INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island Narragansett, Rhode Island USA • #40 • Fall 2001 FOCUS ON: Coastal Management: In Search of Success By William Matuszeski health of the coastal resources Baltic Sea. But, little has actually been here are now a great many themselves.These kinds of results written up for the professional audi- IN SEARCH OF SUCCESS COASTAL MANAGEMENT: COASTAL Tcoastal management efforts are fewer and more difficult to pin ence on how these places have been underway throughout the world. down. saved. As your Guest Editor, I have These undertakings have resulted in This issue of InterCoast seeks out only limited overseas experience and many studies, new institutions, and success stories and tries to explain contacts. So I found it easiest to draw Highlights commitments to bring change. what made them happen. It draws upon friends and colleagues here in Especially where integrated coastal heavily upon experience in the the US to put their experiences to 4 USA to Thailand: management has been tried across a United States.This is not because paper. Transferring range of issues, agencies and inter- there are no success stories else- The result is a set of articles in this Lessons Learned ests, there have been ongoing where.We all know of progress in issue by remarkably talented practi- efforts to evaluate success. But, the coastal resource restoration and tioners—people who almost never 6 Tampa Bay, USA ultimate measures of success must protection being made worldwide have the time to sit down and write be the recovery and sustained from the Great Barrier Reef to the out what happened and why. I know (continued page 2) 8 Singapore River and the Kallang Basin Chesapeake Bay, USA: Lessons 10 Cuyahoga River, USA Learned from Managing a Watershed By Ann Pesiri Swanson effort is designed to work within The Chesapeake Bay 12 he Chesapeake Bay is the the highly participatory framework The Chesapeake Bay has often been Boston Harbor, largest and most productive USA T of the American democratic cul- referred to as the “crown jewel” of the estuary in the United States and ture. Multiple players are involved United States’ 850 estuaries. Located among the most productive in the 14 at every stage of the restoration midway along the east coast of the Puget Sound, USA world. Efforts to restore the process including various levels of United States, it extends 180 miles Chesapeake Bay are now more than government, private citizens, and (290 km) from the tidal reaches at the 16 two decades old, and there are businesses.The lessons outlined in mouth of the Susquehanna River in San Francisco Bay, many lessons we have learned.This this paper are put forth with trans- Maryland to Cape Charles,Virginia, USA paper is intended to highlight some ferability in mind. Some may be where it meets the Atlantic Ocean. It of these lessons and to identify directly transferable to similar cuts across virtually the entire north- some of the successes experienced restoration efforts elsewhere in the south length of two states—Maryland Theme in the effort to manage the bay as a world. Others may need to be and Virginia— helping to define their Advisor: single ecosystem, including all of modified in order to work within landscape, their cultures, and their its waters and the land that defines the ecological, cultural, or political economies. William its watershed. framework of a given region or As an estuarine system, the Matuszeski The Chesapeake Bay restoration country. Chesapeake Bay is highly complex. (continued page 28) Matuszeski about restoring the underwater (continued from page 1) grassbeds in Tampa Bay. this because it was difficult to get An overseas success story comes many of them to do it for you. INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT from Singapore, where L.M. Chou These are folks who are accus- Executive Editor: outlines how a coordinated govern- Stephen B. Olsen tomed to being in the field—out ment effort cleaned up the Editor: Noëlle F. Lewis there making things happen. I hope Singapore River and the Kallang Designer: Matt Castigliego you will join me in thanking them Basin. A great many difficult deci- InterCoast is an internat- for taking time out to tell their sions had to be made and many ional newsletter of coastal stories. people had to change their liveli- management, published three We start with Chesapeake Bay, hoods and their lifestyles, but a times each year by the Coastal the place I am most familiar with. I clear action plan and broad support Resources Management counted Ann Swanson among my brought measurable results. Project of the University of closest and most capable colleagues Back in the states, we look at Rhode Island's Coastal during the decade I spent with the two infamous examples of pollu- Resources Center (CRC) and Bay Program.The Chesapeake is tion where there were concerted the U.S. Agency for America’s largest estuary, and International Development efforts and major turnarounds.The worldwide is exceeded in size only Cuyahoga River in Cleveland is (USAID). Funding to publish by the Ob in northern Siberia.The InterCoast is provided by right up there with the Santa Chesapeake Bay Program is the USAID's Global Environment Barbara Oil Spill as a touchstone Center and the National granddaddy of US coastal restora- for the awakening of America’s Institute for Coastal and tion efforts, and the issues it deals environmental consciousness.This Marine Mangement,The with are as vast as its enormous was the river that was so polluted Netherlands. watershed and as complex as the it caught fire and burned in 1969. InterCoast’s objective is to interactions in its 700,000 acres Since then, it has seen a remarkable facilitate information exchange (280,000 hectares) of shallows. recovery.This past summer at the on coastal management issues. Ann’s article captures the key les- Coastal Zone ‘01 Conference in Readers are invited to contact sons from 25 years of intensive Cleveland, US, I sat in an outdoor Noëlle F. Lewis with contribu- management efforts. restaurant on the river in down- tions, questions, and com- Donna Nickerson’s piece ments. town Cleve-land, dining on Great explains how the US National Lakes seafood with friends and InterCoast Estuary Program (NEP) grew out watching the yachts go by. Coastal Resources Center of the Chesapeake Bay effort and University of Rhode Island The other remarkable comeback expanded to eventually encompass has been Boston Harbor.As recent- Narragansett, Rhode Island one-third of the nation’s estuaries. 02882 USA ly as 1988, the waters were so pol- Tel:401 874-6870 She goes on to provide a set of luted that they were an issue in the Fax: 401 789-4670 insights on how the NEP model presidential election campaign. E-mail: [email protected] and experience was applied to a Since then, there has been massive Website:www.crc.uri.edu bay in Thailand, with measurable investment of public funds to InterCoast's policy is to positive results. rebuild the sewage treatment sys- limit submissions to a short Next we turn to Tampa Bay tem of the metropolitan area. Rich essay or summary.The editor Program in Florida.This is a NEP Delaney’s article explains how it all routinely edits submissions with a comprehensive restoration happened and the results so far.The heavily and removes refer- plan, and they have taken the lead ences. Such changes are com- lesson here is that coastal cleanups on a range of issues, including the in urban areas have to deal with the monly made without further impact of deposition of air pollu- consultation with the author. basics of human sewage, and the tants on the water and the living solutions are not cheap. resources of the bay.We asked Keeping finance in mind, we Holly Greening, the Program’s next learn about Puget Sound in Chief Scientist, to take a specific Washington State, one of the first issue and demonstrate how goals NEP to complete its conservation were set and results achieved. She and management plan.We asked has provided us with a myriad of Nancy McKay to focus on how insights related to how they went (continued page 40)

2 InterCoast • Fall 2001 OCEANS AND COASTS AT RIO+10 TOWARDSTHE 2002 WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,JOHANNESBURG ASSESSING PROGRESS,ADDRESSING CONTINUING AND NEW CHALLENGES PARIS,FRANCE DECEMBER 3-7, 2001 Background It has been almost a decade since many important new agreements on oceans and coasts were adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)), including Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, and the oceans-related aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since that time, too, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea has come into force, and several modifications to the con- vention—related to straddling stocks and to deep-seabed mining— have been adopted.There has been much investment in the management of coastal and marine areas by national and international donors, and the number of nations undertaking coastal and ocean management has increased significantly. International entities have done extensive work in providing guidance for sustainable development of coastal and marine resources, and national governments and communities are increasingly experimenting with models of management emphasizing sustainable development, integration, and the precautionary approach. Purpose The Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts at Rio+10:Assessing Progress,Addressing Continuing and New Challenges, to be held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris on December 3 through 7, 2001, is intended to provide an overall assessment of progress achieved on oceans and coasts since the Earth Summit and to provide input to the discussions by governments which will take place in Septemeber 2002 when nations around the world will converge at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) in Johannesburg, South Africa, to assess progress made in the implementation of all aspects of the world agenda on envi- ronment and development agreed to at the 1992 Earth Summit. Conference Structure and Information The conference is organized into 17 panels and 9 working groups. Conference participants will have the opportunity to participate in working groups centered on pressing current issues in ocean and coastal governance. Recommendations drafted by these groups, together with other conference outputs, will provide key input to the discussions by governments which will occur at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 2 to 11, 2002. We kindly invite representatives of ocean and coastal NGOs, IGOs, and governments relevant to the Rio+10 assessment of oceans and coasts to participate in the conference and/or working groups and present information on their views relevant to the oceans and coasts assessment to the conference secretariats for possible distribution at the conference (this information should be present- ed in summary form (no longer than 3 pages) by November 1, 2001. Conference Registration Conference registration fee is $250 USD (postmarked prior to November 1, 2001) and a late registra- tion fee of $400.00 USD after November 1, 2001 (until December 1, 2001) to cover Conference materials, receptions, and refreshments. For conference information, including major conference topics and themes, participation and reg- istration guidelines, and further organizational details please visit the conference website: http://www.udel.edu/CMS/csmp/rio+10/ Pre-registration is required. No registration will be taken at the Conference For Further Information Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware, Robinson Hall 301, Newark, DE 19716 USA. Tel: 302-831-8086. Fax: 302-831-3668. E-mail: [email protected] or Intergovernmental Oceanic Commission, UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France. Tel: 33-1 4568 3938. Fax: 33-1 4568 5810. E-mail: [email protected]

InterCoast • Fall 2001 3 groups that have a stake in the From the USA to Thailand: management area; encouraging Transferring Lessons Learned local communities to take responsi- bility for managing their own estu- Within and Across Borders aries; and practicing ecosystem By Donna Nickerson-Tietze ways to finance implementation. management, which seeks to main- stuarine management has The program is voluntary—estuar- tain the integrity of the whole sys- Eevolved in the US from the ies are nominated by the respective tem including its chemical, physi- Chesapeake Bay Program “experi- state governors. Once part of the cal, and biological properties, as ment” of 1976, to a firmly estab- program, participants are obligated well as its economic, recreational lished national program that cur- under the US Water Quality Act of and aesthetic values.The CBP has rently includes approximately one 1987 to implement the plan. also learned from its own early third of the some 100 estuaries in While each NEP is locally man- years and has evolved individually the US.These estuaries are a part aged by a consensus-based deci- as a program. of the National Estuary Program sionmaking structure that seeks to As with the CBP,the EPA (NEP), which is the product of an balance a representation of four administers the NEP.However, the adaptive learning process in US constituencies (i.e., elected and EPA has taken more of a ‘backseat estuarine management that is in its appointed policymaking officials role’ with the NEP.For example, second generation or ‘cycle’ of from all government levels; envi- the NEP’s program office staffs are development. ronmental managers from federal employees of the lead state agency The NEP was established in state and local agencies; local scien- of each program and take their guidance directly from the NEP

Learning Across Learning Across Borders 1987 and is currently composed of tific and academic communities some 28 individual estuaries or and private citizens and representa- management committee.The EPA “NEPs” located throughout the US tives from public and user interest applied several lessons to the NEP and Puerto Rico.The program groups including businesses, indus- that it had learned in administering seeks to manage human impacts on tries, and community/environmen- the CBP since 1976. Applying these estuarine ecosystems through a col- tal organizations), the management lessons to the NEP has eliminated laborative planning process that structure of each NEP is slightly the often-painful years of learning results in the completion of a com- different. Local needs and values that slows and inhibits progress, prehensive conservation and man- guide the organization of the com- and sometimes discourage partici- agement plan (CCMP) for the mittees and management structure. pants from contributing the hard estuary.The US Environmental This is one of the compelling fea- work that is needed to implement Protection Agency (EPA) funds tures about the NEP that makes its integrated coastal management CCMP development, which typi- guiding principles and management (ICM). It has allowed each NEP to cally takes five years. During this approach ‘transferable’ not only begin with a strong start and also time, the programs come up with nation-wide, to the diverse com- continue learning with its close ties munities found throughout the US, to the CBP. The Steps of the Coastal Management Cycle but also as recent experience has In addition, there exists a close The dynamic nature of coastal management requires feedback shown, to a unique bay community network between NEPs. EPA spon- among the steps and may alter the sequence, or require repetition of some steps outside the US. sors annual national meetings for More sustainable form of coastal management To understand the NEP,it is NEP directors and their staff where important to appreciate its ori- they learn from each other’s pro- gins. It is actually a product of the grams by exchanging ideas, successful Chesapeake Bay progress, problems, and solutions. Program (CBP). In 1986, the US The NEP directors have also inde- Congress was eager to expand the pendently established an association 10 years of experience gained of NEPs, which formalizes their from the CBP to other estuaries network and also allows them to in the US.Therefore, the deal directly with Congress on approach and methods of the NEP many issues including funding.The are based largely on the CBP NEP directors have been as suc- principles of federal/state part- cessful in working together as they nerships; consensus-based deci- have been in their own estuaries. Time sionmaking by the representative One result has been the passage of

4 InterCoast • Fall 2001 Senate bill S835, introduced in tial years of implementation.This credit the NEP with improving and 1999.The primary purpose of this and other similar lessons from strengthening existing legislation, bill is “to encourage the restoration mature NEPs indicate that the as well as redirecting the individual of estuary habitat through more long-term goal of “financial inde- efforts of the agencies and public efficient project financing and pendence” from the sponsoring to a single more efficient coopera- enhanced coordination of federal organization is essential, but pro- tive effort. Altogether, NEPs have and non-federal restoration pro- grams must have steady sources of forged an unprecedented partner- grams and for other purposes.” It funding in the meantime. ship of federal, state, regional, and was the vehicle for the passage of Almost 1.4 million km2 of local interest on estuarine issues. other estuary-related bills, includ- coastal bays and estuarine area is Successful results in the NEP ing a bill to reauthorize the NEP. currently managed under the NEP. have demonstrated the importance This bill extends the NEP five Common issues include: of transferring the lessons learned years into the future, increases the
Nutrient overloading from older estuarine management budget authorization for the NEP,
Pathogens programs to new and ongoing pro- allows federal funds to be used to
Toxic chemicals grams. For example, the CBP took help implement management
Habitat loss and degradation many years to learn that the largest plans, and increases the non-
Introduced species portion of nutrients contributing federal match requirement from
Alteration of natural flow to over enrichment in the estuary 25 percent of federal funds, to regimes was coming from sources located 50 percent.
Declines in fish and wildlife directly on the bay, not from the The new increase in local funds populations watershed.This would likely be the to match federal grant funds con- These estuaries are in various case for other estuaries.The NEPs forms to the NEP principle of rely- stages of development and imple- had the benefit of this experience. ing largely on local sources of mentation. Most have fulfilled the They were encouraged to include funding to sustain the program. mandates of the program. Many as much of the watershed as possi- This has been an important princi- have excelled in realizing the NEPs ble from the outset in defining the ple, and one that has been proven general principles. Some of the boundaries for management.The by many NEPs to be not only earlier programs are mature experience of the CBP illustrated achievable, but a real key to a pro- enough that they can now see envi- that an estuary program must be gram’s sustainability and sense of ronmental impacts resulting from guided by the boundaries of the local ownership. In fact, many the efforts. For example, Buzzards ecosystem in defining the bound- NEPs have been successful in gen- Bay has recently succeeded in aries for management, rather than erating more funds for implemen- reopening 4,000 acres of shellfish the politically defined boundaries tation than they had during the beds. Shellfish beds in Puget Sound of district jurisdictions and states. years when EPA funded their (Washington, US) have also been Other lessons learned from the CCMP development. For example, reopened. Cleaning up Boston CBP experience that were applied from 1986 to 1991, the Buzzards Harbor was a priority activity for to the NEP include the following Bay (Massachusetts, US) NEP had early action by the Massachusetts general principles of: an average yearly budget of about Bay NEP.By 1996, Boston Harbor
Using science as an objective US$500,000 during CCMP devel- had become noticeably cleaner.The foundation to base management opment. Since the CCMP was harbor clean-up has turned into decisions completed, the Buzzards Bay NEP one of the remarkable success sto-
Keeping the scientific work has brought in an annual average of ries of recent years.Thirty years directed towards the initial set of US$840,000 for CCMP implemen- ago,Tampa Bay (Florida, US) was problems tation from 1992-1997.The EPA so polluted that many felt it could
Adapting the management portion of the budget steadily not be restored to health. But structure to fit the needs of the decreased from 75 percent during water quality is now improving; community and how decisions are CCMP development to approxi- soft corals and tunicates have reached, what perceptions are mately 25 percent during imple- returned to some of the most pol- prevalent, and who or what institu- mentation. However, it is impor- luted sections of the bay.While tions are influential tant to note that this transition was water quality regulations began
Emphasizing implementation gradual and over a course of 10 some 10 years before the Tampa of solutions early where probable years.The program needed the Bay NEP was formed, the Tampa causes are generally known and EPA’s financial support for the ini- Bay community and regulators agreed upon (continued page 36)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 5 grass remained in Tampa Bay, a loss Nutrient Management and of more than 35 percent since the Seagrass Restoration in Tampa 1950 benchmark period. Some (about 160 ha) of the observed loss Bay, Florida, USA occurred as the result of direct By Holly Greening ments, has built on the resource- habitat destruction associated with he Tampa Bay estuary is locat- based approach initiated by earlier the construction of navigation Ted on the eastern shore of the bay management efforts. Further, it channels and other dredging and Gulf of Mexico in Florida, USA. At has developed water quality models filling projects within existing sea- more than 1,000 km2, it is to quantify linkages between nitro- grass meadows, and is assumed to Florida’s largest open water estu- gen loadings and bay water quality, be non-restorable through water ary. More than 2 million people and models that link water quality quality management actions. live in the 5,700 km2 watershed, to seagrass restoration goals. In 1996, the TBNEP adopted a with a 20 percent increase in popu- Recent recommendations from bay-wide minimum seagrass goal of lation projected by 2010. Land use the National Academy of Science 15,400 ha.This goal represented in the watershed is mixed, with National Research Council (NRC) 95 percent of the estimated 1950 about 40 percent undeveloped, 35 include those which regional seagrass cover (minus the non- percent agricultural, 16 percent watershed programs might consid- restorable areas), and includes the residential, and the remaining com- er in developing nutrient manage- protection of the existing 10,400 mercial and mining. ment strategies.The NRC recom- ha plus the restoration of an addi- Major habitats in the Tampa Bay mendations are based on the tional 5,000 ha. estuary include mangroves, salt process designed by the Tampa Bay Step 2. Determine seagrass Tampa Bay,Tampa Florida, USA marshes, and submerged aquatic Estuary Program partners to devel- water quality requirements vegetation. Each of these habitats op and implement a seagrass pro- and appropriate nitrogen has experienced significant areal tection and restoration manage- loading rates reductions since the 1950s, due to ment program for Tampa Bay. Once seagrass restoration and physical disturbance (dredge and Three critical steps of the Tampa protection goals were established fill operations) and water quality Bay process are to: by the participants, the next steps degradation, particularly impacting 1.Set specific, quantitative sea- established the environmental the seagrasses due to loss of light grass coverage goals for each bay requirements necessary to meet availability. Five species of seagrass segment agreed-upon goals and subsequent are commonly found in Tampa Bay, 2.Determine seagrass water management actions necessary to with Thalassia testudinum (turtle- quality requirements and appropri- meet those requirements. grass) and Syringodium filiforme ate nitrogen loading targets Determine environmental (manatee grass) dominating in the 3. Define and implement nitro- requirements needed to meet higher salinity areas and Halodule gen management strategies needed the seagrass restoration goal wrightii (shoalgrass) and Ruppia to achieve load targets Recent research indicates that maritima (widgeon grass) usually Step 1. Set quantitative the deep edges of Thalassia tes- found in lower salinities. resource management goals tudinum meadows, the primary The importance of seagrass as a Establishment of clearly defined seagrass species for which nitrogen critical habitat and nursery area for and measurable goals is crucial for loading targets are being set, corre- fish and invertebrates, and as a a successful resource management spond to the depth at which 20.5 food resource for manatees, sea effort. In 1992,TBNEP adopted an percent of subsurface irradiance turtles, and other estuarine organ- initial goal to increase current (the light that penetrates the water isms has been recognized by the Tampa Bay seagrass cover to 95 surface) reaches the bay bottom on Tampa Bay resource management percent of that present in 1950. an annual average basis.The long- community for several decades. In Based on digitized aerial photo- term seagrass coverage goal can 1990,Tampa Bay was accepted into graphic images, it was estimated thus be re-stated as a water clarity the US Environmental Protection that approximately 16,500 hectars and light penetration target. Agency’s (EPA) National Estuary (ha) of seagrass existed in Tampa Therefore, in order to restore sea- Program.The Tampa Bay National Bay in 1950. At that time, seagrass- grass to near 1950 levels in a given Estuary Program (TBNEP), a part- es grew to depths of 1.5 m to 2 m bay segment, water clarity in that nership that includes three regula- in most areas of the bay. By 1992, segment should be restored to the tory agencies and six local govern- approximately 10,400 ha of sea- point that allows 20.5 percent of

