![[Skip Navigation]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081011041925im_/http://www.csc.noaa.gov/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Coastal Ecosystem Restoration
The Planning ProcessThe planning process is to a coastal restoration project what a foundation is to a building. Poor planning, like a poor foundation, often produces shaky results. Recognizing this, planning for coastal restoration has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with many good examples on coastlines all around the nation. One such example is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planning process for ecosystem restoration, which incorporates ecological tools and concepts similar to those presented here (see also Pastorak and others 1997; Thom 1997; Yozzo, Titre, and Sexton 1996). Planning requires a substantial investment and is often challenging to fund, but the time and money spent on good planning is repaid by improved efficiency, better results, and fewer time-consuming or costly mid-course corrections. Planning, whether viewed as a process or an analytical framework, is not linear but iterative. That is, the results of early steps often need to be revised after later steps are completed. Key goals of planning are to produce a set of alternatives that could meet the goals of the project, and enough supporting information to select the best alternative. Figure 2 shows nineteen distinct features of the planning process.
VisionThe planning process starts with a vision – the overarching idea from which plans to restore an ecosystem are developed. Typically, this vision of the desired future condition is refined through interaction with individuals representing a variety of disciplines. At its core is an ecological or biological target, but both the environmental and planning contexts of the project are incorporated in the vision. For example, how will the restored site function within the landscape? Will it complement other preservation or restoration efforts? How can the monitoring program support the project and help to further regional conservation goals?> Return to top Ecosystem
The vision may highlight features at one or more scales. For example, features that might form the heart of the vision include a specific reef or estuary, a mangrove forest, a fishery, or a single imperiled species (Figure 3). On the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana, the vision is to reverse the loss of coastal wetlands, whereas in the Columbia River, the vision is to increase the population growth of endangered salmon species (Figure 4) (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2001; NMFS 2000). If the scale of the threatened features is smaller than that of the ecosystem, the ecosystem required to sustain the features is identified and included in the vision. For example, if the vision includes specific benefits for one or more species, whether plant or animal, the habitats required by these species are included. Ecosystems, by definition, include the biota as well as abiotic features such as climate, physiography, and soil. Therefore, the ecological links and controlling factors, such as hydrology, which are critical to maintaining the threatened structure or function, are identified in this step to help determine the project's scale.
Landscape
The net contribution of a restoration project to conservation goals is directly related to its landscape context; therefore, the landscape is considered early in the planning phase when deciding whether a project is worthy of pursuit. The restoration project manager must research the potential effects on system performance of factors such as adjacent land use, roads, off-road vehicles, boats, water diversion, air pollution, water-borne contamination, sewage discharge, dredging, human trampling (including diving), cyclic disturbances, wildlife, grazing animals, migratory birds, and fish (Figure 5). These factors help define the spatial extent of the landscape within which the project is evaluated, because they can affect project performance. Whether an element is included in the monitoring program depends on its potential effects relative to project goals. Goals Goals are written to translate the vision directly into measurable conditions. For example, a project goal might be "to restore the sedge marsh such that there are no differences in vegetative and hydrological conditions between the restored marsh and reference marshes in the region." In this way, the goal leads directly to testable null hypotheses that are evaluated in the monitoring program. How to select measurable conditions or parameters is discussed in Assessing Performance. Above all, it is important to 1) make goals as simple and unambiguous as possible, 2) relate goals directly to the project's vision, and 3) set goals that can be measured in the monitoring program (Thom and Wellman 1996). In the goal-setting process, the desired outcomes of the restoration project should be considered as alternatives to taking no action or to existing conditions.
