Street, SW (Mail Code 4204) Co n t a c t : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e Washington, DC 20460 Division of Fish and Wildlife Management phone: (202) 260-7359 Assistance and Habitat Restoration fax: (202) 260-1827 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Room 840 ww w. e p a . g o v / o w m i t n e t / c w s rf . h t m Arlington, VA 22203 phone: (703) 358-2201 National Estuary Program fax: (703) 358-2232 Mandate: Clean Water Act. ww w. f w s . g o v / c e p / c w g c o v e r. h t m l Description: The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established to identify, res t o r e and protect estuaries along the coasts Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program of the United States. Unlike traditional reg u l a t o r y approa c h e s Mandate: Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; Fish and Wil d l i f e to environmental protection, the NEP targets a broad range of Co o r dination Act of 1958. issues and engages local communities in the process. The pro- Description: The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Prog r a m gram focuses not just on improving water quality in an estuary, works with private landowners to res t o r e, enhance and crea t e but on maintaining the integrity of the whole system – its fish and wildlife habitat. chemical, physical and biological prop e r ties, as well as its eco- Co n t a c t : Division of Habitat Conserva t i o n Damage Assessment and Restoration Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e Ma n d a t e : Clean Water Act (CWA), Comprehensive Environ - 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 400 mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, Arlington VA 22203 also ref e r red to as Superfund Act), the Oil Pollution Act of phone: (703) 358-2201 1990 (OPA), and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act fax: (703) 358-2232 (NMSA) and other federal laws. ww w. f w s . g o v / c e p / c e p c o d e . h t m l De s c r i p t i o n : The mission of the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) is to res t o r e coastal and marine NAT I O N A L OC E A N I C A N D AT M O S P H E R I C res o u r ces that have been injured by releases of oil or hazardo u s AD M I N I ST R AT I O N PRO G R A M S substances and to obtain compensation for the public’s lost use and enjoyment of these res o u r ces. NOAA’s damage assessment Coastal Protection and Restoration Program and restoration activities address injuries resulting from three Ma n d a t e : Co m p r ehensive Environmental Response, Compen- types of incidents: long-term releases of hazardous substances sation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and other federal laws and and oil spills; catastrophic spills (primarily oil); and physical executive orde r s . in j u r y to National Marine Sanctuary res o u r ces (e.g., ship Description: The mission of this program is to protect and gr oundings on coral ree f s ) . res t o r e natural res o u r ces affected by hazardous waste sites and Contact: NOAA/Damage Assessment and Restoration contaminated sediments in coastal areas. The program supports Pro g r a m integrated cleanup and restoration strategies to protect coastal SSMC4, Room 10218 species and their habitats at contaminated sites, and develops 1305 East West Highway decision-making tools to improve remedial and res t o r a t i o n Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281 planning on a watershed-wide basis. To accomplish res t o r a t i o n ww w. d a r p . n o a a . g o v / of natural res o u r ces and their services, the program obtains funding for, plans, implements and monitors restoration proj - Marine Sanctuaries Program ects by working cooperatively with cleanup agencies, res p o n s i - Mandate: The National Marine Sanctuaries Act. ble parties and other natural res o u r ce trustee agencies. De s c r i p t i o n : The mission of NOAA’s National Marine Sanctu- Contact: NOAA Coastal Protection and Restoration Division ar y Program is to serve as the trustee for the nation’s system of 7600 Sand Point Way , NE marine protected areas, and to conserve, protect and enhance Seattle, WA 98115 their biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural legacy. Its phone: (206) 526-6938 goals are appropriate to the unique diversity contained within fax: (206) 526-6865 individual sites. They may include restoring and reb u i l d i n g ww w. re s p o n s e . re s t o r a t i o n . n o a a . g o v marine habitats or ecosystems to their natural condition or monitoring and maintaining already healthy area s . Community-Based Habitat Restoration Co n t a c t : NO A A ’s National Marine Sanctuaries De s c r i p t i o n : The Community-Based Restoration Prog r a m ’ s 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor objective is to bring together citizen groups, public and non- Silver Spring, MD 20910 pr ofit organizations, industry, corporations and businesses, phone: (301) 713-3125 youth conservation corps, students, landowners, local govern- fax: (301) 713-0404 ment, and state and federal agencies to res t o r e fishery habitat ww w. s a n c t u a r i e s . n o s . n o a a . g o v / w e l c o m e . h t m l ac r oss coastal America. The program partners with national and regional organizations to solicit and co-fund proposals for National Estuarine Research Reserve System locally driven, grassroots restoration projects that addres s Ma n d a t e : Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. im p o r tant habitat issues within communities. De s c r i p t i o n : The National Estuarine Research Reserve System Contact: NOAA Restoration Center (NOAA/RC) is a network of protected areas established to improve the 1315 East-West Highway health of the nation’s estuaries and coastal habitats by develop- Silver Spring, MD 20910 ing and providing information that promotes informe d phone: (301) 713-0174 res o u r ce management. fax: (301) 713-0184 ww w. n m f s . n o a a . g o v / h a b i t a t / re s t o r a t i o n / c o m m u n i - ty / i n d e x . h t m l