6 InterCoast • Fall 2001 subsurface irradiance to reach bay segments.Thus, a management the same depths that were reached strategy based on “holding the line” in 1950. at 1992-1994 nitrogen loading Determine water clarity nec- rates should be adequate to achieve essary to allow adequate light the seagrass restoration goals in to penetrate to the 1950 sea- these segments.This “hold the line” grass deep edges approach, combined with careful Water clarity and light penetra- monitoring of water quality and tion in Tampa Bay are affected by a seagrass extent, was adopted by the number of factors, such as phyto- TBNEP partnership in 1996 as its plankton biomass, non-phytoplank- initial nitrogen load management ton turbidity, and water color. strategy. Water color may be an important As an additional complicating cause of light attenuation in some factor, a successful adherence to bay segments; however, including the “hold the line” nitrogen loading color in the regression model did strategy may be hindered by the not produce a significant improve- projected population growth in the ment in the predictive ability of the watershed. A 20 percent increase regression model. Results of the in population, and a 7 percent modeling effort indicate that, on a increase in annual nitrogen load, bay-wide basis, variation in chloro- are anticipated by the year 2010. tion of the nitrogen target which phyll a concentration is the major Therefore, if the projected loading relates to non-agricultural factor affecting variation in average increase (a total of 17 US tons per stormwater runoff and municipal annual water clarity. year) is not prevented or precluded point sources within their jurisdic- Determine chlorophyll a con- by watershed management actions, tions, a total of 6 US tons of centration targets necessary the “hold the line” load manage- nitrogen per year through the to maintain water clarity ment strategy will not be achieved. year 2010. needed to meet the seagrass Step 3. Define and implement To address the remaining 11 US light requirement nitrogen management strate- tons of nitrogen of the 17 total per An empirical regression model gies needed to achieve load year each year through the year was used to estimate chlorophyll a management goals 2010 needed to “hold the line” concentrations necessary to main- Local government and agency (attributed to atmospheric deposi- tain water clarity needed for sea- partners in the TBNEP signed an tion, industrial, and agricultural grass growth for each major bay intergovernmental agreement (IA) sources and springs), a Nitrogen segment.The adopted segment- in 1998 pledging to carry out spe- Management Consortium of local specific annual average chlorophyll cific actions needed to “hold the electric utilities, industries, and a targets are easily measured and line” on nitrogen loadings.The IA agricultural interests, as well as the tracked through time, and are used includes the responsibility of each local governments and regulatory as intermediate measures for partner for meeting the nitrogen agency representatives in the TBEP, assessing success in maintaining management goals, and a timetable was established.The Nitrogen water quality requirements neces- for achieving them. How those Management Action Plan devel- sary to meet the long-term sea- goals are reached will be left up to oped by public and private partners grass goal. the individual communities as in the consortium combines for Determine nutrient loadings defined by them in their action each bay segment all local govern- necessary to achieve and plans.The TBNEP was also ment, agency and industry projects maintain the chlorophyll a renamed the Tampa Bay Estuary that will contribute to meeting the targets Program (TBEP) as part of the five-year nitrogen management Water quality conditions in progression from the planning goal.To ensure that each partner 1992-1994 appear to allow an phase to implementation of the was using similar nitrogen load annual average of more than 20.5 adopted Comprehensive Conser- reduction assumptions for similar percent of subsurface irradiance to vation and Management Plan. projects, guidelines for calculating reach target depths (i.e., the To maintain nitrogen loadings at nitrogen load reduction credits depths to which seagrasses grew in 1992-1994 levels, local govern- were developed with the partners, 1950) in three of the four largest ment action plans address that por- (continued page 38)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 7 entire program was integrated with Restoration of the Singapore the nation’s longer-term strategic River and the Kallang Basin development plan so that it was not an isolated exercise. By L.M. Chou By mid 1970, it became clear The ministry of the environment he Singapore River and the that the pollution problem had to coordinated the action program. It TKallang Basin (which drains be solved.These important water- recognized the complexity of the five other rivers) form an impor- ways degenerated into an open problem and the need to involve tant catchment covering one-fifth sewer and rubbish dump from the various government agencies.The of Singapore’s total land area. indiscriminate discharge of wastes. program was finalized after an 8- These waterways served important The waters were black and choked month study of pollution sources, functions in the economic develop- with filth and debris, and devoid of the problems involved and the ment of the country.The Singapore aquatic life.The offensive odor and measures required from the various River was used mainly for the unsightly mess were not compati- government agencies. It addressed transfer of cargo between the myri- ble with their position as the com- not only the immediate steps nec- ad of warehouses lining its banks mercial hub of the nation, and did essary to clean the rivers, but also and the numerous ships anchored not fit the image of Singapore as a the long-term approach in main- in the harbor.The river was heavily clean and modern city.The systems taining them pollution free. congested with the busy traffic of also conveyed land-based pollution The sources of pollution were barges using the restricted space to the surrounding sea. identified as pig and duck farms, left unoccupied by moored barges. In such condition, the areas unsewered premises, street hawk- This intensified with the develop- could not be further developed to ers (street merchants), riverine ment of steamships, and the open- provide a stronger contribution to activities, and vegetable wholesale Singapore River,Singapore Singapore ing of the Suez Canal in the 1840s the expanding economy.With activities. Pollution loading of the and the resulting increased volume changing emphasis in Singapore’s waterways through effluent dis- of trade.With financial institutions economic directions, past river- charge from the 600 pig farms and and various commercial activities based activities built on dated infra- 500 duck farms was high.The concentrated along its banks, it structure lacked the modern facili- 21,000 premises populated by became a busy waterway support- ties necessary to cope with sophis- squatters used mainly night-soil ing the growth of trade and the ticated and varied demands of a buckets or pit latrines. Some had majority of the population living rapidly growing economy.They overhanging toilets, which released and working around it. Squatter occupied an area where space was a untreated sewage directly into colonies were established along the high premium and locked up the streams and rivers. Street hawkers upper reaches. Backyard industries vast potential of the urban water- were common in the 1970s, num- flourished along the river. front, denying it the investment bering 5000 within the Singapore Not far from the Singapore opportunity that can be derived River and Kallang Basin catchment River is the Kallang Basin and its from other activities. In 1977, the alone. Most discharged wastes into connecting rivers, all of which prime minister initiated the clean- roadside drains that connected to were similarly impacted by increas- ing of the Singapore River and the streams and rivers. ing pollution overload from a larg- Kallang Basin. He stated that with- Industries alongside the rivers, er variety of economic activities in ten years, Singaporeans should like trading, cargo handling, boat that included ship repair yards, be able to fish in the Singapore building and repairing, were Restored River.Thus began a mammoth, Singapore River sawmills, and pig and duck farms. housed in old and congested build- comprehensive 10-year program ings.These did not have any pollu- costing US$150 million and involv- tion-control facilities and dis- ing 11 government agencies. charged oil, human waste and Program Strategy garbage and other pollutants into The solution required cross-sec- the watercourses.Vegetable whole- toral action and close collaboration sale activities were carried out and coordination between various along streets or on vacant land public agencies. Conflicts emerged without proper facilities. Spoiled as each agency had its own action vegetable and trash were discarded agenda and were unaccustomed to in drains and streams where they acting across sectoral borders.The eventually rotted and polluted the

8 InterCoast • Fall 2001 rivers. Other point sources of pol- ters resettled.Third, in areas where lution included indiscriminate dis- it was impossible or economically charge of waste and wastewater not feasible to provide such facili- into drains by households, coffee ties, action had to be taken to con- shops, markets, backyard industries trol, minimize, or remove the and motor-repair activities. sources.The main objective of the Plan Formulation action plan was to restore the Singapore River and the Kallang The program involved four phas- Basin to the extent that marine life es: 1. cleaning and dredging of the can thrive. waterways, 2. phasing out of pol- Habits had to be changed. For luting activities, 3. removal and/or more than 160 years, people used relocation of farms, hawkers, and the rivers as an open sewer or agency experienced difficulty in Restored Singapore improper workshops, and 4. devel- River dumping ground.The action to be solving a problem on its own.The opment of suitable infrastructure, taken also involved people’s liveli- task of resettlement of squatters factories, housing, and food hood. Squatters had to be reset- and other landowners for example, centers for those affected by the tled, farmers relocated, and hawk- required the full collaboration of relocation. ers moved into centers provided the Urban Redevelopment The program was effective in with proper water supply and Authority, Land Office, and the providing the participating agencies drainage. Getting people to accept Housing Development Board. with an overview of the entire change was the major challenge, Coordination between agencies range of polluting activities in the and it is recognized that strong enabled schedules to be met. catchment, at a time when each political commitment played a cru- Relocation and re-settlement was concentrating on its own agen- cial role in facilitating the process. presented difficult problems.There da such as the sewage manage- Before any relocation could be car- were questions of compensation, ment, or refuse collection or ried out, alternative areas had to be the basis of determining the rates, drainage.The participating agencies identified, and therefore, the long- and identifying who were or were had to be convinced that their term plans for these areas had to not entitled to compensation. involvement was necessary to be determined taking into account Alternative housing had to be built achieve something better—an the nation’s overall development before the squatters could be environment which is cleaner, new plan.The plan was not to cause an moved. Businesses also made prob- opportunities such as recreation abrupt halt to businesses and lems by rejecting given alternative which were impossible before, new industries, but to provide alterna- sites, but eventually, all were developments, and enhanced land tive sites with the necessary infra- moved. Some old shop-houses and values.They had to be convinced structure to control and manage other buildings had to be demol- that they will be leaving a legacy pollution. ished and reconstructed because it for future generations and that this The program established specific was impossible to sewer them due clean water resource can in the targets to be achieved within cer- to site constraints. long term be turned to during tain time frames. An eight year tar- By 1982, all pig and duck farm- times of emergency. get was set for the improvement of ing activities were phased out or Pollution problems were water quality, the reduction of relocated. Over 2,800 backyard grouped into thee categories. First, odor, the absence of rubbish, and and cottage industries were relo- in areas where control facilities the presence of fish for most of the cated to new industrial and housing were provided, their efficient use time.Targets for re-development of estates provided with modern sani- had to be promoted. Education was some areas were set at a maximum tation and solid waste removal necessary to change habits such as of seven to eight years. facilities. A total of 21,000 unsew- careless handling of night-soil and ered premises were phased out. In rubbish collection by service han- Program Action 1983, the 800 barges moored at dlers to reduce spillage, and dump- Regular coordination meetings the Singapore River were relocated ing of refuse by householders into kept all agencies informed of to another coastal area provided drains. Second, in areas where progress, problems, and needs.The with proper mooring and other facilities could be provided with re- meetings were effective in reaching facilities. Relocation of the boat- development, plans had to be solutions through the cooperation yards from the Kallang Basin was known well in advance and squat- of a few agencies when a single almost completed by 1985. (continued page 26) InterCoast • Fall 2001 9 From Flame to Fame: The Restoration of the Cuyahoga River, an American Heritage River By Janine Rybka, Kay of development.The impacts of The lower river, however, was a Carlson, and Kelvin Rogers urbanization increase as the river different story. Industries, sewage he Cuyahoga River—the river winds its way down stream, includ- treatment plants, and other point- Tthat burned—gained a national ing impoundments for drinking source dischargers dumped wastes reputation as one of the most pol- water, numerous dams and storm in the river. Nowhere was the luted rivers in the country when a drains. In Cuyahoga Falls, a com- problem as great as in the lower 5 welding spark ignited surface oils munity where the river drops over miles of the river, known as the and debris on June 22, 1969.This a series of cascades, a 65-foot dam Navigation Channel. Oil and debris travesty sparked the growing envi- cuts the river in half.This 45-mile that washed downstream con- ronmental movement, leading to long downstream segment of the tributed to numerous fires during the passage of one of the United river, from Akron to Cleveland, is the 20th century with the last one States’ landmark environmental the area that has been most affect- being on June 22, 1969.The atten- laws, the Clean Water Act of 1972. ed by the years of persistent pollu- tion given to the burning river cat- Thanks to the Clean Water Act, tion. Just north of the dam, the apulted the City of Cleveland into water quality conditions steadily river flows through the 33,000- the “Pollution Hall of Shame” and improved in the 1970s and 1980s, acre Cuyahoga Valley National helped spur environmental legisla- but it was not until the 1990s that Park, which provides a wonderful tion, including the Clean Water Cuyahoga River,Cuyahoga USA significant changes were document- buffer between the urban and Act, the Great Lakes Water Quality ed.Today, most of the river meets industrial centers of Akron and Agreement and the creation of water quality standards and is a Cleveland.The Cuyahoga River national and state Environmental symbol of renewal and renaissance, flows through Cleveland and emp- Protection Agencies (EPA). thanks to the success of regulations ties into Lake Erie. Oddly enough, Environmental regulations that and a variety of collaborative proj- this U-shaped river’s headwaters focused on large point source dis- ects between stakeholders, includ- are just 30 miles east of its mouth. chargers dramatically improved the ing the grassroots public. Like many rivers, the Cuyahoga conditions of the river. Gone are Compared to many, the Cuya- River was utilized for centuries by the days of oil sheens and dead fish hoga River is not a long river. It Native Americans as the primary in a river that the Ohio EPA said flows for just 100 miles, draining means of access between Lake Erie was so polluted “that there were an area of 813 square miles in por- and the Ohio River.At one time, times when pollution-tolerant tions of five Northeast Ohio coun- the Cuyahoga River formed the sludge worms couldn’t live in its ties—Geauga, Portage, Summit, western boundary of the US. waters.” Yet, pollution problems, Medina and Cuyahoga.The water- Settlers flocked to the new particularly nonpoint-source prob- shed comprises 2 percent of the Connecticut Western Reserve to lems, remain. For this reason, the land in Ohio and supports 17 per- start farms and business. In 1825, EPA classified the lower 45 miles cent of the state’s population. Now, the 308-mile Ohio and Erie Canal of the Cuyahoga River as one of 43 the Cuyahoga is heavily impacted was constructed to help transport Great Lakes Areas of Concern, by urbanization and industrializa- goods between the Great Lakes and warranting development of a tion. On its downstream journey, the Gulf of Mexico. In a few short Remedial Action Plan (RAP). the river travels through rural and years, Ohio went from a wilder- scenic areas. In fact, a 25-mile ness to the third most populated Overview of stretch of the river in the upper state in the country. Soon after- Remedial Action watershed is designated as a state wards, industries including Plans (RAP) scenic river. Needless to say, this Standard Oil, Quaker Oats, The RAP program was estab- Cuyahoga River on fire once rural area is on the threshold Republic Steel and Goodyear Tire lished subsequent to an agreement and Rubber Company flourished between the United States and along the river. Canada.The goal was to clean up Since most of the population and and protect the Great Lakes by industries were located in the reducing contaminants from the lower half of the river, the upper major tributaries. RAPs were to half of the Cuyahoga River take a holistic, ecosystem water- remained in fairly good condition. shed approach to identifying prob-