Planning ObjectivesOnce goals are stated and agreed to, specific planning objectives can be formulated that define more clearly what will be done to reach the goals. Identification of stakeholders, and their inclusion in this process, will 1) strengthen the project by including local knowledge, 2) reduce the chance that the project will be challenged later, and 3) increase its value to the public (Harrington and Feather 1996) (Figure 6). For example, in a 1992 project to restore the Florida Everglades ecosystem, the original goal was to recommend modifying the federal project for "improving the quality of the environment, improving protection of the aquifer, and improving the integrity, capability, and conservation of urban water supplies affected by the project or its operation" (Water Resources Development Act of 1992) (Figure 7). Through a scientific working group and public involvement, the goal was refined into six planning objectives (USACE 1994):
Along with providing guidance for designing the project, objectives form hypotheses against which performance can be assessed. Yet, the planning objectives are still not as specific as formal performance criteria. Site Selection
In cases where the site has not been predetermined for other reasons, the primary factors in site selection should be potential biological importance and likelihood of restoration success. Generally, consideration of these factors is closely followed by an assessment of the complexity of the task and the investment required to achieve restoration success at a variety of sites using a variety of means. In particular, the feasibility of returning the controlling factors identified in the conceptual model to a condition that is conducive to meeting the project goals is assessed. Such factors may include sediment deposition patterns, currents, hydrology, soil or sediment types, temperature, or any other parameter controlling the establishment of desired vegetation, fish, or wildlife. Sites where success is improbable or requires extremely complex or expensive methods should be rejected in favor of sites where success is more likely to be worth the investment, unless the site is critical to a key species or to conservation of a habitat or ecosystem at a landscape scale. Disturbances which can influence the development and sustainability of the restored site (e.g., boat wakes, trash accumulation, contaminants) should also be considered in the site assessment. Conceptual Model
Conceptual models are used to develop performance criteria from goals and objectives. The principal factors that control the development and maintenance of the habitat structure, the major habitat characteristics of importance, and the functions for which the habitat is restored are identified in the model. The Chesapeake Bay Program's plan for restoring submerged aquatic vegetation is an excellent example of how conceptual models can be used to develop performance criteria from project goals and objectives (Batiuk and others 1992). Such models illustrate the direct and indirect connections among the physical, chemical, and biological components of the ecosystem. In this way, they highlight the specific requirements of target components. If a review of existing models and data finds important gaps, baseline studies may be required to develop data on which to build the conceptual model. If a baseline study is needed, it can be designed to provide information that later contributes to judging the success of the project. Conceptual models help forecast the effects of restoration actions relative to expected changes if no action is taken. If an adequate conceptual model cannot be developed, the project may need to be abandoned because the lack of understanding makes it unlikely to succeed.
Numerical Models
Because hydrology is critical to water resource projects and the science is well developed, hydrological modeling is frequently conducted during restoration project planning (Figure 8). Numerical ecological models, however, are much less frequently employed because the relationships among ecological parameters and the physical-chemical environment are not well understood and models for this purpose are generally not available. Numerical models can facilitate sensitivity analysis of aspects of the system, such as basin morphology; predict conditions, such as hydroperiod; and help select performance criteria. Preliminary Designs
The conceptual model and numerical models are used in developing a preliminary series of alternative designs. Each design implements a different set of management actions with different associated costs to meet the objectives. One alternative is no action. It is critical that landscape-level variables such as size, shape, connectivity and configuration be considered in the development of these designs (Thom, Diefenderfer, and Hofreth in press). Designs should be developed systematically, to ensure that all reasonable approaches have been considered (USACE 2000). The effect of each design is forecasted and compared to other designs and the no-action alternative. In the process used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), designs are appraised against four criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability (USACE 1999; USACE 2000). Relative costs, ability to meet the objectives, and acceptability to stakeholders are considered. In most cases, more detailed feasibility designs are required for peer review and cost estimation. Designs may be weighted for comparison, but value judgments are made as well (Harrington and Feather 1996; Thom, Diefenderfer, and Hofreth in press). By developing the designs iteratively, those that do not meet relevant ecological, engineering, and economic criteria can be dismissed early in the process, while those with more merit receive detailed analysis, forecasting, and comparison (Thom, Diefenderfer, and Hofreth in press). Monitoring ProgramWhen the monitoring program is developed early in the planning stages, alternatives without