A N S to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Contact: NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division Wetlands Reserve Program 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor Ma n d a t e : Co n g r ess authorized the Wetlands Reserve Prog r a m Silver Spring, MD 20910 (WRP) under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by ww w. o c rm . n o s . n o a a . g o v / n e rr / the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills. De s c r i p t i o n : The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a vol- NAT U R A L RE S O U RC E A N D CO N S E RVAT I O N un t a r y program offering landowners the opportunity to pro- SE RV I C E PRO G R A M S tect, res t o r e, and enhance wetlands on their prop e rt y . The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) pro- Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program vides technical and financial support to help landowners with Ma n d a t e : The Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of their wetland restoration effo r ts. The NRCS goal is to achieve 1996, Section 387, amended the 1985 Food Security Act (Farm the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum Bill) authorizing the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Prog r a m wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This (WHIP) as a voluntary approach to improving wildlife habitat pr ogram offers landowners an opportunity to establish long- in the United States. te r m conservation and wildlife practices and protection beyond De s c r i p t i o n : The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Prog r a m that which can be obtained through any other USDA prog r a m . (WHIP) is a voluntary program for people who want to devel- Co n t a c t : State programs and contact informa t i o n : op and improve wildlife habitat primarily on private lands. It ww w. n h q . n rc s . u s d a . g o v / p ro g r a m s / w r p / s t - p ro g . h t m pr ovides both technical assistance and cost-share payments to General Informa t i o n : help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. ww w. n h q . n rc s . u s d a . g o v / p ro g r a m s / w r p / Co n t a c t : State programs and contact information: ww w. n h q . n rc s . u s d a . g o v / p ro g r a m s / w h i p / s t a t e s . h t m General informa t i o n : ww w. n h q . n rc s . u s d a . g o v / p ro g r a m s / w h i p / A NATIONAL STRATEGY – Partners and Participants

We wish to thank the following agencies, organizations, and Contributing Authors individuals for their participation and support: Wil Cwikiel, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Amy Eckstein, People for Puget Sound Federal Partners and Parti c i p a n t s Joe Geever, American Oceans Campaign U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alisha Goldberg, Galveston Bay Foundation U.S. Department of Agriculture Jennifer Grei n e r , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e U.S. EPA – National Estuary Prog r a m Sara Kaplaniak, The Nature Conserva n c y U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Coastal Prog r a m Kate Killerlain, People for Puget Sound National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kelly McAloon, Restore America’s Estuaries The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Ter ry McTigue, NOAA – National Ocean Servi c e En v i r onmental Technology Andy Nyman, Louisiana State University U.S. Geological Surve y Vic Pyle III, Environmental & Ecological Consulting Servi c e s Denise Reed, University of New Orleans No n - G o v e r nmental Partners and Parti c i p a n t s Tracy Skrabal, North Carolina Coastal Federation American Littoral Society Cu r tis Tan n e r , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi c e American Oceans Campaign Jacques White, People for Puget Sound Association of National Estuary Prog r a m s Chesapeake Bay Foundation Members of National Strategy work teams, reviewers of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana regional analyses, participants in National Strategy wo r k s h o p s Coastal States Orga n i z a t i o n Su p p o rt e r s Co n s e r vation Law Foundation FishAmerica Foundation Estuarine Research Federation Homeland Foundation Galveston Bay Foundation The Moriah Fund The Nature Conserva n c y C.S. Mott Foundation No r th Carolina Coastal Federation The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation People for Puget Sound The New York Community Trus t s Save San Francisco Bay Association Pew Charitable Trus t s Save the Bay Save the Sound NOAA Advisors: Ma r y Matta, Russell Bellmer, Dail Brown, Tampa BayWat c h Jim Burgess, Amy Zimmerling, Audra Livergo o d Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Pr oject Leader: Steve Emmett-Mattox, Restore America’s Estuaries Restore America’s Estuaries es t o r e America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of community-based environmental organizations from the East, West, and Gulf Rcoasts with a combined membership of over 250,000 citizens. Its mission is to pres e r ve the nation’s network of estuaries by protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America’s Estuaries is leading a national campaign to res t o r e one million acres of estuarine habitat by the year 2010.

Pre s i d e n t : Mark Wol f - A rm s t ro n g Pr ogram Direc t o r : Steve Emmett-Mattox Development Direc t o r : Rick Bates Co n f e r ence Coordinator: Heather Bradley National Policy and Science Director: Suzanne Giles Pr ogram Associate: Nidhi Rana

Bo a r d of Direc t o r s : John Atkin, Will Baker, Dery Bennett, Peter Clark, Mark Davis, Kathy Fletcher, Doug Foy, David Lewis, Todd Miller, Curt Spalding

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OAA was founded in 1970 to predict environmental changes, protect life and prop e rt y , provide decision-makers with rel i a b l e Nscientific information, and foster global environmental stewardship. Tod a y , several NOAA programs are involved in res t o r i n g degraded coastal and estuarine habitats, advancing the science underlying coastal and estuarine restoration, and transferring res t o r a - tion technology to the private sector and other public agencies. There can be no purpose more inspiring than to begin the age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us.

—Edward O. Wilson

Restore America’s Estuaries National Oceanic and 3801 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 53 Atmospheric Administration Arlington, VA 22203 14th & Constitution Ave., N.W. 703/524-0248 phone Washington, DC 20230 703/524-0287 fax 202/482-6090 phone www.estuaries.org 202/482-3154 fax www.noaa.gov

E P R I N T E D O N R E C Y C L E D PA P E R U S I N G S O Y-B A S E D I N K S