10 InterCoast • Spring 2001 lems and implementing solutions. RAP are a dedicated group of vol- Poll of Cuyahoga and Summit The concept of RAPs originated unteer community leaders and a County found that residents from a 1985 recommendation of small staff working together to take believed the water quality of Lake the Great Lakes Water Quality the plan beyond words and paper Erie and the Cuyahoga River was Board of the International Joint into research and action. Cuyahoga better, but there was still more that Commission (IJC).The board Coordinating Committee (CCC) needed to be done. Many residents found that despite implementation members are involved in the plan- believed industry was responsible of regulatory pollution control ning and implementation of the for most of the pollution, but indi- programs, a number of “beneficial plan.They meet to discuss issues cated that all segments of society uses,” such as unrestricted human and formalize the agenda to needed to be responsible for pro- consumption of fish, successful address specific impairment issues. tecting and cleaning up the envi- reproduction of indicator wildlife Six key issues around the beneficial ronment. In fact, respondents indi- species, and adequate fish and use impairments have been identi- cated that they would do more to wildlife habitat, were not being fied: human health; fish and aquatic help the environment, if they had restored.Thus, the board recom- organisms; wildlife; socioeconomic mended that comprehensive and uses; recreation; and public aware- systematic remedial action plans be ness.Work groups that focus on the developed and implemented to six issues reach beyond the CCC restore all “beneficial uses” in the members to involve additional local areas of concern. stakeholders to further identify and A 1987 amendment to the Great implement actions that benefit the Lakes Water Quality Agreement river. formalized the RAP program and Unlike most of the other RAPs, defined the areas of concerns as the Cuyahoga River Community specific geographic areas where Planning Organization, a nonprofit, beneficial uses or the area’s ability 501(c) (3) charitable organization to support aquatic life were formed in 1989, supports the impaired. Impairment of beneficial activities of the Cuyahoga River use means a change in the chemi- RAP.A small staff conducts the cal, physical, or biological integrity planning and coordination of the Storm Drain Painting of the Great Lakes ecosystem CCC’s activities, manages contracts information about how sufficient to cause any of 14 use for technical research, organizes to do so. impairments. community involvement activities, The poll results led to initiatives The Cuyahoga RAP process and provides various public educa- designed to increase awareness of began in 1988 when the Ohio tion programs. Staff also has the environmental issues and protec- Environmental Protection Agency responsibility of raising funds tion, including the Cuyahoga River formed the Cuyahoga River RAP through grant writing, special RAP’s Stream Stewardship Coordinating Committee, consist- events, and membership drives. Program. Collaborative efforts ing of 33 representatives from with a variety of agencies and local, regional, state and federal Accomplishments organizations, both governmental agencies, private corporations, and Through Community and neighborhood-based, have led citizen and environmental organi- Involvement to the development of projects zations.The mission of the It is important to note that the such as water-based curriculum Cuyahoga RAP is to plan and pro- improvements to the river have guides for schools; a video about mote the restoration and preserva- been the result of remarkable col- the proper maintenance of septic tion of beneficial uses of the lower laborative efforts.The Cuyahoga systems; a regionally recognized 45 miles of the Cuyahoga River River RAP has provided the forum storm drain stenciling program; and a ten-mile stretch of near- for getting stakeholders to the stream restoration projects; and shore Lake Erie through remedia- table, which helped to form a education programs, including tion of existing conditions and pre- research agenda, work program, workshops, events, and tours for vention of further pollution and and public involvement strategy citizens and community leaders. degradation. aimed at educating the public and In 1995, the Cuyahoga River The RAP is truly a community- increasing public participation. RAP initiated a Stream Stewardship based effort.The people behind the A 1992 Community Preference (continued page 34)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 11 Lessons Learned in Boston Harbor, USA By Richard Delaney the public with tremendous eco- hiring and pay systems outside state uring the 1980s, alarming nomic losses and reduced social civil service requirements.The Dreports of massive pollution, benefits. MWRA is organized much like a highly publicized legal challenges This article reviews some of the public corporation, with a board of and even presidential political cam- key institutional, legal, scientific, directors and an executive director paign accusations, helped earn social and political decisions and responsible for day-to-day opera- Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, events that have led to the success- tions.The result has been a $3.8 USA, a worldwide reputation as ful restoration of the natural billion public infrastructure project one of the most polluted harbors in resources of Boston Harbor in an that has actually achieved that elu- the US.Today, the restoration of unexpectedly short period of 15 sive goal of being completed Boston Harbor has emerged as one years. “under budget and on time.” of the most significant success sto- Creation of Adequate Ongoing Judicial ries in the coastal US. Like many urban harbors, Institutional Capacity Oversight Boston Harbor is a shallow estuar- One of the most difficult politi- The role of the judiciary system ine system. It encompasses 45 cal decisions, and one that became was another key positive contribu- pivotal to many subsequent Boston Harbor, square miles of embayments, tion. In late 1982, the city of coves, tidal flats, and 32 islands. It actions, was the creation of a new, Quincy, Massachusetts, filed a civil Massachusetts, USA receives freshwater flows from the independent institution which had suit against MDC in state court rivers of four adjoining watersheds, sufficient financial autonomy and seeking relief from the chronic pol- comprising 755 square miles and technical capacity to implement a lution of Boston Harbor and adja- empties into Cape Cod Bay. It was remedial action plan. cent Quincy Bay. In June 1983, the a center of colonial maritime com- The agency charged with the Conservation Law Foundation merce, and until recently, an responsibility for the sewer system brought federal suit against MDC unwilling recipient of metropolitan since 1919, the Metropolitan and US Environmental Protection Boston’s municipal sewage waste District Commission (MDC), had Agency (EPA), charging that EPA since 1820. become virtually ineffectual due to had failed to force MDC compli- By 1980, two primary sewage chronic under-funding, inadequate- ance with the US Clean Water Act treatment facilities located on ly trained staff, excessive volumes (CWA). either side of the entrance to the of sewage beyond design capacity, The Quincy suit played a critical harbor were discharging 480 cubic and treatment facilities that had lit- role as a “focusing event” that not feet per second (cfs) of partially tle or no maintenance or upgrading only led to political recognition of sewage effluent and tons of residual for years. Even when the opera- the problem; it also served to gal- sludge. Consequently, an extremely tional aspects were running vanize regional environmental productive estuary with significant smoothly, the treatment strategy groups and public attention.The stocks of lobster, flounder, over included only primary treatment of court appointed a special master, 4,700 acres of shellfish beds and the sewage with the chlorinated and a schedule for compliance with five miles of fine sandy public effluent and sludge discharged into CWA requirements was developed swimming beaches were closed to the outer harbor on outgoing tides. in conjunction with all responsible Boston Waterfront The new entity, the Massachu- parties. setts Water Resources Authority Subsequently, the federal judge (MWRA), established by the convened monthly sessions where Massachusetts Legislature, was all parties would report the details given numerous authorities specifi- of their efforts to meet the bench- cally intended to address the fail- marks of the compliance schedule. ings of its predecessor. Not only At critical points, when the process does MWRA have the authority to slowed or stalled, the threat of a raise funds by issuing tax-exempt court-imposed moratorium on new municipal bonds, which are to be sewer hookups across the system paid off through the collection of quickly got everyone’s attention user fees, but it can also set rates and served as another catalyst for and determine its own personnel progress.

12 InterCoast • Fall 2001 Maintaining a Meaningful programs and public information Comprehensive Participation from an campaigns encouraged the reduced Framework and Informed Public use of toxic materials being dis- posed via residential sewer lines. A With extensive media coverage Perspective technical assistance program for (over 5,000 articles), numerous Understanding the dynamics of the 5,000 businesses using the sys- formal and ad hoc citizen commit- Boston Harbor within the larger tem demonstrated the financial and tees and an ambitious outreach ecosystems of Massachusetts Bay environmental benefits achievable campaign by the MWRA and other and the land-side watersheds was by substantially reducing the use of agencies, the clean up of Boston another important factor in several toxic materials. As further motiva- Harbor was a very transparent and of the key management decisions. tion, the MWRA was vested with public endeavor with meaningful The existence of a Massachusetts authority to levy very costly fines input from all sectors. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) against repeated offenders. Early in the process, a special Program and the designation of Throughout the process, harbor commission with broad public rep- Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bay oriented nongovernmental advoca- resentation, appointed by the gov- as a national estuary, both provided cy groups, such as Save the Harbor ernor and staffed by the a more comprehensive framework and the Boston Harbor Association, Massachusetts CZM staff, first laid for this understanding and for helped maintain the public’s atten- out the management recommenda- decisions. tion and interest in the project. Driven primarily by the man- tions that became the basis for the dates of the CWA—that focused Boston Harbor strategy.They The Role of Science largely on point sources of dis- included recommendations that and the University charges—the initial scientific stud- favored secondary treatment, com- Many management decisions ies and policy decisions of the posting of sludge, a deep-water were driven by the CWA of 1972, MWRA dealt primarily with a lim- outfall pipe, and the creation of an which required publicly owned ited range of pollution. As the envi- institution with sufficient capacity treatment works to provide sec- ronmental assessments were under- to implement the project ondary treatment by 1977 (defined taken, it became evident that a (MWRA). Prior to this report, as the removal of 85 percent of truly comprehensive abatement both the state and federal govern- both total suspended solids and strategy must address a wider ment agencies had suffered through biological oxygen demand).This range of sources and types of pol- several years of scientific uncer- presented complex technical and lutants. tainty, political maneuvering, and scientific issues such as the basis for The Massachusetts Bays Program what would ultimately be financial- a possible exemption from this (MBP) established a forum for both ly costly delays. requirement, the appropriate loca- scientific studies and the develop- The delays occurred during a tion of outfall pipes and the design ment of a comprehensive manage- period when the federal govern- of comprehensive long-term moni- ment plan for the waters of Boston ment’s financial contributions to toring program.These added Harbor, as well as Cape Cod and the cost of sewer treatment facili- uncertainty, controversy, and often Massachusetts Bays.The forum also ties were being essentially phased time delays in the early stages of presented an opportunity for bet- out, thereby shifting the financial the project. ter collaboration among the burden to the users.These citizen Extensive participation by uni- numerous federal, state, and local ratepayers have been the real versity faculty scientist and policy agencies and for substantive input “unsung heroes” by remaining com- experts, especially the University from the scientific community in mitted to the restoration even as of Massachusetts Boston, strategi- direct response to priority prob- their rates escalated from US$259 cally located on the harbor, helped lems raised by the managers and (in 1989) to US$525 (in 1992 the frame the issues and develop and citizens. national average) to US$850 assess remedial options. University The Massachusetts CZM pro- (2000) annually for a family of scientists played prominent roles gram and policies provided the four.The rate escalation shock had on scientific and policy advisory broadest management framework very real potential for ratepayer committees, and public informa- for all activities impacting Boston revolt. tion meetings and conferences Harbor and the coast, and in some In addition, an extensive public where hosted on campus. cases it provided the authority to education campaign increased citi- The final benchmark for success implement the broader aspects. zen awareness. School education was the project’s ability to treat (continued page 35)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 13 tamination, stormwater, monitor- Funding Implementation: Puget ing and research. Each program Sound Management Plan, USA has a goal and a strategy to prevent future harm while addressing past By Nancy McKay ed the Puget Sound Water Quality problems. uget Sound is the United Authority to develop and oversee PStates’ second largest estuary. implementation of a management Implementing the Located in the northwest corner of plan for the Puget Sound basin. Plan Washington State, USA, its shore- The Authority developed the Implementation of the Puget lines stretch for 2,300 miles and first Puget Sound Water Quality Sound management plan began in there are 16,000 square miles of Management Plan in 1987. 1987. During the 1987-1989 the land and water in the basin.Water Updates were prepared in 1989, Washington state legislature first depths reach over 900 feet, and in 1991, 1994, and 1996. During this budgeted funds for the Puget many locations the daily tidal range time, the management plan evolved Sound Water Quality Authority, is over 12 feet. More than 10,000 along with the issues. Some plan other state agencies, and two uni- rivers and streams flow into its actions called for in the plan were versities to implement actions waters.While much of the sound is completed, some were revised and called for in the plan. Since 1987, healthy, rapid growth and develop- new programs and actions were the legislature has provided nearly Puget Sound, Puget ment in the region are stressing the added. $200 million to implement the system. A steady loss of habitat, Responding to similar concerns plan. In 1996, the legislature alarming declines in some fish and at the national level, US Congress required the newly-created action wildlife populations, and closures established the National Estuary Washington State,Washington USA team to develop two-year work of shellfish beds are signs that the Program as Section 320 of the US plans to implement the longer- sound is threatened. Clean Water Act in 1987.The US term management plan. Since The Puget Sound Environmental Protection Agency then, state appropriations have approved the Puget Sound manage- Management Plan been stipulated within state agency ment plan as the federal and university budgets for specific Managing and protecting the Comprehensive Conservation and actions identified in the annual sound’s water quality and biologi- Management Plan for the basin in work plans. For example, funding cal resources is a challenge.What 1991. is stipulated in the state Depart- makes the task most daunting is the In July 1996, the authorizing ment of Ecology’s budget to sup- sheer number of government bod- legislation for the Puget Sound port technical assistance to local ies that have some jurisdiction Water Quality Authority expired. governments on stormwater man- affecting the sound.There are 108 That year the Washington State agement, monitoring of specific cities, 12 counties, 12 conservation Legislature enacted the Puget parameters to assess the health of districts, 28 port districts, 22 tribal Sound Water Quality Protection the sound, and other actions. As governments, 14 state agencies and Act. Under this law the Puget another example, funding is stipu- nine federal agencies. In addition, Sound Water Quality Action Team lated in the budget of the state there are hundreds of special pur- and Puget Sound Council assumed Conservation Commission to sup- pose districts for water, sewer, the Authority’s responsibilities, and port the work of the 12 conserva- groundwater protection, diking, the program became a part of the tion districts in the sound. drainage, and irrigation. Washington governor’s office.The During the 1960s and 1970s, state legislature provided about Sources of State there was increasing concern that US$3 million each year to support Funding the health of Puget Sound was 23 employees who staff the work State sources of funds have deteriorating.This came in spite of of the action team and council.The included the state general fund, the many efforts to protect the sound action team and council adopted water quality permit fee account, at every level of government. By further amendments to the Puget state capital account, various fee 1985, there was general agreement Sound management plan in 2000. programs, the motor vehicle fund, that better coordination among The Puget Sound Water Quality the water quality account (support- programs would improve their Management Plan is comprehen- ed by cigarette tax revenues), the effectiveness and efficiency—and sive, addressing problems ranging aquatic lands enhancement ultimately improve the health of from contamination of shellfish account, oil spill administration Puget Sound.That year, the growing areas to wetlands and account, and the toxics control Washington State Legislature creat- habitat protection, sediment con- account.

14 InterCoast • Fall 2001 In 1997, at the urging of the lion people have been directly much money local and tribal gov- action team, the state legislature involved in projects and countless ernments, businesses, nongovern- passed a bill which allows counties others reached indirectly.The aver- mental organizations, and individu- to use utilities to fund a number of age amount of a contract is als have spent to implement the water quality programs, including US$17,000. PIE contractors have Puget Sound management plan, but operation and maintenance pro- included school districts, environ- the figure would total millions of grams for on-site sewage systems. mental groups, local and tribal dollars. Since 1985, over 70 per- Each year, more local governments governments, and business and cent of the cities and counties in create utilities to fund stormwater trade associations. Projects have the basin have created stormwater programs. In the early 1990s, the included restoration and enhance- programs, 11 of 12 counties have legislature enacted a law, proposed ment activities; technical assis- created or upgraded operation and by the Puget Sound Water Quality tance; development of best man- maintenance programs for on-site Authority, that requires counties to agement practices; beach and water sewage systems, 29 local govern- create districts when commercial quality monitoring; field work- ments have upgraded their sewage shellfish beds are downgraded. shops and site visits; volunteer and systems from primary to secondary Under the law, counties are teacher training; prototypes of treatment, and more than 50 local allowed to adopt fees to better environmental products; day camps governments are implementing protect shellfish beds. and family outings; interpretive watershed action plans developed Grant Funds signs and displays; experiential under the Puget Sound manage- The action team has been suc- learning (theater, plays, story- ment plan. In addition, Superfund cessful in making implementation telling); public meetings and sites and some contaminated sedi- of the Puget Sound management events; telephone hotlines; science- ment sites have been cleaned up. plan a priority for the use of State based reports and studies; and pro- Local governments and nongovern- Revolving Loan Funds and federal motional and educational materials. mental organizations have acquired Clean Water Act Section 319 funds. Federal Funding many acres of habitat and wetlands Another important source of fund- The US Environmental and carried out numerous restora- ing is the state Water Quality Protection Agency (EPA) and other tion projects. Nongovernmental Account. In 1986, the state legisla- federal agencies have also support- organizations, youth groups and ture increased a tax on cigarettes, ed plan implementation. EPA has schools have organized monitoring creating the Water Quality provided US$6.5 million since and clean up programs for streams, Account.The fund has supported a 1987 to support research projects wetlands, and beaches. Many busi- grant and loan program, adminis- and conferences; the Puget Sound nesses have cleaned-up contaminat- tered by the state Department of Ambient Monitoring Program cre- ed sites and upgraded facilities, Ecology, which has provided about ated under the Puget Sound man- practices and equipment to better US$90 million each year to sup- agement plan; workshops and protect water quality. Farmers have port local water quality projects materials on low-impact develop- installed new equipment and throughout the state.Tribes, cities, ment, on-site sewage systems, fenced streams. Homeowners have counties and other local entities in stormwater management, shellfish repaired or replaced their on-site the Puget Sound basin have used protection, citizens’ monitoring, sewage systems. All this has taken these funds to carry out many proj- protecting nearshore habitat and place with the intent of cleaning up ects to implement the Puget Sound other topics; the work of the Puget Sound. management plan. Georgia Basin (Canada)/Puget Nancy McKay, Chair, Puget The Action Team’s Pie Sound International Task Force Sound Water Quality Action Program which is co-chaired by action team Team. For further information In 1987, the Puget Sound Water staff; and implementation of about the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority created the actions called for in the Puget Quality Action Team and its work, Public Involvement and Education Sound management plan.The U.S. visit the action team’s website: Program (PIE) to support local Fish and Wildlife Service and www.wa.gov/puget_sound education and involvement proj- National Oceanic and Atmospheric ects. Since 1987, the program has Administration are among other provided US$5.2 million for more federal agencies that have provided than 300 projects, and US$2.5 mil- funding for plan implementation. lion more has been leveraged Other Funding through matching funds.Two mil- It is difficult to estimate how