straightforward and feasible monitoring procedures can be eliminated. Additionally, evaluating the progress of a restored system through monitoring is critical to adaptive management. Incorporating the monitoring program into the planning phase ensures that early discussions of project goals consider the types of information required to evaluate whether the goals are met. Goals such as "we will restore the genetic composition of the system to predisturbance conditions," although theoretically achievable, are very difficult to evaluate because of the data-intensive requirements of genetic research relative to the scale of an ecosystem and because of the lack of predisturbance genetic data. Similarly, a goal to "restore historical biodiversity to the site" can be interpreted in various ways, and measuring biodiversity can become problematic, whereas, a goal such as "restore juvenile salmon feeding habitat" can be directly measured by assessing the number or juveniles inhabiting the area, or indirectly by evaluating the abundance of juvenile salmon prey species. The larger a restored ecosystem, the greater the uncertainties associated with restoration and complexity of the monitoring program. These systems tend to have greater habitat heterogeneity as well as abut a greater number of habitats. Performance Criteria Performance criteria are measurable or otherwise observable aspects of the restored system that indicate the progress of the system toward the goals (Thom and Wellman 1996). Most performance criteria are controlling factors or ecological response parameters. Acceptable bounds or limits for the criteria are specified and may be quantitative or qualitative. The relevance of performance criteria depends highly on the system type, region, and question under consideration. The criteria are often developed by a small group with system expertise. Larger groups may provide useful information and input but may also devise monitoring programs that are too elaborate. Criteria are usually developed through an iterative process to determine the most efficient and relevant set of performance measures relative to goals. The primary purposes of the monitoring program must be kept in mind: to assess progress and to determine the steps necessary to fix any systems that are not meeting expectations. Approaches to developing performance criteria are further discussed in the "Performance Assessment" section. Reference Site Selection Although comparisons of the system pre- and post-implementation are useful in documenting the effect of the project, the level of performance can best be judged relative to reference systems. Monitoring sites established in reference systems serve three primary functions: 1) they can be used as models for developing restoration actions for another site, 2) they provide a target from which performance goals can be derived and against which progress toward these goals can be compared, and 3) they provide a control system by which fluctuations unrelated to the restoration action can be assessed. Alternatively, degraded reference sites can be used to show progress of the restored system away from the degraded condition (NRC 1992). Criteria for the identification of reference sites are examined in the "Performance Assessment" section. Cost AnalysisResearchers for the Corps' Institute for Water Resources have made advances in evaluating alternative restoration project plans using cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis without monetizing the benefits of ecosystem restoration (Brandreth and Skaggs 2002; Thom, Diefenderfer, and Hofreth in press). Even with this level of rigor, actual project costs often differ substantially from estimated costs because of uncertainties about the site condition and implementation (Noble and others 2000). Other restoration projects often lack rigorous cost analysis and associated documentation (Shreffler and others 1995). The costs of coastal restoration projects vary widely within and between ecosystem types (Spurgeon 1998). Factors affecting wetland restoration costs are the following:
Costs are summarized and reported by different methods (Guinon 1989; NOAA 1992; Shreffler and others 1995; US DOI 1991), making the comparison of projects a challenge. Some formats in which costs have been analyzed are the cost per acre, costs for specific restoration tasks, costs for construction stage, cost for restoration phase (e.g., design, construction, monitoring), costs for input (e.g., labor, equipment, materials), and costs by funding source. The costs of every restoration project are significantly influenced by unique factors such as site access, preparation requirements, controlling factors, and weather. For more information on restoration costs see also Fonseca and others 2001, Friends of the Earth, American Rivers, and Trout Unlimited 1999, King and Bohlen 1995, Louis Berger and Associates 1997, and the Rhode Island Habitat Restoration Portal at http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/tech_sci/socio/costs.htm. Budgeting
The economic issues are pragmatic: cost analysis, financing, and budgeting. All five components of a restoration project are critical to success, but constructing or planting activities often receive the most attention, while a complete planning process, post-restoration monitoring, and the dissemination of results are frequently underfunded. Contingency funds should be available in case the evaluation of monitoring data determines that additional steps are required for the ecosystem to develop as planned. Funding for annual reports during the adaptive management phase supports decision-makers and provides the basis for publishing results. The budget integrates the project schedule, including seasonal requirements, with the availability of funds on unrelated cycles such as the fiscal year. Financing In many cases, coastal restoration projects are creatively financed through partnerships that secure funds from multiple sources. Sources may include state, federal, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit organizations. The matching funds required by some grants may be provided in part using a per-hour equivalency for community volunteer time on the project. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) focuses on the restoration of coastal habitats important to any fisheries resources and habitats affected by spills of oil or other hazardous materials, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Corps emphasize coastal wetlands and estuaries. Increasingly, funds for some wetlands restoration projects, such as the Florida Wetlands Bank, are provided by corporations through mitigation banking systems designed to provide "credits" to developers whose plans involve the degradation of wetlands (Marsh, Porter, and Salvesen 1996). Available funding depends in part on the organization behind the restoration project, for instance, whether it is a multi-agency partnership or a single nonprofit organization. Funding is often difficult to secure for long-term monitoring, particularly in light of institutional barriers such as annual or biennial funding cycles, but funding for monitoring and adaptive management is critical to the project's success and contributes to the state of restoration science. As a practical consideration, an initial round of monitoring and project modification may be included in the construction budget. Scheduling The four major considerations in scheduling a project are biological, engineering, funding, and legal. Ideally, scheduling is based on a combination of biological considerations, such as germination, and engineering feasibility factors, like flood regime. In the case of a dike breach for estuarine restoration, for example, optimal timing can minimize downstream sedimentation. Furthermore, permits will likely prohibit in-water construction activities in certain seasons to avoid adverse impacts to fish. However, the schedule of many restoration projects is – to a large degree – dictated by the availability of funding and the procurement of required permits. The Corps administers the regulatory program for activities in coastal waters, such as restoration under legislative authorities including the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1899 (33 USC 401) , Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1251), and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 USC 1431 and 33 USC 1401) (USACE 2003). In general, applicants consult with the Corps prior to preparing a permit application. When the application is submitted, the Corps initiates key coordinating functions including notifying the public, notifying NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544), and notifying the state agency responsible for Clean Water Act regulation. A biological evaluation is likely to be required, and an environmental impact statement may be required under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321-4370c). Applicants are required to certify that the project complies with an approved State Coastal Zone Management Program and receives state concurrence under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.) . Some states require a hydraulic project approval permit, and local jurisdictions may require other permits. DocumentationShreffler and others (1995) found that the best-documented restoration projects provided sufficient information for both project-specific and broader purposes. Three simple concepts were common among the best-documented projects: 1) a single file was developed that was the repository of all project information, 2) project events were recorded chronologically in a systematic manner, and 3) well-written documents such as plans and monitoring reports were produced and distributed widely enough to become part of the regional or national awareness of the project. Shreffler and others (1995) found it difficult to access information on over 200 non-Corps restoration projects reviewed; reasonable documentation was available on only 39 of the projects. Kentula and others (1992), in a review of project mitigation permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, found that the quality of documentation was inadequate to allow reliable descriptions of trends in the status of the wetland or to evaluate the success of mitigation or management strategies. Project completion dates were inadequately reported, and, therefore, it was unclear if mitigation had been completed. A simple, systematic documentation and reporting protocol containing minimum requirements for the project would remedy the problems encountered in these reviews. Peer Review
In large restoration projects, a team of experts should be hired to review the plan. Required expertise includes engineering, ecology, funding, management, and, in some cases, modeling or the biology of a target species. When agencies or large organizations are involved in the project, such expertise may be found on staff. A review by the best available outside experts is a good way to refine the plan and ensure success. Construction Plans and Final Costing
Projects of any complexity generally require a formal set of construction plans and specifications for implementation by the contractor (Hammer 1996; Shreffler and others 1995). This is especially true for projects involving manipulations of land or water, or placement or manipulation of underwater structures. Conceptual plans precede detailed plans. Often, the design will be refined through several iterations, for example, the 35 percent, 80 percent, and 95 percent design, prior to the final design. The engineering drawings of the site are a useful tool to visualize the physical structure of the project and locate features such as species plantings and monitoring stations. Specifications include details such as elevation, slope, erosion protection, substrata composition, and schedule. Design engineers must understand unusual critical features, such as tolerances for elevation and hydrology. If planned features are infeasible, they are dropped or modified. Following construction, the drawings can be compared with post-construction "as built" drawings to evaluate how closely the construction followed the design. In the course of most construction projects, adjustments must be made to deal with unknown features, such as previously unknown cables or sources of contamination. These changes can be recorded in the field and documented on the as-built surveys. Finally, the construction plans provide the basis for determining the costs and schedule of project implementation. ReferencesBatiuk, R.A., and others. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: A technical synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. Brandreth, B., and L.L. Skaggs. 2002. Lessons learned from cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis. Report 02-R-5, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. Alexandria, VA. Fonseca, M.S., and others. 2001. "Seagrasses," In Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. Friends of the Earth, American Rivers, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam Removal Success Stories: Restoring Rivers Through Selective Removal of Dams that Don't Make Sense. Visit http://www.americanrivers.org/damremovaltoolkit/ssoverview.htm to download a PDF file of this publication. Guinon, M. 1989. "Project elements determining comprehensive restoration costs and repercussions of hidden and inaccurate costs." Society for Ecological Restoration and Management Annual Meeting, Oakland, CA. Hammer, D.A. 1996. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Second Edition. Lewis. Boca Raton, FL. Harrington, K.W., and T.D. Feather. 1996. Evaluation of environmental investments procedures: Interim overview manual. IWR Report 96-R-18, June 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. Alexandria, VA. Kentula, M.E., and others. 1992. "Trends and patterns in Section 404 Permitting Requiring Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA." Environmental Management. Volume 16, Number 1. Page 109. King, D.M. and C.C. Bohlen. 1995. The cost of wetland creation and restoration. Technical Report DOE/MT/92006-9 (DE95000174). U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. Louis Berger and Associates. 1997. Costs for wetland creation and restoration projects in the glaciated Northeast. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Boston, MA. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2001. The 2000 evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. Marsh, L.L., D.R. Porter, and D.A. Salvesen. 1996. Mitigation banking: Theory and practice. Island Press. Washington, D.C. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Reinitiation of consultation on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, including the juvenile fish transportation program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia Basin. Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Seattle, WA. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1992. Restoration guidance document for natural resource injury as a result of oil spills. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. Noble, B.D., and others. 2000. Analyzing uncertainty in the costs of ecosystem restoration. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Alexandria, VA. NRC (National Research Council). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Pastirok, R.A., and others. 1997. "An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects." Ecological Engineering. Volume 9. Pages 89 to 107. Shreffler, D.K., and others. 1995. National review of non-Corps environmental restoration projects. IWR Report 95-R-12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, MS. Spurgeon, J. 1998. "The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation." Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 37, Number 8-12. Pages 373 to 382. Thom, R.M. 1997. "System-development matrix for adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects." Ecological Engineering. Volume 8. Pages 219 to 232. Thom, R.M., and K.F. Wellman. 1996. Planning aquatic ecosystem restoration monitoring programs. 96-R-23, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources and Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Thom, R.M., H.L. Diefenderfer, and K. Hofseth. In Press. "A framework for risk analysis in environmental investments: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restoration project planning process." In Economics and ecological risk assessment: Applications to watershed management, R. Bruins, and M. Heberling eds. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. US DOI (U.S. Department of Interior). 1991. Estimating the environmental costs of OCS oil and gas development and marine oil spills: A general purpose model. Report prepared by A.T. Kearney, Inc. for U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. Washington, D.C. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Central and southern Florida project reconnaissance report comprehensive review study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville, FL. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1999. Engineer Regulation 1165-2-501, Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy, 30 September 1999. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, 22 April 2000. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. History and overview. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch. Seattle, WA. Available URL: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagename=History_Overview Water Resources Development Act of 1992. Public Law 102-580, October 31, 1992, 106 Stat. 4797, as amended. Yozzo, D.J., J.P. Titre, and J. Sexton. 1996. Planning and evaluating restoration of aquatic habitats from an ecological perspective. IWR Report 96-EL-4. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources and Waterways Experiment Station. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