InterCoast • Fall 2001 15 the bay, located near Alcatraz San Francisco Bay, USA: Long- Island, in San Pablo Bay, and in the Term Management Strategy for Carquinez Strait. Alcatraz Island has been the most heavily used site. Dredged Material Dredged material disposed of here was expected to disperse, thereby By Keelin Kuipers and Steve Long-Term avoiding potential hazards to navi- Goldbeck Management gation. However, an 80-foot high an Francisco Bay (the bay) is a mound of dredged material whose major shipping center, with Strategy S top was less than thirty feet below Oakland Harbor serving as one of In 1990, the BCDC and several the bay surface was discovered at the world’s largest container/ship- other federal and state partner the site in 1982. Ocean sites and ping ports. Annually, 632 million agencies cooperatively began to beneficial reuse opportunities have tons of cargo pass through Oakland develop a Long-Term Management generally been limited due to the Harbor. Historically, material Strategy (LTMS) to address prob- unavailability of alternative sites, dredged to establish and maintain lems associated with dredging and high disposal and reuse costs, and the navigation channels necessary the disposal of dredged material. regulatory challenges to establish- to support the shipping industry in These partner agencies include the ing alternatives to in-bay disposal, the bay has been disposed of at in- US Army Corps of Engineers

California, USA among other issues. bay sites. (USCOE), US Environmental While the limitations of in-bay San Fransisco Bay, San Fransisco While the bay is a major center Protection Agency (EPA), San disposal sites were emerging, con- for maritime commerce, it is also Francisco Bay Regional Water cerns were also being raised home to sensitive ecological Quality Control Board, and regarding the effects of dredging resources.There are about 500 California State Water Resources and the disposal of dredged materi- species of fish and wildlife associat- Control Board. Issues associated al on the aquatic environment. ed with the bay’s aquatic habitats, with dredged material disposal These concerns included potential including 20 threatened and endan- include limited in-bay disposal site impacts to fisheries and other gered species. Approximately 90 capacity, potential environmental aquatic organisms and ecological percent of the bay’s original tidal impacts of dredging and in-bay dis- resources, including species listed marshes are lost, resulting in great- posal, and differing agency policies as either threatened or endangered ly reduced habitat for fish and regarding dredging and disposal. under the federal and state wildlife. Only 16,000 acres of the Under the 50-year planning period Endangered Species Acts. original 190,000 acres of historic for the LTMS, the projected At the same time, the state and tidal marsh remains. Much of this dredged material disposal needs are federal regulatory agencies respon- habitat has been lost due to filling estimated conservatively at about sible for the review and approval of and diking of the bay. 300 million cubic yards, or approx- dredging projects began consider- The San Francisco Bay imately six million cubic yards ing changes to their requirements Conservation and Development annually. on a relatively ad hoc basis. In addi- Commission (BCDC) is a regional Large-scale dredging efforts for tion, review of dredging projects agency responsible for regulating the navigation and maritime indus- took place on an agency-by-agency development in and along the tries have taken place in the bay for basis without much coordination. shoreline of the bay.The goal of the more than one hundred years. This further reduced the pre- BCDC is to address the effects of Currently, the USCOE maintains dictability of getting dredging proj- bay fill and to provide opportuni- 17 deep- and shallow-draft chan- ects approved and eroded confi- ties for increased public access. nels in the bay. Given the high level dence that environmental concerns Since its establishment in 1965, of dredging activity that has contin- would be adequately addressed. BCDC’s efforts have increased the uously occurred in the bay, disposal Eventually, these increasing con- size of the bay by 1,843 acres capacity has become a major issue. cerns about disposal capacity, envi- through the reopening of diked Historically, the majority (80 per- ronmental effects of dredging and areas to tidal action and other cent of the approximately six mil- disposal of dredged material, and restoration efforts. BCDC has also lion cubic yards dredged annually) project delays due to multiple opened up 860 acres of new public of sediments dredged in the bay agency review became known as access along more than 78 miles of have been disposed at three feder- “mudlock” and highlighted the need bay shoreline. ally designated open-water sites in

16 InterCoast • Fall 2001 for a regional strategy that provid- percent.The goal is to limit in-bay Management Office (DMMO).The ed a diverse array of disposal disposal to approximately one mil- DMMO is made up of the permit- options.This need led to the devel- lion cubic yards per year.The Draft ting agencies, including BCDC, the opment of the LTMS. LTMS Management Plan presents State Lands Commission, the San In 1992, BCDC amended the guidance for implementing this Francisco Bay Regional Water Dredging Findings and Policies strategy. In December 2000, Quality Control Board, the contained in the San Francisco Bay BCDC adopted revised policies and USCOE, and the EPA, and serves Plan (Bay Plan) to recognize the regulations to be able to imple- as a single point of contact for importance of dredging to the eco- ment the LTMS Management Plan dredging permit applicants.The nomic and social welfare of the bay. as a partner agency. DMMO reviews all navigational Also needed was: One of the key options for bene- dredging and disposal projects in
To address the limited capacity ficial reuse described in the LTMS the Bay Area and provides for coor- of existing in-bay sites and poten- Management Plan is the use of dinated and consistent regulatory tial adverse impacts on natural dredged material for wetland review of these projects.The goal resources restoration and creation.The of these coordination efforts is to
To specify that material should restoration of wetlands at Hamilton reduce redundancy and delays in be disposed of in the bay only if Army Airfield is one such project the permitting process and ensure other alternatives are not feasible using dredged material from the environmental protection. For this
To encourage the beneficial bay. BCDC is working in partner- effort, BCDC, the State Lands reuse of dredged material for ship with the State Coastal Commission, and the San Francisco wetlands restoration and other Conservancy, City of Novato and Bay Regional Water Quality purposes USCOE to restore more than 700 Control Board received a National This amendment of the Bay Plan acres of tidal and seasonal wet- Oceanographic and Atmospheric was done on an interim basis pend- lands, as part of reuse of the closed Administration Excellence ing completion of the LTMS Hamilton Army Airfield.The Award for Coastal Zone process.The LTMS was adopted by Hamilton Field Wetland Management in 1999. partner state and federal agencies Restoration Project will provide For further information, contact in 1999. It is based on a conserva- important fish and wildlife habitat, Keelin S. Kuipers, Pacific tive approach that the annual aver- public access, and flood protection. Region,Coastal Programs Division, age of total disposal volume will be The project will provide for benefi- OCRM, NOAA. Tel: 301-713- about six million cubic yards.The cial reuse of more than 10 million 3155, ext. 175. Fax: 301-713- selected long-term strategy for the cubic yards of dredged material 4367. E-mail: Keelin.Kuipers@ region involves taking approxi- from San Francisco Bay mainte- noaa.gov. Website: http://www. mately 40 percent of this annual nance dredging and new deepening nos.noaa.gov/ocrm volume to beneficial reuse sites and projects. 40 percent to the federally desig- The LTMS also addresses the nated deep-ocean site, while limit- need to coordinate permit reviews ing disposal at the in-bay sites to 20 by establishing a Dredged Material

InterCoast • Fall 2001 17 Cross Sectoral Initiatives in Democracy and Environment: Chetumal Bay, Mexico By Pamela Rubinoff, Rafael capacity of local institutions in var- grate across issues, stakeholders, Romero, and Octavio ious aspects of ICM. Here biodi- and levels of government, the 2001 Chavez versity was high, pressures from objective for the USAID/CRC he environment/democracy tourism were increasing, zoning project was to “consolidate infor- Tlinkage has recently been initi- plans were being developed, and mation, define issues, build stake- ated in Mexico’s US Agency for additional marine protected areas holder and decisionmaker support International Development were being designated, including and capacity sufficient to identify (USAID) program.This provides an the state Manatee Sanctuary in priority actions and contribute to opportunity to evaluate a new way Chetumal Bay. No doubt this was an integrated management initia- of doing business, where sectoral additionally catalyzed by the 1998 tive in Chetumal Bay.” One of the issues such as tourism, fishing, or declaration of the Meso American key goals was to have a well- reef management are embedded Reef Initiative and the subsequent attended meeting (later called the into a larger context of democratic program design by the Global Chetumal Bay Summit) of key principles of transparency, account- Environment Facility aimed at con- stakeholders to discuss the state-of- ability, and participation.The goal serving the world’s second longest the-bay and to develop a consen- is to support effective governance barrier reef, extending from sus-driven action agenda. In addi- and contribute towards “sustainable Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula to the tion to catalyzing ICM in Chetumal development.” Bay Islands in Honduras.The Bay, this would support the contin- USAID-supported efforts in USAID project supported the ued effort of the university to Southern Quintana Roo, Mexico, establishment of the Red MIRC,an establish itself as a facilitator and to have been implemented by the ICM network of nongovernmental strengthen its capability and stature University of Rhode Island, Coastal organizations (NGOs) and institu- as an ICM center. Resources Center (CRC) and local tions.The network was to While the direct partners have partners to provide both tangible exchange experience, knowledge, been the NGO community and the examples of participatory manage- understanding, and information on university, there is the need to tar- ment and to build capacity for pro- coastal issues between a broad get ICM activities that include gov- moting integrated coastal manage- group of stakeholders. In parallel, ernment actors.This coincides with ment (ICM) as a tool for sustain- these organizations helped form one of the USAID/Mexico able use and conservation of coastal the Belize-Mexico Alliance for Democracy Program’s goal and has resources. In 1998, Chetumal was Management of Common Coastal been implemented by the chosen as a place to build the Resources (BEMAMCCOR), a bi- International City/Country national effort to advance ICM in Managers Association (ICMA).This shared waters such as Chetumal project contributes to institutional Bay and the Meso American Reef strengthening, particularly in areas complex. At the institution level, where municipalities are major the University of Quintana Roo actors in resource management. initiated efforts to create the MIRC The municipality of Chetumal in Center to focus on research, exten- Quintana Roo was chosen by the sion, outreach, and academic pro- ICMA to test their strategy for grams associated with ICM.To replicating their Resource Cities date, partners and colleagues have Program (RCP), which had been implemented community exten- effective in Guadalajara.The RCP sion, outreach, environmental edu- is a unique mechanism that pro- cation, and community-based vides technical assistance focusing tourism initiatives to stimulate on general municipal management, interest and advance participatory urban services management, and democracy for coastal management citizen participation.The RCP links in the region. cities in the US with municipalities Understanding the need to inte- in Mexico in an effort to facilitate

Sign encouraging water conservation for the Future

18 InterCoast • Fall 2001 know-how and practical experi- regarding water and bay manage- ences to municipalities in Mexico. ment. In April 2001, three techni- At the same time, US cities benefit cal staff from the water commis- from these relationships. sion in Chetumal visited Sarasota In July 2000, a pilot project was to examine management tech- designed to link Chetumal with a niques and physical infrastructure. counterpart in the US through the In August 2001, a member of the ICMA. Sarasota, Florida, was cho- Sarasota County team participated sen as the US community.The in the Chetumal Bay Summit. intent was for the Sarasota pro- The final trip to Sarasota will gram’s staff to assist the administra- include the director of Chetumal’s tors in Chetumal to improve the manatee sanctuary, a university Local experts discuss key issues associated with the bay’s ecology operation of their water quality staff member from the ICM center, changes in Chetumal have resulted management systems, including and a community business leader, from the Water Commission’s potable, wastewater and storm who will learn about the economic stronger stance on fee collection drainage systems—all affecting the benefits of a well-managed bay. and their ability to recuperate costs water quality in Chetumal Bay. This trip will evaluate advances in for further improvements. Sarasota, Florida was chosen for bay and urban water management
Officials acknowledged that a variety of reasons.While Sarasota issues and identify the next steps one key problem is the lack of is much more developed and towards enhanced local governance community understanding on the wealthier than Chetumal, parts of of Chetumal Bay. By the end of the links between septic systems and its local environment are more project, 16 people with discrete contamination of the bay, and degraded.This can provide exam- roles and experience will have par- sewer hookups.The water commis- ples of good and bad development ticipated in events within the six sion has since begun to work with strategies, as well as the manage- exchange activities between NGOs to initiate a public educa- ment techniques used to promote Sarasota and Chetumal. tion campaign. community participation, political While there are still two visits
The university has been recog- commitment, impact mitigation, ahead, there are several successes nized as a facilitator for open dis- and habitat restoration. that can be shared to date: cussions.The actors understand Sarasota Bay and its watershed
The Chetumal Bay Summit that the common goal is to identify has been an established National was convened in August 2001, with actions needed to avoid further Estuary Program of the US over 50 presentations and work degradation of the bay.The ICM Environmental Protection Agency sessions devoted to ecology, water network and the NGOs have since 1989.The program has made quality, legal frameworks, socioe- focused their efforts on community significant advances in techniques conomic issues, and bi-national outreach and environmental educa- that address the bay’s conservation agreements.Two key outcomes tion. In parallel, the state has estab- and management. Some of these included input to a status-and- lished a Manatee Sanctuary techniques can be adapted for use trends report and a permanent Committee, where municipality, in Chetumal, which experiences working group to forward scientif- NGOs, university, and other stake- similar problems. In both places ic research and management holders are involved as “advisors” in there is the need to preserve mana- efforts. its management. tees, wetlands, and seagrass.
The advanced technical capaci-
This exchange between In September 2000, five people ty of the Chetumal Water Chetumal and Sarasota has shown from Sarasota visited Chetumal— Commission was verified. Many of the university, NGOs, and govern- four water quality specialists and their techniques for water treat- ment participants in Chetumal that the director of the bay program. ment were state-of-the-art; howev- management is a long-term process The team identified the issues and er, it was revealed that the human that goes beyond the term limits of priorities in Chetumal and used component was missing in effective any one public official. these to develop a follow-up assis- program implementation, such as Additionally, it has demonstrated tance program. In December 2000, fee structure and collection. It that governance mechanisms can be Chetumal’s mayor and director of became very evident that water adapted and implemented to urban development and ecology management was not only a techni- become an effective tool for visited Sarasota to participate in cal issue, but rather a social, cultur- regional management. both political and technical forums al, and political issue. Recent (continued page 39)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 19 Invasion of “Killer” Mediterranean Weed to California, USA By Christina S. Johnson repelling toxins, but it is not con- optimism that Caulerpa can be n June 2000, a group of divers sidered a threat to human health. controlled because of the limited Iwent for what they thought In the Philippines, where the range of the initial infestations, and would be a routine swim through a Caulerpa strain grows naturally, because of the prompt reaction by gently undulating eelgrass bed in people eat the seaweed and enjoy government agencies to handle the the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the slight stinging sensation caused situation. northern San Diego County, by its chemical defense system. The California Regional Water California, USA.Working on a The nickname “killer,” however, Quality Control Board in San restoration/mitigation project that is appropriate to a certain extent. Diego is pursuing several avenues was paid for by the nearby power Its ability to grow rapidly, to grow that make its control effort unique. plant, they swam transects across over boulders, seawalls, in mud, This included concucting an exten- the eelgrass bed, measured its sand, or on rocks has the effect of sive outreach program, and pursu- length, width, and noted new eel- severely reducing populations of ing legislation. grass shoots. Everything appeared native seaweeds and grasses. As of March 2001, there were normal, until one of the divers dis- Because fish, invertebrates, and only two known infected areas in covered a large patch of unusually seabirds need native habitats to sur- the country: the lagoon in San green, beautiful feathery seaweed. vive, Caulerpa outbreaks can dull Diego County and Huntington The strange seaweed would later the biological richness of marine Harbor, which was reported in July be identified as the first confirmed ecosystems very quickly. In June 2000, soon after the first discovery. North American sighting of “the 2000, when the infestation was Both infestations are being treated, killer algae” blighting detected in the Agua Hedionda with funds from a multi-agency Mediterranean waters of southern Lagoon, it was estimated that the organization Southern California Europe. biomass of the Caulerpa had Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). Subsequent genetic tests showed already exceeded that of all native The California Regional Water that the seaweed specimens were grasses in the lagoon. Quality Control Board is leading not only the same species, but also In America, as in Europe, the eradication program, in con- clones of the Mediterranean strain. wildlife agencies are focused on junction with agencies such as the The seaweed, technically a green trying to prevent the seaweed from Department of Fish & Game, alga, is known scientifically as spreading beyond control, into the California Department of Food & Caulerpa taxifolia. It is a popular open ocean, for instance, where Agriculture, the National Marine decorative aquarium plant. It was containment efforts would be Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish & called “the killer algae” by the futile. Wildlife Service and the California French media because people irra- Why is the Algae Sea Grant College Program. tionally feared the aquarium plant such a Problem? Merkel & Associates, the same was poisoning seafood. In fact, the biological consulting firm that dis- alga does contain predator- First, fishermen detest the sea- covered the Caulerpa, has been Caulerpa taxifolia weed because it clogs nets and hired to eradicate the algea.This makes them heavy to haul up. has been done by putting tarps Secondly, divers, and tourists pre- over the Caulerpa patches, sealing fer an aesthetically pleasing under- the tarps at the bottom, and then water landscape, teaming with fish, chlorinating the patches.The shells, and plant life. Caulerpa tarps, thick sheets of black plastic, meadows have been compared to starve the plants of sunlight. Once wet, overgrown Astroturf.Thirdly, the tarps are in place, there is mon- in California, the seaweed threatens itoring for re-growth outside the protected habitats, such as the eel- tarps. New sprigs, of which there grass—essential habitat for lob- have been many, are then treated. sters, flatfish, and bass. Many ani- As of March 2001, about one-fifth mals would suffer with loss of the of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon bot- native kelps and marine grasses. tom was covered with tarps. In California, there is cautious

20 InterCoast • Fall 2001 In Huntington Harbor, the same
It prefers shallow water, but Caulerpa invasion.” strategy has been employed: tarps, has also been pulled up in fishing In upcoming months, the chlorine, and monitoring. nets in waters 300-feet deep. Department of Fish & Game will Huntington Harbor, however, has The plant’s ability to reproduce begin surveying several high-risk been slightly more difficult to asexually, however, may be the areas, visually and with side-scan purge. Not only the harbor, but most amazing trait.The seaweed— sonar. Large stands of the seaweed also two adjacent ponds are infest- even though it has root-like hairs, grow in circular patterns that can ed.The ponds have not been cov- stem-like stems, and fronds—is be discerned easily in acoustic ered and chlorinated because, for actually a single-celled plant with images. the last two months, heavy rains multiple nuclei. Caulerpa could be The spread of the seaweed in the closed waters to diving. Once the the biggest single-celled organism Mediterranean is a good indicator bacterial levels have returned to on the planet; it can reach lengths of the potential dangers. In the normal, tarps can be put into of 9 feet. mid-80s, only one square meter of place. In addition, the ponds have Because of its unusual single- Caulerpa claimed the seafloor as its been outfitted with filtering celled structure, any fragment of home. By 1989, it had usurped devices that remove small pieces of the plant that contains a nuclei and more than 2 acres. Despite costly seaweed from out-flowing waters. a chloroplast—the structure that eradication schemes, by 1997 more Even small pieces of the seaweed allows for photosynthesis—is capa- than 11,000 acres were smothered can grow into whole new colonies. ble of growing into a new plant. in a dense blanket of swaying feath- This biological quirk and others Susan Williams (University of ery green fronds.To slow the makes eradicating Caulerpa very California at Davis) is concerned spread, harbors were forced to challenging. the alga’s pseudo-roots may be close their docks to boats; fishing Many of the attributes that make capable of surviving chlorination. grounds were closed to commer- Caulerpa a good product for the Caulerpa has underground tissue cial and sport fishers. aquarium trade also make it very (the algal equivalent of roots) that Even with preventative meas- difficult to kill. Surveys of the extends 15 cm into sediments. She ures, in the last five years, the sea- aquarium retailers in Southern said the chlorine might not be able weed has spread to North Africa, California are being conducted to to seep that far into the ground. Australia, and California. Genetic determine the number of species of Willians says, “I am further con- tests have shown that Caulerpa Caulerpa being sold in the area and cerned because in Aqua Hedionda, specimens in America and the the percentage of stores that sell Caulerpa is now growing next to Mediterranean are clones of speci- Caulerpa species. Caulerpa is prob- the treatment tents. Although it is mens cultured and displayed at the ably not the only decorative sea- assumed that this new growth is Stuggart Museum in Germany in weed that has the potential to men- remaining fragments made during the early 1980s. ace the native marine ecosystems the eradication treatments in the The United States has learned in California.There are also con- summer, I wonder if the rhizoids from the experiences of others. cerns about the sale of “live” rocks, had not grown out from under the Under the Federal Noxious Weed which contain a variety of exotic tents. In my experience with this Act of 1999, it is a federal offense marine organisms. seaweed, this is entirely within its to import Caulerpa taxifolia or Consider some of Caulerpa’s capacity and even likely to happen.” transport it across state lines. amazing traits: Williams has been funded by Pending state legislation would
It can survive transportation California Sea Grant to identify prohibit “the sale, possession, trans- and thrive in home saltwater tanks. areas that may be especially vulner- portation, or giving away without
It can grow as much as 3 inch- able to invasive seaweed infesta- consideration the salt water algae es a day. tions. People are assuming the of the genus Caulpera.”
Although native to the tropics, high-risk areas are quiet bays. It is At present, public outreach is in places such as Indonesia and the possible that environmental fac- considered the most crucial com- Caribbean, it can also survive in tors, such as water pollution and ponent of a successful eradication cold waters. It is believed to be tol- nutrient levels, might influence plan, since it is home aquarists that erant to waters as cold as 50 Caulerpa ‘s ability to invade. She are likely spreading the seaweed. degrees, which means it theoreti- says, “Based on scientific studies in The public must learn that releas- cally could establish itself through- the Mediterranean and on my ing the contents of their home out California and Baja California, research, sea grass beds that are aquariums into lagoons and harbors Mexico. degraded are less resistant to (continued page 25)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 21 incentive to ensure the reefs are The Role of Certification for the healthy and productive.They often Marine Aquarium Trade become active reef stewards, guarding these valuable resources By Paul Holthus associated with some marine against destructive uses and some- ccording to a 1998 global aquarium industry operators often times creating informal manage- Aoverview of the state of coral grab the headlines.The public, gov- ment systems or de facto conserva- reefs, a half a billion people—8 ernment officials, and policymak- tion areas. For example, in a col- percent of the total world popula- ers often never hear that the lecting site in Bagac, Bataan, in the tion—live within 100 km of a marine aquarium trade, at times, Philippines, collectors declare a coral reef.This population and the plays only a very minor role in the no-collecting season during the growing use of the oceans are degradation of coral reefs in rela- months of November and potentially threatening 58 percent tion to other human activities and December or December to of the world’s reefs. Hot spots of can actually play a positive role in January, depending on when they reef fish biodiversity under threat creating incentives for their sus- notice fish are fragile or most from human activities include the tainable use and conservation. species are spawning. Collectors Philippines, Indonesia,Tanzania, How the Aquarium from this site also do not allow col- the Comoros, and the Caribbean. lectors from their neighboring The most widespread human Industry Supports Reef Conservation province to gather fish in this area. impact on coral reefs undoubtedly Collection areas are often far Collecting and exporting marine comes from land-based sources of from the reach of government aquarium organisms in developing pollution, such as sediment and resource management or law countries creates jobs and income nutrients that are discharged into enforcement personnel, highlight- in rural, low-income coastal areas reef waters. However, cyanide use ing the importance of such com- that have limited resources and and other unsustainable practices munity-based efforts. Many gov- economic options for a sustainable ernment agencies admit that they local industry.About 7,000 aquari- WHAT MAC CERTIFICATION MEANS TO: will never have the staff or funds to um fish collectors, many whom adequately manage or police most Exporters and Importers support families, are estimated to
Suppliers provide only what is ordered coral reefs. operate in the Philippines. In Sri
Optimal animal health is maintained during transport For many villagers, the econom-
Lanka as many as 50,000 people Organism mortality is reported at all points in the ic alternative to the aquarium chain of custody are directly involved in the export industry is engagement in activities
Access to reports and data on general and species mar- of reef animals, according to that may be more destructive to ket trends, specific collection figures and trends, and status UNESCO. of shipped organisms in the market chain coral reefs or relocation to urban Marine ornamentals are, in fact, areas.This exacerbated the nation’s Government one of the highest value-added
social problems. Increased capacity to guide development of the marine product from coral reefs. Live aquarium sector Coastal communities in develop- coral for the aquarium industry is
Additional pressure and surveillance to ensure destruc- ing countries are not the only ones worth an estimated US$7,000 per tive methods are not used to benefit from an environmental-
Monitoring of the fishery and ecosystem metric ton, while harvested coral ly-sound aquarium industry. In
Government monitoring, control and surveillance are for lime production yields only developed countries, public and reinforced by certification requirements about US$60 per metric ton.The
private aquariums generate infor- Access to a global industry data management system figures for reef fish are more strik- for automated statistical data input and management, mation about reef organisms and ing. Reef fish harvested for food resource mapping and planning, and industry trends ecology and contribute to the love from one island country were val- Collectors of nature, in general, and coral
ued at US$6,000 per metric ton. Training in sustainable harvesting and handling prac- reefs in particular.There is undeni- Aquarium fish from the same coun- tices ably something both appealing and
Collection of only suitable species and only those that try realized a return of more than comforting in an aquarium, as evi- are ordered US$496,000 per metric ton.
denced by the continued growth of Opportunity for collection areas to be managed under Because the aquarium trade pro- an ecosystem management plan aquarium keeping and new public vides important socioeconomic
Incentives to ensure the reef and its aquarium animal aquariums. In fact, researchers have benefits to rural, coastal communi- populations are healthy found that aquarium viewing
Access to a market that values high-quality, environ- ties in developing countries, collec- reduces blood pressure and mentally sound products tors of marine ornamentals have an anxiety—undoubtedly contributing

22 InterCoast • Fall 2001 to the popularity of aquariums in marine ornamentals that have several international partnerships doctor and dentist waiting rooms. passed “from reef to retail” through to support certification. In 2000, it Aquariums also create an oppor- these operations. A collection area teamed up with the United Nations tunity for not only aquarists, but management plan to conserve the Environmental Program’s World also the public to experience ecosystem and a ban on destructive Conservation Monitoring Center nature and to appreciate the need fishing methods, such as cyanide, to create the Global Marine to conserve it. A 1999 study con- are among the many measures Aquarium Database.The world’s ducted at the National Aquarium in required for MAC Certification. database on the international trade Baltimore, Maryland, US, by the The ability of consumer demand to in marine aquarium organisms has American Zoo and Aquarium modify industry behavior is already grown steadily and now includes Association found that a visit to the being effected in other natural data from Australia, Cook Islands, aquarium increased a person’s resource industries, such as Fiji, Indonesia, Maldives, Marshall awareness about conservation forestry and seafood production. Islands, Netherlands, Palau, when pre- and post-visit results The prospect for success in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri were compared. marine aquarium industry is prom- Lanka, the United Kingdom, and Another conservation benefit to ising. During a recent survey of the United States. MAC is also aquariums is increased knowledge 200 US pet stores involved in the working with Reef Check, a mem- about coral reefs. Scientific obser- marine aquarium trade, the majori- ber of the Global Coral Reef vation and experiments with reef ty of the retailers felt that MAC Monitoring Network, to develop animals and their interaction in Certification would improve the international scientific methods for nature is difficult, time consuming, quality (health and longevity) of monitoring marine ornamental col- costly, and complicated. But rigor- reef organisms available to their lection areas. ous, regular observation of reef customers. animals and systems are exactly MAC Certification will addition- what so many aquarists do best. ally enhance coral reef conserva- Consequently, many aquarium tion by greatly improving our keepers have made significant con- understanding of coral reef ecosys- tributions to reef science.They tems and sustainable use of them. have advanced our understanding MAC informational requirements of fish behavior, reproduction, will improve data on harvest levels feeding, and growth; the propaga- and catch per unit effort, which are tion and growth of corals, soft essential to improve sustainable use corals and other invertebrates; and and conservation of coral reef the balance of nutrients, light, and ecosystems. MAC certification has water motion needed to maintain a requirements, mechanisms, and Participants of the MAC certification feasibility study learn to pre- reef ecosystem. processes to collect and analyze pare containers to segregate marine ornamentals after capture. Enhancing Reef information on the state of marine Additional Benefits aquarium resources, the ecosys- to Coastal Conservation in the tem, and the kinds and level of Future human use and impact.This infor- Communities We know that the collection and mation has not previously been Many aspects of ensuring the export of marine aquarium organ- required or available and will pro- environmentally sound and sustain- isms can be based on quality and vide the basis to determine more able use of natural resources by an sustainability and achieve a balance objectively how close or far from industry and market are linked to between reef health and the sustainability marine ornamental broadly defined social equity issues. numerous socioeconomic benefits industry operations are. MAC stan- For example, MAC’s requirement described above.Working with dards provide the means to inte- for a collection area management stakeholders around the world, the grate this information into the plan ensures that stakeholders con- Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) requirements for industry opera- cerned about social equity have an is establishing a certification system tions, creating the possibility to opportunity to participate in the that identifies those in the industry continually improve the sustainabil- certification process. who adhere to environmentally ity of the marine aquarium trade MAC certification also requires sustainable practices and allows the through adaptive management. transparency and traceability, e.g., consumer to selectively purchase documented collection numbers, Additionally, MAC has created (continued page 35)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 23 S UMMER I NSTITUTE IN C OASTAL M ANAGEMENT

M AY 27 TO J UNE 21, 2002

The University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Center’s (CRC) Summer Institute in Coastal Management program pro- vides participants with practical skills to design, implement, and learn from integrated coastal management (ICM) programs and experiences from around the world. This includes learning to formulate effective strategies for the management of coastal ecosystems and to apply integrated, interdisciplinary approaches to solving coastal problems. While the program looks at coastal management challenges globally, its emphasis is on those challenges as they relate to developing nations. participants range in age from their early twenties to early PROGRAM CONTENT sixties. Most have advanced degrees in addition to substan- The Summer Institute emphasizes issues of concern to tial professional experience. coastal planners and managers, including:
Implications of ecological and socioeconomic trends INSTITUTE FACULTY
Coastal development activities such as mariculture, Program instructors are drawn from the group of coastal tourism, shorefront construction, and their impacts management practitioners at the CRC. CRC associates
Common coastal problems such as loss of habitats, from field programs in the United States, Latin America, coastal hazards, erosion, degradation of water quality, use Africa, Asia, and the Western Pacific also act as program conflicts, overfishing trainers. In addition, faculty from other URI departments,
Linking local-level program initiatives with national-level participate in specialized sessions. The program also policy development includes guest speakers from other universities, national
An array of regulatory and non-regulatory implementa- organizations, state coastal management agencies, local tion techniques town governments, and the private sector.
Techniques to build broad public support for programs ROGRAM EE
P F Raising funds, writing proposals, and budgeting Program Fee: US $5,000 Participants are paired with program advisors who work The program fee covers all costs of the training program with them during the four weeks to ensure the program including tuition, meals, housing, field trips, reading mate- experience is as positive and as well-matched to the individ- rials, and special events. The fee also covers the cost of lim- ual as possible and to provide opportunities for additional ited health and accident insurance for the duration of the professional discussion and exchange to complement the program (please ask for details). Fees do not cover the cost classroom experience. of travel to and from Rhode Island. Participants should PARTICIPANTS bring additional funds for personal expenses. This program is for professionals interested in integrated Checks or bank drafts should be payable to University of coastal management, including: Rhode Island in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. or affiliate
Professionals in natural resources, fisheries, and bank. environmental agencies
National, regional, district, and municipal-level planners Application Procedure
University lecturers and researchers Applications can be submitted:
Staff from nongovernmental environmental and By Internet: http://www.crc.uri.edu/train/SI2002_app.html community development organizations By Mail or Fax: Contact Kim Kaine. E-mail:
Professionals currently on leave from their jobs and [email protected] studying at the graduate level in the United States Answers to frequently asked questions can be found at: Participants typically have a wide variety of educational http://www.crc.uri.edu/train/sicm_faq.html backgrounds in the natural and social sciences. Previous Participation will be limited to 25 individuals.

With financial assistance from U.S. Agency for International Development’s Global Water Team, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO)

24 InterCoast • Fall 2001 Johnson (continued from page 21) The Means are as Important as is dangerous. In addition, early the Ends: Indicators of the detection is crucial.Training recre- ational divers to identify new Success patches ofCaulerpawill contribute By Peter J.S Jones considered them to be meaningful, to the effort to contain the sea- ow do you develop indicators useful, and measurable.The ranked weed’s spread. of the success of estuary man- criteria were then discussed at a The SCCAT team is asking com- H agement partnerships (EMPs) workshop attended by some of munity members to be part of the when these initiatives are at an those who had given feedback on team.Those who think they may early stage of development and the draft indicators.This led to the have found a new outbreak are have yet to implement their man- development of a final set of indi- asked to report it immediately to agement strategies? This was the cators under four categories: stake- SCCAT in hopes of preventing a critical question addressed by a holder participation, funding lever- return of ‘the killer seaweed.” project commissioned by English age, steering group participation, For further information, contact Nature as part of its review of the and involvement in other strategic Marsha L. Gear, California Sea Estuaries Initiative, originally policy initiatives. Grant College Program, Scripps launched in 1992, and under which As well as potentially forming Institution of Oceanography, 9500 23 EMPs in Britain have been the basis for future evaluations and, Gilman Drive, Dept. 0232, La established. English Nature recog- hopefully, demonstrations of EMP Jolla, California 92093-0232 USA. nized that there was a critical need successes, it was agreed by the par- Tel: 858-534-0581. Fax: 858-453- to identify the benefits derived ticipants that the indicators could 2948. E-mail: [email protected] from these initiatives so: also be used at a wider level to
The institutional momentum promote the development and behind EMPs is maintained and demonstration of ‘good practice,’ increased. and as a framework to report back
The commitment of stake- on EMP initiatives. Of course, ulti- holders to EMPs is maintained and mately it should also be possible to increased. develop indicators of the actual
Further investment may be achievements or outputs of these captured to support the implemen- initiatives. However, there will tation of EMP strategies. always be a need to also focus on However, three challenges had to the policy processes by which such be addressed in the process of outcomes have been achieved, as developing meaningful indicators: these more intangible ‘means’ can
The EMP strategies have bare- be as important as the ends, espe- ly begun to be implemented cially if such initiatives are to be
Individual EMPs are diverse sustainable from socio-cultural, and unique in their locally-orien- institutional and economic per- tated strategies spectives.
Specific benefits and successes For further information, contact are difficult to demonstrate and Peter Jones, Environment and attribute to the EMP Society Research Unit, Dept of Therefore, the project focused Geography, University College on EMP process indicators, rather London, London, WC1E 7DP, than looking at indicators of the UK. A paper on this project will benefits of specific outcomes. A be submitted to the journal, draft set of indicators was sent to “Coastal Management.” all EMP project officers in For the detailed summary of this England, as well as some of the project, or to buy the entire re- national government agencies.They port. E-mail: [email protected] were asked to score these indica- tors according to whether they

InterCoast • Fall 2001 25 Chou (continued from page 9) period. Suspended solids decreased the Kallang Basin into a Basin of Food centers provided with from 108 (in 1978) to 45 ppm (in Fun and Recreation.These guide proper sewerage systems, washing 1981) in the Singapore River and plans provided an integrated devel- and disposal facilities enabled all from 1025 to 314 ppm in the opment approach meant to opti- 5,000 street hawkers to be re-sited Kallang River. Dissolved oxygen mize use of the urban waterfronts by 1986. A new roofed vegetable levels improved from 0 ppm before and water bodies, and thus, offered wholesale market, complete with the cleaning to 5.6 ppm in the greater opportunities for water- sewerage system and solid waste lower reaches of the Singapore front housing, recreation, business, removal facilities, was constructed River, and 5.9 ppm in the Kallang and cultural activities. to house all vegetable wholesalers Basin by 1988. The architectural heritage along- away from the catchment area. Long-Term side the Singapore River is to be retained as far as possible. After the sources of pollution Maintenance were removed or controlled, the Warehouses along its banks were riverbeds were dredged and over a After phasing out pollution given a major facelift. Instead of century’s accumulated rubbish was sources, follow-up action had to be being demolished, they were reno- physically removed. Over 270 tons maintained. Attention focused on vated and upgraded with modern of rubbish were removed from the diffuse and non-point pollution facilities without compromising the riverbanks and more than a half sources such as littering and sullage original architecture.Two main million cubic meters of mud con- water discharge. Engineering entertainment areas have been cre- taminated with organic waste was design improvements were made to ated—Boat Quay and Clark excavated from the Kallang Basin rubbish chutes and bin collection Quay—each targeting different age alone. centers in housing estates to pre- groups.The former with its row of Physical improvements were vent the discharge of solid waste elegant and unusual restaurants, then made to the rivers and basin and wastewater into open drains. pubs, and bars attract the young. to transform them into riverside Public education was increased Riverside dining along Boat Quay parks.These included lighted, to overcome anti-social habits.The also contributed to the romance paved, walkways and bridge under- mass media was mobilized in the and charm of the place. Clark passes; landscaping; and recreation- appeal for public cooperation and Quay, on the other hand, was al facilities. In the Kallang Basin, provided extensive coverage to a developed into an all-family enter- the dredged river bed and sections series of activities with broad pub- tainment center with various of the banks were covered with lic appeal held in 1987 to mark the themes and activities. Other land sand (equivalent to 500 Olympic- revival of the rivers.The impor- parcels further upriver are being size swimming pools) to create tance of clean rivers and their ben- released for development into resi- beaches giving it a new fresh look efits to Singaporeans, and how each dential and commercial properties. that was thought impossible only a could play a part in keeping urban The contrast between new build- few years before.The waterways river catchments clean was the ings, which have to be creative and improved tremendously and were central message. A long-term edu- well-designed, and the intricate now cleaner and free from stench. cation program was initiated for traditional architecture will form Biological surveys indicated the school children with the collabora- the district’s charm.The river has return of aquatic life with faunal tion of the Ministry of Education. become the focus of carnivals and diversity in Singapore River The aim was to teach them the cultural activities and, together increasing rapidly from 18 families importance of clean rivers, and with entertainment and dining in 1986 to 47 in 1992, and in the how they can be involved. facilities, has been attracting both Kallang Basin from 28 in 1987 to New Opportunities locals and tourists. It is closed to 41 in 1995. As the major waterways were water traffic and only a few boat Water quality measurements restored to an unpolluted state, operators have been given permits showed improvements within the their potential for other forms of to provide a water taxi service. first three years of the clean-up development and activities became The Kallang Basin with its new program. Biochemical Oxygen possible. New concepts could be sandy beaches and parks trans- Demand in the Singapore River incorporated in the long-term formed it into a location for water dropped from 21 to 5 parts-per- development guide plans of these sports such as water skiing, canoe- million (ppm) between 1978 and rivers.The Singapore River was to ing, and dragon-boat racing. It is a 1981, while in the Kallang River, be developed into a River of larger water body with more from 335 to 79 during the same History and Entertainment while extensive banks than the Singapore

26 InterCoast • Fall 2001 River. Plans include waterfront to overall progress.The clean-up health-risk eyesore.The entire pro- promenades, open parks, recre- also meant that the sea received gram left a legacy for future gener- ational facilities, commercial and considerably less pollution loading. ations and has given the people a residential developments.The The program was important in refreshing sense of achievement. promenade is designed to form a demonstrating the effectiveness of For further information, contact continuous link all round the basin. integrated area management and L.M. Chou, Biological Sciences, The clean-up program support- gave planners valuable experiences National University of Singapore, ed the nation’s long-term develop- which could be applied to the Blk. S2, 14 Science Drive 4, ment plan. If action was not taken, nation’s other rivers. It is consid- Singapore 117543. Tel: 8742696. the pollution problem would have ered an excellent investment, as it Fax: 7792486. E-mail: dbsclm@ been seriously compounded by gave clean waterways with aquatic nus.edu.sg now, and become a greater obstacle life in exchange for a polluted

Women’s Contribution to human rights, and health. Gonzalez has been instrumental in influenc- Conservation and gained widespread respect for ing communities in northeastern orld Wildlife Fund (WWF) her capacity to bring the concepts Chiapas to participate in a network Whas recognized the efforts of of marine conservation to fishers of organizations from Mexico, two outstanding women for their and other resource-dependent Honduras, and Nicaragua that share role in conservation at an awards communities living outside the lessons and methods for sustainable ceremony on June 26, 2001 in park. Kasmidi also founded Kelola, energy alternatives and incorporat- Washington, DC, US. Meidi a leading nongovernmental envi- ing gender issues. Recently, the Kasmidi from North Sulawesi, ronmental organization in North governor-elect of Chiapas asked Indonesia, and Mauricia Gonzalez Sulawesi responsible for a broad Gonzalez to lead the development Garcia from Chiapas, Mexico, were range of advocacy and community of a biodiversity conservation strat- selected to receive these awards for empowerment programs.Through egy as part of a statewide develop- work in their native countries. her work with the Indonesian ment plan. This is the first year that WWF coastal resources management pro- WWF established the Women has presented the Women and gram, Proyek Pesisir, Kasmidi and Conservation Initiative to rec- Conservation Awards.These awards assists other communities in initiat- ognize and expand the critical roles acknowledge exceptional achieve- ing community-based marine sanc- women play in using and managing ment in two categories—a tuary programs similar to Bunaken, natural resources.This includes woman’s contribution to conserva- and is working with government growing food crops and cultivating tion, and an individual or organiza- and nongovernmental organizations home gardens, collecting water and tion’s contribution to enhancing to upgrade school curriculums fuelwood for household needs, and women’s participation in conserva- dealing with marine conservation. using forest products to make tion. Each winner received a cash “Meidi’s being honored by World foods, medicines, and goods for award of US$5,000. Wildlife Fund is well-deserved and sale, as well as participating in for- “These women have made will be an inspiration to not just est and protected area manage- incredible contributions to conser- her female colleagues, but to ment. In addition to the awards, vation in their native countries. everyone involved in our interna- the initiative offers gender training, They are role models and effective tional coastal programs,” said technical assistance, and develop- stewards of the environment,” said Lynne Hale, field program director ment of tools to assist field staff in Kathryn Fuller, president of WWF. for the Coastal Resources Center, increasing women’s participation in Meidi Kasmidi, in the early University of Rhode Island, US.” conservation strategies. 1990s, worked to establish the Mauricia Gonzalez Garcia,as a For further information, contact Bunaken Marine Park, now a World founder of the nongovernmental Nancy Engelhardt, WWF-US, Heritage site, and helped to devel- organization, Linea Biosfera, in 1250 24th St. NW, Washington, op innovative and sustainable com- Chiapas, Mexico, has focused on DC 20037 USA. Tel: 202-778- munity-based village enterprises training a network of community 9556. Fax: 202-293-9211. within the park. She worked close- promoters in 10 different commu- Website: www.worldwildlife.org ly with a range of women’s groups nities in the areas of agroecology,

InterCoast • Fall 2001 27 Swanson However, even describing the the Chesapeake.Thousands of (continued from page 1) bay in the context of a watershed municipalities, industries of every Within its boundaries exist a range does not fully describe the land’s sort, and farms use water from the of aquatic environments, from influence on its waters. Chesapeake bay and its tributaries to do every- freshwater to nearly full-strength Bay, compared to other bodies of thing from irrigate crops to cool seawater, allowing a broad spec- water, has a huge drainage basin for nuclear reactors.They also use it as trum of organisms to flourish. It the amount of water it contains, a a place to dispose of treated waste. has complicated physical circulation ratio of 2,743 km2 of land for It is estimated that 1.5 million patterns that vary with changes of every 1 km3 of water.The principle gallons (5.7 million liters) of treat- season, tide, and weather. Outside reason is the Chesapeake’s extreme ed sewage flows into the bay each of its boundaries, adjacent or shallowness—its average depth is day from more than 5,000 sources. sometimes remote ecosystems only 22 feet (7 m). This does not include the soil, fer- influence the Chesapeake Bay, This shallowness contributes to tilizer, and pesticides running off contributing to its remarkable its amazing productivity. It is the the farms. By their very nature, complexity. home for more than 2,700 species pesticides are toxic, while heavy With a width of between four of plants and animals, from tiny amounts of the nitrogen and phos- and 30 miles (6 to 50 km), the creatures wallowing in the marsh phorus in fertilizer set off an aquat- water surface of the tidal mud to giant bald eagles, which ic chain reaction that ultimately Chesapeake covers 2,500 square have made an awe-inspiring come- chokes out underwater grasses, the miles (6,475 km2).The back around the Chesapeake spawning ground for a variety of Chesapeake’s 64,000 square mile region. Some 250 types of fish, aquatic life. (165,760 km2) watershed encom- crabs, clams, and oysters live in the At this point, it would be impos- passes part or all of six states— bay—many in extraordinary num- sible to restore the Chesapeake Bay New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, bers.Together, they have a com- without addressing these man- Delaware,West Virginia, and mercial value of more than one bil- induced influences.They permeate Virginia. It includes a number of lion dollars annually. Half of the the ecosystem and help to define geologic formations, from the flat national catch of the Atlantic blue it.They have also inalterably coastal plains to the forested crab is harvested from bay waters. changed it.The current restoration mountains of the mid-Atlantic Based on a catch of 80 million effort attempts to seek a balance region, with the fertile, largely pounds (36 million kg) in a good whereby the human population can agricultural piedmont in between. year, it equates to between 150 and prosper while the native fish and It receives most of its freshwater 240 million individual crabs. Of wildlife are provided with the from about 50 major tributaries the nation’s soft-shell crab catch, ample habitat, clean water, and and thousands of streams, creeks, 90 percent is taken from the harvest restrictions sufficient to and ditches. Eight of these 50 Chesapeake. sustain their populations. rivers contribute about 90 percent Still, for all this productivity, the Chesapeake Bay of the freshwater contained in the bay is not without its woes.The main stem of the bay. Chesapeake acts as a giant catch Program:A basin for everything that drains Restoration from its massive watershed.Today, Partnership much of the bay’s watershed lies in By the mid-1970s, the impact of some of the fastest developing the population—of unrestrained regions of the country and is at the harvests and decades of degrada- southern end of the urban mega- tion—had sharply impaired the lopolis, spanning Washington, DC, Chesapeake’s health and productiv- to New York and the northeastern ity. Under the leadership of several United States.Two of the country’s high-level elected officials from the five major North Atlantic ports— region, the United States Congress Baltimore and Hampton Roads— in 1976 was persuaded to direct are on the Chesapeake, and more the federal Environmental than 10,000 ocean vessels ply its Protection Agency (EPA) to launch waters each year. a major study of the bay’s decline. Close to 15 million people live The research was to consider the in the watershed that drains into entire bay system.

28 InterCoast • Fall 2001 The 1976 Chesapeake Bay study declaration that the “productivity, reduction of sediments as well as marked a turning point for estuar- diversity and abundance” of the nutrients; ambitious recovery goals ine management nationwide. It estuary’s living resourcs were “the for oysters and subaquatic vegeta- demonstrated, for the first time, best ultimate measures of the tion, a sustainable crab catch; a that ecosystem research and the Chesapeake Bay’s condition.”This measurable decrease in the rate of resultant management programs agreement firmly established the conversion of farms and forests to can apply to geographically large connection among the component developed lands coupled with the areas that are ecologically, cultural- parts of the estuary and forced the permanent preservation of 20 per- ly, and politically diverse. It also integration of its management. cent of the watershed’s land; and confirmed that the bay’s waters With the Chesapeake Bay more effective community-based were inextricably linked to the land Agreement as its basic charter, the stewardship of the bay’s rivers and use practices of its watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program grew to subwatersheds. Driving all of these The findings and recommenda- become a unique regional institu- actions is a powerful incentive; the tions from the US$27 million tion, guiding and coordinating bay- removal of the Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay research program related activities of hundreds of from the federal list of impaired were released late in 1982.The federal, state, local, and interstate waters by the year 2010. report laid the foundation for the government agencies, and working Success in reaching the goals first Chesapeake Bay Agreement with dozens of nongovernmental requires a substantial investment of signed in 1983. In that compact, business, civic, and environmental time and money of every citizen in the governments of Pennsylvania, organizations as well. the watershed. It means providing Maryland,Virginia, the Chesapeake Since 1987, the Chesapeake Bay incentives to promote proper envi- Bay Commission (the tri-state leg- Agreement has been revised just ronmental management practices. islative agency), the District of twice. First, in 1992, with a series It means preventing nitrogen influx Columbia, and the EPA agreed to of amendments.The basis for these by upgrading waste containment develop and implement coordinat- amendments was an analysis called and treatment. It means using less ed plans “to improve and protect for in the 1987 Agreement.The fertilizer on farm fields and build- water quality and living resources analysis determined that nutrient ing ponds, pits, and other protec- of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine reductions in any given river would tions against nutrient runoff. It system.” While non-specific in its not have an equal impact on the means developing our landscape in goals, the 1983 Agreement water quality of the bay.This find- more environmentally-sensitive launched a regional effort to man- ing triggered a fundamental adjust- patterns. It means levying heavy age the bay as a whole—as an ment in the direction of the bay fines against scofflaws who contin- ecosystem. clean-up effort.While continuing ue to pollute. Basically, it means we That basic declaration of intent to work toward the 40-percent need to change how we do things was expanded to a series of 31 nutrient reduction goal set for the in the Chesapeake Bay region. commitments in a second bay in the 1987 Agreement, the The Restoration Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed states also agreed to develop spe- in December 1987.These commit- cific strategies to meet nitrogen Campaign is 25 Years ments spelled out steps to improve and phosphorus reduction targets Old the management of fish and set for each major tributary. A quarter century has passed wildlife, restore water quality, plan Then, in 2000, the Agreement since EPA began its research on the for development, increase public was entirely updated with a new, Chesapeake Bay and the multi- awareness and access, and continue and even more far reaching, jurisdictional management effort to improve intergovernmental Chesapeake 2000 agreement. was launched. Much has been cooperation.The states and federal Subtitled “A Watershed accomplished, yet many more chal- government were to carry out the Partnership,” it couples hard-hit- lenges lie ahead.What follows is a agreement, each in their own way, ting, specific, and often deadline- summary of the 12 key lessons by passing new legislation, creating driven goals with the clear cry for learned by the leaders of the bay new initiatives, extending (and bet- the participation of all—public and clean-up effort.They are presented ter enforcing) existing programs, private sector alike.Without that in the belief that some or all of and backing their commitment partnership, the bay can simply not these lessons may be transferable to with money. be saved. the restoration efforts of other At the core of this unprecedent- Chesapeake 2000 takes an large-scale environmental manage- ed regional compact was the firm aggressive stance by calling for the ment efforts. (continued page 30)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 29 Swanson ship is key.The chairperson of the restore.Water clarity that will 1. Begin with comprehensive Chesapeake Bay Commission, the meet the light requirements for sea scientific studies that com- governors of three states, the grass is a central focus as is ensur- bine theory, detailed knowl- mayor of our nation’s capital, and ing sufficient dissolved oxygen in edge, monitoring, and model- the administrator of the US EPA the water to meet the living ing provide prominent leadership as resources’ life requirements. The EPA Bay Program study members of the “Chesapeake There are nearly one hundred presented the public and political Executive Council.” The council commitments to be met in leadership of the region with a meets annually to adopt new poli- Chesapeake 2000. Many are quan- solid, scientific foundation for deci- cies and revitalize the public com- tifiable which make progress meas- sionmaking.The information was mitment to the clean-up. Since the urable and keep leaders account- comprehensive and multi-discipli- elected terms of these leaders vary, able.These goals last beyond the nary. It identified clear linkages the program is never without con- terms of the elected leaders and between land, water, and living tinuity as elected officials take and will provide for continuity in the resources. Since the release of the leave office.The infrastructure of face of political change. EPA report in 1983, highly sophis- the program—the agreements, the Transferability:The specific ticated monitoring, modeling, and staffs of the agencies involved, and goals of the Chesapeake Bay targeted research have continued the universities of the region— Agreement may not necessarily be to play a central role in the formu- provide long-term stability. the best models for other coastal lation of policy in the region. Transferability: Jurisdictions systems. However, regardless of the Admittedly, policy decisions are vary, and coastal ecosystems restoration challenge, the process not always based on science. embrace many of them both within of setting mutually agreed upon However, if made available in an and between nations. High-ranking goals is important.The commit- easily-understandable format, the political figures in each jurisdiction ments should be realistic, but they chances are greatly improved that should be visibly involved in a should also challenge the programs science will be integrated into the coastal management program. to implement significant change. In policy dicisionmaking process. On- Only these officials have the addition, they should form the going monitoring helps policy- authority to endorse and imple- basis for periodic re-evaluation of makers to measure their progress ment policies developed by the progress (lesson 11). while modeling offers a useful tool program infrastructure. to test the monitoring findings into 4. Encourage the participa- 3. Embrace clear, strong, spe- the future. tion of a broad spectrum of cific, comprehensive, and participants Transferability: Coastal man- measurable goals Ecosystems like the agement programs must be based A set of highly specific goals, Chesapeake’s are extraordinarily on the best available science and many with deadlines, have been complex. A framework to manage technology.This normally is found adopted that are unmatched it has had to involve a complex at research laboratories that are nationwide.These goals cover a array of players representing all components of universities within comprehensive array of issues levels of government, the private the region. Our experience is that including water quality, living sector, scientists, and citizens. facilitated and meaningful exchange resources, growth management, Three governors, 40 members of of information between the aca- public information and education, Congress, hundreds of state legisla- demic research and management research and monitoring, and pub- tors and local elected officials, 13 communities is highly desirable. As lic access.They include such specif- federal agencies, four interstate we move toward whole-ecosystem ic goals as a tenfold increase in oys- agencies, more than 700 citizen programs at the cutting edge of sci- ters by 2010 and striking the bay groups, and hundreds of businesses ence and policy, it is absolutely from the federal list of “impaired all play a role in our restoration essential. waters.” Reducing nutrients, sedi- effort.Together, these players bring 2. Involve the highest levels of ments, chemical contaminants, air immense political leadership and leadership possible pollution and boat discharge are at financial support to the program. There is strength in strong lead- the heart of the matter, as is pollu- The bay program has established ership and accountability. High- tion reduction in priority urban more than 50 subcommittees and level and diverse political leader- waters—among the toughest to workgroups to ensure that all of

30 InterCoast • Fall 2001 these interests are represented and effect. Effective coastal manage- 7. Develop a balanced set of that the goals of the program are ment cannot reside solely with management tools ultimately achieved. Government governmental agencies and non- In a program that spans the employees work side-by-side with governmental organizations. In gamut from land use policy to fish- representatives of industry, local addition to formal announcements eries management to recreational government, business, and the pub- and newsletters, nations can take boating to airborne toxics, a diver- lic at large. Strong communication advantage of their education infra- sity of implementation tools has strategies, frequent meetings, and structure to teach ecological prin- proven critical.We have found that an inclusive process have become ciples and environmental steward- when managing an ecosystem, no the signature of the Chesapeake ship to the next generation of citi- one approach works best in all eco- Bay program. zens. logical, political, and economic sit- Transferability: Strong com- 6. Inform and involve the uations.The bay program involves munication links can enable many public 20 agencies of the federal govern- to participate at minimal expense. The citizenry of the bay region is ment, three states, the nation’s No matter how desirable broad- remarkably knowledgeable.While capitol, more than one thousand based involvement may be, a there is a naturally high public sen- empowered local governments of coastal program should not out- timent toward saving the bay, some markedly different orientations, grow the ability of its participants of the credit should go to the bay and citizens and scientists too to communicate. Advances in elec- leaders’ extensive educational and numerous to count. As a result, tronic mail capabilities and access technical assistance efforts. Survey management tools range from leg- to the Internet now make this a after survey reveals overwhelming islative mandates to voluntary lesson many more can learn. public support for the restoration efforts. Strong laws and regulations 5. Provide incentives and efforts and a growing understand- ensure effective pollution control methods for institutional ing of concepts such as “water- and resource stewardship in the cooperation sheds” and “ecosystems.” Citizens region while broad public educa- In the bay region, the principle are concerned and speak their tion and technical assistance pro- incentives are both money and minds about what they are willing grams provide incentives. For the public pressure.The active, finan- to do to restore the Chesapeake restoration of the bay to work, the cial involvement of EPA and other Bay.As in all situations, there is a approaches have had to vary greatly federal agencies has leveraged hun- wide diversity of opinion, but in within the watershed. dreds of millions of state and local the end most are supportive, at Transferability: No coastal dollars. Cost share and technical least at the base-line level.The management program will be suc- assistance programs have been management of the bay involves cessful if it exceeds available finan- established to address a range of complex political decisions. Special cial resources.When choices must management issues and have interests add pressure to these be made, combating known allowed for much of the restoration decisions. But in the end, an sources of pollution must be the effort to be voluntary in nature. informed and vocal public has immediate goal. Most programs Regulatory programs that ensure proven to be the policymakers’ begin with point sources—improv- protection of key resources have greatest ally. ing wastewater treatment or regu- complemented these incentives. An Transferability: A balanced lating toxic discharges. However, informed and active public has con- approach can be a consequence of the phosphate detergent ban taught tinued to provide positive pressures strong involvement at the level of us that changing peoples’ behavior on elected officials to adopt strong the local jurisdiction.This is the has great amplification potential. policies and to maintain the federal basis of the new Tributary Progress in pollution control will and state funding for bay clean-up Strategies for the Chesapeake Bay. engender support of more difficult initiatives. In some cases, it may be possible to and costly activities such as habitat Transferability: Over two- take advantage of strong local restoration and wetland mitigation. thirds of the world’s population activities by integrating them into a 8. Choose pollution preven- live close to a coastal sea or great larger coastal management pro- tion before restoration or lake. Behavioral change, such as the gram. In others, as for the mitigation implementation of a phosphate Chesapeake, the larger program Despite significant public and detergent ban in the Chesapeake came first and is now forming the private investments in control region, can have a huge multiplier context for local program develop- technologies and management ment. (continued page 32)

InterCoast • Fall 2001 31 Swanson ious point and nonpoint source constant communication and col- practices to reduce pollution from controls and approaches to public laboration of multiple agencies at discharge pipes and land runoff, involvement were evaluated. In the numerous levels of government. It the Chesapeake Bay continues to bay region, testing research often crosses traditional areas of have nutrient and toxic problems. methodologies and pollution con- management, for example, forcing Once the pollution has entered the trol strategies on a smaller scale, fisheries scientists to work with waterway or the habitat has been using demonstration or pilot proj- land planners, sewage treatment destroyed, it becomes technologi- ects, has led to increased success plant operators to coordinate with cally complex and expensive to when these techniques have been farmers, and so on. restore. In the bay region, the pre- applied more broadly.These Transferability: Our lesson in vention of pollution at its source demonstration projects have helped integration is equivalent to “harmo- has repeatedly proven to be the to develop public confidence, nization” being practiced by many preferred approach. A ban on phos- attract supportive dollars, and coastal programs, including those phate-containing laundry soaps build the confidence of political of the North Sea, Baltic Sea, and instituted in the 1980s throughout leaders. Inland Sea of Japan. Harmonization the bay watershed, for example, Transferability: In many cases, across agencies depends on the has resulted in nearly a 40 percent small-scale project testing can be nature of governmental structure. reduction in phosphorus entering melded with local jurisdiction pro- In addition, if we could broaden the Chesapeake Bay from point gram development.This provides this lesson, we strongly recom- sources.This represents one of the for the development of partner- mend that a coastal program pro- largest single reduction of nutrients ships and encourages more partici- vide for the integration of manage- achieved since the bay program’s pants to become vested in the ment, science, and citizen steward- inception. Importantly, it was demonstration project. ship as a critical first step. achieved at no cost to government 10. Focus on integration of 11. Conduct regular reassess- and little, if any, cost to the con- government agencies ments of goals and progress sumer.The bay waters are cleaner Despite the existence of theory, A cornerstone of the and clothes continue to be bright practice, and tools that support the Chesapeake Bay Program has been and stain-free. implementation of watershed-wide a constant commitment to reassess Transferability:Without ques- management, there remain practi- our goals, monitor the trends, and tion, the degradation and pollution cal obstacles to implementing the measure our progress.The health of our environment has reached concept. In the United States, the and vitality of the living resources global scale. Regardless of the loca- state natural resources agencies are serve as an important indicator of tion, the full restoration of an often separate from the planning, our success. In addition, routine ecosystem, once it is degraded, has budget, or water management water quality monitoring and proven complex, costly, and usually departments.This dissection of futuristic modeling helps us to impossible.We must do more, and responsibility often leads to diffi- track progress in achieving our develop ways to stop or to at least culties in integrating management goals and plot the course for the reduce pollution at its source. efforts that cross agency lines. As future. Periodically, these efforts Businesses, universities, govern- our knowledge of the inter-rela- reveal new information that, in ments, and citizens must join tionships and connectedness of turn, leads to improved ways of forces to identify new methods of land, water, and living resources controlling pollution, managing preventing pollution. Once they grows, we periodically attempt to fisheries, and restoring habitat. are identified, they must be shared restructure our government agen- Sometimes this means a shifting of regionally and globally. cies to better integrate the compo- the course—a change in how we 9.Test scientific theories and nent parts. do things. Politically, these changes management approaches on a Achieving proper integration has are never easy.We may have small scale proved problematic. It challenges already informed the public that a For the past two decades, a the boundaries of traditional problem was the result of a certain number of scientific theories and resource management. It requires pesticide, only to later discover pollution control technologies the cooperation of diverse players that it is caused by a nutrient were comprehensively studied in whose educational, philosophical, instead.We have found that, smaller watersheds within the bay and professional orientations are regardless of the commitments that ecosystem.The effectiveness of var- often worlds apart. It involves the have been made in the past or the

32 InterCoast • Fall 2001 Coastal Zone Asia-Pacific: Improving the State of the Coastal Areas May 12-16, 2002 Bangkok,Thailand Call for Abstracts and Registration This international conference is the first of its kind for the Asia-Pacific region that aims to promote innovative approaches and best practices to improve the state of the coastal areas. Researchers, communities, coastal managers, policymakers and others interested in sharing the practical solutions to address problems in these coastal areas are invited to attend.Those with examples of success and failures in the management of the coastal areas are encouraged to submit paper, poster, and video presentations in the following themes: integrated management policies, community/resource interactions, ecosystem management, resource economics, sustainable coastal activities, and coastal area planning. Deadline for abstract submission is 15 January, 2002. Registration fee is US$ 150 (or US$85 for students), including lunches, reception, banquet and conference materials and publications. Visit the website for registration, abstract submission and more information: www.vims.edu/czap, or contact: Ratana Chuenpagdee, Conference Coordinator, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, P.O. Box 1346, Gloucester Point, Virginia, 23062, USA. Tel. 804-684-7335. Fax. 804-684-7843. E-mail: [email protected] information that has been released, Measuring progress and publiciz- to address the decline of the bay’s it is always better to be straightfor- ing results has proven key to sus- living resources has grown to ward with the findings.The public taining leadership commitment and involve integrated management of has generally demonstrated an abil- public support. Honesty, even land, air, water, and living ity to alter course if new knowl- when the findings are dishearten- resources including man. edge dictates a revised approach. ing, is critical.The frequent and Management mechanisms This dynamic approach to manage- open sharing of information— employed by the program factor in ment has contributed to the whether good or bad—has been ecological, socioeconomic, and cul- integrity of the program. essential to maintaining the trust tural considerations as well. Transferability: Periodic and commitment of the stakehold- This evolution from water to assessments should be undertaken ers involved. watershed has required all of us to in the context of program goals, Transferability:While it is constantly reassess how we manage and they should engage the partici- easy to view any environmental the program. As our concepts and pation of the full range of stake- clean-up project pessimistically, in knowledge evolve, so must our holders. It is equally important to the Chesapeake, we have made governance.We must constantly maintain program flexibility that progress. Some of that progress is look for new and creative allows for, as a result of advances in witnessed by declining nutrient approaches to managing our research, changes in goals or the loads in spite of a growing popula- resources, integrating and financing establishment of new ones. tion in the watershed. Some is in our programs, structuring our 12. Demonstrate and commu- the restoration of commercially- agencies, and soliciting our citi- nicate results important resources like the zens’ support. The bay program was officially striped bass. In addition, some is in The twelve lessons described launched in 1983. Since that time, the increased environmental aware- above collectively constitute a its efforts have held the line on ness on the part of our citizenry framework for ecosystem manage- nitrogen and have achieved a 20 that many visitors to our region ment.While it is highly unlikely percent reduction in phosphorus in quickly observe. Many coastal pro- that the Chesapeake Bay model can the Chesapeake Bay.The outlook grams were instituted in response be wholly transferred to another remains optimistic.We are, at the to a crisis: toxics in marine mam- system, one central lesson stands very least, stabilizing our pollution mals, red tides, oil spills, crashes in out. In order to truly succeed, loads, and are beginning to see sig- a fishery, to name a few. management strategies must be as nificant improvements in many of Continuing citizen stewardship comprehensive, interactive, and our rivers.We have seen demon- depends on making progress in the responsive as the ecosystem they strable gains in the way we manage absence of crisis. are created to restore. land, provide fish passage, restore For further information, contact Conclusion Ann Pesiri Swanson, Chesapeake sea grasses, manage fisheries across Over the last 25 years, the bay state lines, and ban the use of toxic Bay Commission, 60 West Street, program has gone through its own Suite 200, Annapolis, Maryland, chemicals known to have an impact evolution.What began as a water on our ecosystem. 21401, USA. E-mail: apswan quality-oriented program designed [email protected]

InterCoast • Fall 2001 33 Rybka, Carlson, and Rogers tion easements along the river and symbol for polluted waterways and (continued from page 11) its tributaries. Sources of water restore its place in the community Program that focused on two sub- quality impairment have been iden- as our most important resource. watersheds—Big Creek and Yellow tified and other types of projects The community vision for the Creek. Concentrated efforts were include the City of Akron’s sepa- Cuyahoga River is a renewal and mounted in each.The programs rate sewer overflow elimination renaissance of the river by integrat- consisted of public meetings, which program and plans to address com- ing it back into the everyday life of helped to rally public support and bined sewer overflows. the community.The Cuyahoga and helped to identify needs in the A variety of research studies its tributaries will be fishable, smaller watersheds. Activities were have been funded to promote swimmable, and accessible. Its developed and implemented in the understanding of water quality watershed will be known by its res- watersheds, including stream clean impairments and aid in the devel- idents for its uniqueness, history, ups, storm drain stenciling, biolog- opment and refinement of educa- and importance to their quality of ical stream monitoring, habitat tional programs. Studies include life.”A River Navigator has been improvement projects and water navigation channel re-aeration fea- employed to further help in festivals. Citizens were encouraged sibility, fish advisories, creel sur- restoration and revitalization to get involved and help sustain the veys, community preference polls, efforts along the entire 100 miles activities in their own backyards. fish tissue, phytoplankton and lar- of the river. Land use issues continue to be val fish studies, US Geological Clearly, the Cuyahoga River has one of the biggest challenges in Survey bacterial studies and bio- gone from flame to fame. Much stream restoration. Urban sprawl, engineering projects. work has been done since the last filling of wetlands and destruction Noticeable environmental fire. Citizens in the Cuyahoga of riparian habitat continue to improvements have already been watershed are becoming increas- impact water quality.These issues recorded in the Cuyahoga River.A ingly aware of the phenomenal are being addressed through a vari- 1998 larval fish study documented resource in their backyards. Many ety of restoration activities. Several usage of the river as a navigation are working to protect and restore demonstration projects have been channel for Lake Erie fish migra- the river. Now the time has come constructed that show the potential tion. Follow-up studies in 1999 to formulate a long-term vision for of bioengineering techniques for confirmed these results and docu- the region that capitalizes on the stream restoration.These projects mented the presence of steelhead river and Lake Erie’s assets, which demonstrated a variety of success- trout adults. will increase the quality of life and ful remedies for soil erosion and economic benefits for watershed flooding problems. An array of the An American citizens. river stakeholders, including the Heritage River US EPA, Ohio EPA, Soil and Water In 1996, Congress designated Cuyahoga River Conservation Districts are working the lower 50 miles of the Cuyahoga Stakeholders to promote riparian setbacks, and River as the Ohio & Erie Canal The renaissance of the Cuyahoga obtain and encourage stream National Heritage Corridor.The River would not be possible with- restoration projects.Work is also same section was also designated a out the help of stakeholders who being done to establish conserva- National Scenic Byway in 2000. have worked so diligently on an Children cleaning up trash With the help of all the river stake- action agenda aimed at restoring holders, including citizens, a mas- the river to its full potential. sive effort was launched to pro- Stakeholders, many of whom pro- mote the Cuyahoga River as a can- vide support, both financially and didate for American Heritage River in-kind on a variety of projects, status. include many national, state and The Cuyahoga was named one of local governmental agencies, neigh- the fourteen American Heritage borhood organizations, conserva- Rivers in 1998 because of its tion groups, local municipalities, unique historical, cultural, and elected officials, businesses, environmental history.The vision schools, churches, scouts and other of the Cuyahoga American youth groups and the general pub- Heritage River is to “retire the lic. Local foundations have provid- image of the Cuyahoga River as the ed much needed financial support

34 InterCoast • Fall 2001 and so has the public. ing to the public. Everyone is the successes so far, the river will The Cuyahoga River’s remark- beginning to realize how a healthy be a hot spot for all the right rea- able recovery is helping to shape Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie con- sons! the future of the Northeast Ohio tribute to a great quality of life and For further information, contact region. Green space initiatives and increased economic benefits for the Janine Rybka, Cuyahoga River restoration projects are on the top region. Needless to say, continued RAP, 1299 Superior Avenue, of the local planners, action agen- support is needed to keep the Cleveland, Ohio 44114 USA. Tel: das. New parks along the river, the momentum going on the numerous 216-241-2414, ext. 610. Fax: 216- return of trophy fish and more of restoration projects that have 621-3024. E-mail: jrybka@mpo. recreational activities are encourag- already been identified, but with noaca.org

Delaney ra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/wkly- surprising to all, has been the (continued from page 13) intr.htm, for Massachusetts Bay: rapidity with which the natural sys- and discharge the effluent without http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/ha tems have recovered allowing once further damage to the receiving rbor/html/mbmon.htm again swimming and fishing and a waters in Cape Cod Bay.To provide Summary healthy environment for seals, ongoing assurances to the public birds, and marine life in Boston While embarrassingly slow in and regulators, comprehensive Harbor. initially responding to massive pol- monitoring and contingency plans For further information, contact lution of Boston Harbor, the were designed and are being imple- Richard Delaney, University of responsible institutions have now mented by Battelle Memorial Massachusetts, 100 Morrissey not only done so, but also have Laboratory, an independent Blvd., Boston, Massachusetts used the Boston Harbor situation as research company.The results of 02125-3393 USA. Tel: 617-287- a catalyst to successfully expand the monitoring are available to the 5570. Fax: 617-287-5575. E-mail: and incorporate a range of other public daily via a website: for [email protected] Boston Harbro: http://www.mw issues and actions. Perhaps most

Holthus education—will have the opportu- For more information, contact (continued from page 23) the Marine Aquarium Council at species, locations and effort.This nity to learn about decompression [email protected] or Fax: will help level the playing field as sickness, which some now believe 808-550-8317 sellers and buyers can negotiate the is the result of an encounter with a “sea ghost.” fair price of a product based on full Idenitfying species suitable for capture information, reducing the possibili- During an ongoing feasibility ty of unfair transactions for those study in the Philippines, 250 col- lacking this knowledge. lectors in 18 collection areas were MAC certification indirectly recently trained to the MAC stan- addresses other social concerns dards through a partnership with through additional certification the International Marinelife measures. Dive safety issues are Alliance.Test cases on the MAC addressed by requiring proper standards will be conducted training of personnel using scuba throughout the chain of custody in or other gear and regular servicing fall 2001, and the MAC certifica- of equipment. Collectors—many tion system will be operational of whom have only a grade-school soon after.

ABOUT THE MARINE AQUARIUM COUNCIL (MAC)
MAC is an international non-profit organization established in 1998 to bring the aquarium industry, hobbyists, conservation organizations, government agencies and public aquariums together to address the sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems by the marine aquarium industry.
MAC’s mission is to conserve coral reefs and other marine systems by utilizing the marketplace to reward good conservation practices.
MAC creates industry standards, accredits third parties to certify those in the marine ornamental trade who adhere to these standards and educates industry operators, hobbyists and the general public about coral reef issues.
It is anticipated that the first MAC-certified marine ornamental will be available to consumers in late 2001.

InterCoast • Fall 2001 35 Nickerson-Tietze through a kind of consensus. communities for their feedback and (continued from page 5) Community-based management understanding.The reason to keep
Seeking sustainable funding could build on the independence the scientific findings accessible and for the program from both local and sense of duty and pride that is presented in clear ‘public prose’ is sources as well as from state and prevalent in Thai culture. to allow everyone to participate in national program budgets The choice for CBFM fit well for the decisionmaking, and therefore, Bringing These Phang-nga Bay.The project has can use it to help make decisions Lessons to Estuaries thrived from the initial manage- together. ment structure established in 11 Ywo years into the project, a Outside the US villages to currently more than 35 handful of participants from the In 1995, the Food and Agricul- villages throughout the bay. One of CBFM project were able to attend ture Organization of the United the major reasons behind the the Sarasota Bay Training Workshop Nations (FAO) Bay of Bengal strength of the project is the con- on estuarine management held in Programme used these lessons tinuing emphasis on the “NEP prin- Sarasota, Florida, US, on April 14- learned from the NEP experience ciple” of using science as an objec- 27, 1996, organized by the Coastal in designing the approach together tive foundation on which to base Resources Center, University of with the Department of Fisheries, management decisions.With the Rhode Island, US, and the EPA Thailand, for the Community- focus on understanding the issues Office of Water, Coastal based Fisheries Management as they impact the estuarine Management Branch.The CBFM Project (CBFM) in Phang-nga Bay. ecosystem, it places all the partici- participants followed the training It is one of the most biologically pants in a more objective and equal with a practical experience in two productive bays of the Andaman position in making a decision on NEPs; the Barataria-Terrebonne Sea, along the western coast of the issues.This has helped in Estuarine Complex (Louisiana, US) Thailand. However, it was not resolving conflicts between the dif- and the Puget Sound NEP.The immune to what was happening to ferent fisheries uses and in bridging experience proved an excellent much of the world’s coast, and by the gap between the government, exchange. One result was the the mid 1980s, the bay’s marine communities, scientists, and the expanded effort by the CBFM to fishery resources had shown con- public.The project brought repre- address more of the habitat compo- siderable decline. Declines were sentatives from all perspectives of nents of fisheries management. As a largely due to the common prob- the bay’s management together for result,the villages set up several lems facing tropical estuaries: the first time, and they continue to fisheries reserves in the bay. But degradation of water quality, loss meet regularly to manage the bay. more importantly, the project of mangrove and seagrass habitat, Representatives include the scien- gained a broader understanding of and use conflicts between resource tific community, universities, gov- integrated management, and an users. ernment, the private sector, non- increased confidence in knowing The joint project of the Depart- governmental organizations, and that the approach they have been ment of Fisheries,Thailand and most importantly, the coastal fish- using and adapting in their own FAO marked a test case for com- ing communities who have perhaps project is a result of many years of munity-based management in the closest knowledge of the bay’s learning. CBFM participants are Thailand.The concept had not coastal resources. Interestingly also self-evaluating their project been implemented before, although enough, through this focus of periodically to identify where they discussions had been held among understanding the bay’s ecosystem, need to make changes, if necessary. academics and government on its the CBFM participants found that In this quiet bay in the Andaman possibilities for improving fisheries they had more areas of agreement Sea, the first cycle of estuarine management. However,Thai cul- than disagreement. By working management in Thailand is off to a ture and values favored a commu- together in the project, the scien- strong start. nity-based management approach. tists have been able to learn from For further information, contact Thai coastal fishers, like American the fishers, and have been able to Donna Nickerson-Tietze, Via fishers, are independent and do not use this improved understanding of Anagnina, 227 Grottaferrata like being told what to do, but will the bay in the continued studies of 00046 Italy. Tel: 39 06 945 be eager to do something if they its problems, which in turn is being 46304. E-mail: djn.donna@flash- believe in it. In addition, much of used by the project. As in the NEP net.it the decisionmaking within families approach, the scientific findings are and communities in Thailand is continuously brought back to the

36 InterCoast • Fall 2001 COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE For a complete list, and for shipping and handling information if applicable, please contact the Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA. Tel: 401 874-6224. Fax: 401 789-4670. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://crc.uri.edu Tobey, J., J. Clay and P.Vergne. 1998. Maintaining a Balance: The Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts of Shrimp Farming in Latin America. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2202. In English and Spanish. Pogue, P.and Noëlle F. Lewis. 1999. Coastal Hazards Mitigation: An Overview of the Policies, Programs and Activities in the Coastal Northeast. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2216. Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership Support Unit and the Mariculture Working Group. 1999. Tanzania Mariculture Issue Profile. Dar es Salaam,Tanzania. Olsen, S.B. 1999. Educating for Governance of Coastal Ecosystems: The Dimension of the Challenge. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2219. Olsen, S.B. 2000. Increasing the Efficiency of Integrated Coastal Management. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2220. Coastal Resources Center. 2000. Coastal Resources Management Project II, 1999 Results: Increasing Conservation and Sustainable Use of Coastal Resources. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2222. Fraser, N., B. Crawford and J. Kusen. 2000. Best Practices Guide for Crown-of-Thorns Clean-up. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2225. Pollnac, R. and B. Crawford. 2000. Assessing Behavioral Aspects of Coastal Resources Use. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2226. Coastal Development Authority-Kenya. 2000. Moving Coastal Management Forward, Kenya Progress Report 1994-1999. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2231. Crawford, B., M. Balgos and C. Pagdilao. 2000. Community-Based Marine Sanctuaries in the Philippines: A Report on the Focus Group Discussions. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2224. Pollnac, R.B. and B.R. Crawford. 2001. Discovering Factors that Influence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2229. Schuttenberg, H and D. Obura, Eds. 2001. Coral Bleaching: Causes, Consequences and Response. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2230. Bayer,T., Balgos, M., Crawford, B., Padiglao, C.R. and Tulungen, J.,White, A., Eds. 2001. Proceedings: Philippines-Indonesia Workshop on Community-Based Marine Sanctuaries. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2234.

InterCoast • Fall 2001 37 Greening stormwater improvements at phos- from completed habitat restoration (continued from page 7) phate fertilizer factories and trans- projects totaled an estimated 7 tons and were used by each of the part- port terminals reduced almost 20 per year. ners in the development of their tons TN loading per year by the Agricultural Practices: action plans. year 2000. Water use restrictions have pro- The types of nutrient reduction Land acquisition and pro- moted the use of microjet or drip projects included in the nitrogen tection: Land acquisition and irrigation on row crops (including management plan range from tradi- maintenance of natural or low winter vegetables and strawberries) tional nutrient reduction projects intensity land uses precludes higher and in citrus groves. Micro-irriga- such as stormwater upgrades, density uses and higher rates of TN tion has resulted in potential water industrial retrofits, and agricultural loading. Land acquisition precluded savings of approximately 40 per- best management practices to more than 15 tons TN loading per cent or more over conventional actions not primarily associated year by the end of 1999. Approved systems and an estimated 25 per- with nutrient reduction, such as overlay districts requiring addition- cent decrease in fertilizer applied. land acquisition and habitat restora- al nutrient control in management Nitrogen reduction estimates from tion projects. A total of 105 proj- areas precluded an estimated 10 these actions total 6.4 TN tons per ects submitted by local govern- tons per year TN loading. year. ments, agencies, and industries are Wastewater reuse:Waste Education/public involve- included in the plan; 95 percent of water reuse programs resulted in a ment: For those projects for which these projects address nonpoint 6.4 ton per year reduction on TN nitrogen load reductions have not sources and account for 71 percent loading. Conversion of septic sys- been calculated or measured, but of the expected total nitrogen tems to sewer reduced TN loading some reductions are expected, the reduction. Half (50 percent) of the by 1.7 tons per year. Consortium Action Plan assumes a total load reduction will be Emissions reduction: 10 percent reduction estimate until achieved through public sector Estimated emissions reduction more definitive information is projects, and 50 percent by from coal-fired electric generating available.These programs have industry. plants between 1995-1997 resulted reduced TN loading by an estimat- A total of 134 tons per year in reductions of NOx emissions of ed 2 tons per year. reduction in nitrogen loading to 11,700-20,000 tons.To estimate Industrial upgrades: A phos- Tampa Bay is expected from the the reduction of nitrogen deposi- phate fertilizer mining and manu- completed projects, which exceeds tion which reaches the bay (either facturing plant has terminated the the 1995-1999 reduction goal of by direct deposition to the bay’s use of ammonia in flot-plants (an 84 tons per year by 60 percent. An surface, or by deposition and trans- element of the fertilizer manufac- updated estimate of nitrogen load- port through the watershed), a turing process), resulting in a ings to the bay from all sources was 400:1 ratio (NOx emissions units reduction of 21 tons per year of initiated by TBEP in summer 2001, to nitrogen units entering the bay) nitrogen loading. Other fertilizer after which the effectiveness of the is assumed. Expected reductions manufacturing companies have proposed projects in maintaining from atmospheric deposition thus upgraded their product conveyor loads to the bay will be evaluated. ranged from 29 to50 tons per year systems, resulting in a TN reduc- Specific Projects and by 1999.To date, emissions reduc- tion of more than an estimated 10 tions have not been included in the tons per year due to control of fer- Expected Nitrogen estimated total TN reduction to the tilizer product loss.The termina- Loading Reductions bay, pending agreement on estima- tion of discharge by an orange juice Stormwater facilities and tion methods. manufacturing plant into a tribu- upgrades: Stormwater improve- Habitat restoration: Although tary of Tampa Bay has resulted in a ments or new facilities include typically conducted for reasons reduction of more than 11 tons per both public and private examples. other than nutrient reduction, year TN loading. Stormwater retrofits using alum habitat restoration to natural land The approach advocated by the injection to urban lakes reduced uses reduces the amount of TN TBEP stresses cooperative solu- total nitrogen (TN) loading by an loading per acre in runoff. Habitat tions and flexible strategies to meet estimated 6.4 tons per year. restoration projects have been nitrogen management goals.This Stormwater improvements elimi- completed or are underway in all approach does not prescribe the nated an estimated 2 tons of TN segments of Tampa Bay’s water- specific types of projects that must loading per year. Industrial shed. Estimated TN load reduction be included in the action plan; con-

38 InterCoast • Fall 2001 sortium partners have been nitrogen loading targets for Tampa private industries and interests par- encouraged to pursue the most Bay based on the water quality ticipating in the Nitrogen cost-effective options to achieve requirements of Thalassia tes- Management Consortium have the agreed-upon goals for nitrogen tudinum and other native seagrass identified and implemented specific management.The TBEP will review species. A long-term goal has been nitrogen load reduction projects to and revise nitrogen management adopted to achieve 15,400 ha of ensure that water quality condi- goals every five years, or more seagrass in Tampa Bay, or 95 per- tions necessary to meet long-term often if significant new information cent of that observed in 1950.To living resource restoration goals for becomes available. reach the long-term seagrass Tampa Bay are achieved. Summary restoration goal, a 7 percent For further information, contact increase in nitrogen loading associ- Holly Greening, Tampa Bay The Tampa Bay management ated with a projected 20 percent Estuary Program, 100 8th Ave. community has agreed that protec- increase in the watershed’s human S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 tion and restoration of Tampa Bay population over the next 20 years USA, Tel: 727-893-2765. E-mail: living resources is of primary must be offset. Government and [email protected] importance.Through the TBEP agency partners in the TBEP and process, partners have adopted

Rubinoff, Romero, and Chavez advances in local governance and [email protected] or website (continued from page 19) participatory democracy, thereby www.icma.org. Sustainability of this increasing the success and sustain- For further information on Impact ability of integrated management in USAID/Mexico’s coastal program, While long-term programmatic Chetumal Bay as has happened in please contact Pam Rubinoff, linkages have not been confirmed, Sarasota Bay. Coastal Resources Center, it is anticipated that the expertise For further information on the Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 and collaboration initiated by the Democracy-Environment USA. Tel: 401-874-6135. E-mail: pilot project will help to prioritize Initiatives, please refer to the [email protected] or website and direct future efforts in bay Biodiversity Support Program’s www.crc.uri.edu. management.This will ensure that EDGE program at www.bsp- Results of the Chetumal Bay ecological, governance, and socioe- online.org. For more information summit can be viewed at conomic issues are addressed in on the programs supported by the www.mirc.uqroo.mx or by con- future management initiatives. International City/County tacting Rafael Romero. E-mail: It is also hoped that a mechanism Management Association, please [email protected] can be identified to stimulate contact Octavio E. Chavez. E-mail:

InterCoast • Fall 2001 39 INTERCOAST, FALL 2001, ISSUE #40 COASTAL MANAGEMENT: IN SEARCH OF SUCCESS website: www.crc.uri.edu

Matuszeski (continued from page 2) Francisco Bay the divergent forces that when you take the time to do it right, you can get real results. long-term financing of the sound’s pro- came together and found mutually Bill Matuszeski recently retired after gram has been secured and what road- beneficial solutions. a decade as the Director of EPA’s blocks were encountered.This is an In all these success stories we see Chesapeake Bay Program, a partner- important issue because it is often easier common elements:
ship of Federal agencies, states, the to obtain planning money than it is to Clear goals were set.
District of Columbia, and a come up with the implementation funds. Science was used to drive action, Commission of state legislative inter- Those in Puget Sound faced this issue not to hold things up until more stud- ests. Prior to that, he served in a series early and developed a range of funding ies were done.
of Federal environmental positions, sources, many of which show innovative Consensus was struggled for and including Director of State Programs thinking. reached among all interested parties, for Coastal Zone Management, and We finish with San Francisco Bay, including the public. Executive Director of the National where once again we look at one issue in For most failures or languishing Marine Fisheries Service. He has also the multitude of concerns addressed by efforts in coastal management, you can assisted in integrated coastal manage- the comprehensive management effort. point to one or more of these elements ment efforts in Latin America, includ- It is an issue faced by more and more that weren’t taken seriously enough. ing Ecuador, Costa Rica and Brazil. ports worldwide—how to deal with the The goals were too broad or too He can be contacted at E-mail: material that must be dredged each year vague—they didn’t deal with “how [email protected] to keep the shipping channels open. In much by when;” or the science became many regions this has become a con- a goal in itself, hamstringing the effort tentious and confrontational problem, to move forward; or important people with economic interests pitted against or interests were left out, often “for environmental concerns. Keelin Kuipers convenience.” and Steve Goldbeck show how in San What these success stories show is

Coastal Resources Center University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Campus Narragansett, RI 02882 USA Address service requested

Printed on recycled paper