![[Skip Navigation]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090115170608im_/http://www.csc.noaa.gov/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Coastal Ecosystem Restoration
Five Components of a Restoration ProjectThe systematic approach to coastal restoration projects presented here and throughout this website includes five phases: planning, implementation, performance assessment, adaptive management, and dissemination of results (Figure 1). This systematic approach was developed by Battelle scientists (Diefenderfer, Thom, and Adkins 2003) through direct experience in designing, implementing, and monitoring restoration projects over the past 18 years. The approach was further informed by readings, discussions with colleagues, and a review of coastal restoration efforts across the United States (Borde and others 2003). In general, the approach is applicable whether the project involves seagrass, coral, an estuary, kelp, salt marsh, mangrove, or other coastal habitats. Special attention is given to monitoring in this approach, an often neglected component of restoration that is critical to the scientific process as well as restoration success. The Issues: Increased Use and Increased StressorsPopulations along our nation's coasts are expected to reach a total of 165 million by 2015, a culmination of an influx of an average of 3600 people per day – a rate far surpassing that for the nation as a whole. Population densities, which are highest along the East Coast, have jumped from an average of 187 people per square mile in 1960 to 273 per square mile in 1994, and are expected to reach 327 by 2015 (Figure 2). More than 139 million people, representing about 53 percent of our nation, currently reside along these narrow coastal fringes, which are only 17 percent of our nation's land area (Culliton 1998). With this migration come industries, jobs, infrastructure, tax revenues, and economic prosperity – also solid waste, effluent, urban nonpoint runoff, loss of wildlife habitat, and increased demands for water and energy. Ironically, as pressures to the environment increase proportionate to the increase in density and use, the very features that originally drew many of these people to the coastlines are diminished or lost.
The need to protect the environment is often perceived to be in direct conflict with economic development; however, the choice is not an either/or decision. Rather, economic prosperity depends on stable natural resources, which can only be sustained through healthy, functioning ecosystems. An obvious example is the fishing industry, which contributes a half million jobs and $100 billion annually to our nation's economy. Over 80 percent of commercial species are harvested at levels that cannot be sustained; further, of the 163 U.S. fisheries, the status of which could be assessed, 40 percent were classified as overexploited and 43 percent were fully used from a biological standpoint (NOAA 1996). The Gulf of Mexico fishing industry, the largest in the country, amounting to $1 billion per year, is highly dependent on the health of estuarine wetland habitats, which are critical to 90 percent of commercial species during some phase of their life cycles (IEMTF 1995). Yet, in Louisiana, over 1000 square miles of coastal wetlands have been lost since the 1950s, an area that continues to decline by 23 to 35 square miles annually. Major state and federal restoration and conservation efforts in this region amount to approximately $50 million each year (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). The Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines are integral to our way of life, providing fisheries, commerce, recreation, and transportation corridors. The environmental problems associated with increased population density and use of coastal areas are not so much environmental problems, but human problems, resulting from the myriad social, economic, and political pressures. The results are alarming. According to the National Coastal Condition Report published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, the overall condition of the U.S. coastal waters varies from fair to poor (Figure 2). Forty-four percent of estuarine areas in the U.S. are impaired for human use or aquatic life use (EPA 2001). Habitat restoration is one means in which the pressures on coastal resources can be alleviated; however, many challenges still face resource managers. The ChallengesThe numerous challenges of restoring coastal areas include the following:
The range of funding sources, which often fluctuate, and the diversity of legal authorities and requirements, have resulted in a piecemeal approach to restoration that many times lacks the cohesiveness of a landscape view to incorporate the influences of neighboring habitats and watersheds. However, the track record for success for many of these efforts is increasing, and many different organizations are now working to synthesize and communicate the knowledge gained from their successes and failures to increase our understanding of the science and improve our chances for success. In 2000, the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) was signed into law in recognition of declining estuarine conditions nationwide. The ERA set a goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010 and authorized $275 million over 5 years for restoration projects. In 2003, the first National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration was sponsored by the non-profit organization Restore America's Estuaries and numerous other co-sponsors. The Benefits of a Systematic ApproachA systematic approach can provide guidance in assisting the varied and numerous conservation groups, consultants, scientists, educators, regulators, resource managers, volunteers, and others who are actively involved in habitat restoration. Such an approach provides a framework systematically to address the components involved in planning, management, implementation, and performance assessment, and to determine collectively the best way to go about achieving a common goal of healthy, sustainable ecosystems. It should force directed, logical thinking on what needs to be done and why, what is known and what is not, what needs to be measured and what the results might mean, and what the next plan of action might be under various circumstances. The documentation of this systematic analysis will provoke additional thoughts and insights. In this manner, a systematic approach provides a pathway toward a collaborative vision of desired future conditions. The role of a systematic approach in consensus building cannot be overemphasized. In the planning stages, potential conflicts can be resolved while options are still available, preventing them from becoming crises; uncertainties can be highlighted and alternative actions determined; tasks can be delineated, minimizing duplication of efforts and increasing cost efficiencies; issues and concerns, even if total consensus is not achieved, can be voiced and clarified. A systematic approach can represent a united effort toward a shared vision, resulting in more realistic expectations, a more rapid response to changing conditions, and a more cost-efficient and successful program. The partnerships that evolve through this integrated collaboration can have positive, far-reaching consequences beyond the completion of the restoration project itself. Required Characteristics of the ApproachBecause a systematic approach is important to providing a common means for taking responsibility for protecting, restoring, and managing our resources for present and future generations, it must necessarily strengthen the essential connection between the needs of ecological protection and restoration with those of economic prosperity and other social values. The approach must be necessarily generic, applicable to all habitat types and project scales, large and small. Restoration projects can vary in scale from small creeks supporting migrating salmonid populations to the thousands of square miles representing the Mississippi Delta and the Florida Everglades. Restoration opportunities abound in every habitat type, from coral reefs and mangrove forests to seagrass meadows and kelp beds. Yet, independent of size or type, coastal environments have the common attribute of being intrinsically complex, driven by a variety of interacting factors that influence their structure and function. A systematic approach that addresses this complexity can improve our understanding of restoration science and can support a strategy toward improvement. In addition, because habitat types do not function alone, a systematic approach can help to integrate a project with the network of the greater landscape, taking into account the influences of habitat connectivity, ecosystem corridors, and surrounding watersheds. In addition, the approach must be applicable to dynamic environments. That is, the systematic approach must be able to conceptualize projects within the context of any number of changing variables, facilitate the formation of realistic goals while recognizing the constraints on the system, define assumptions and highlight uncertainties, and provide insight into potential responses to both stressors and restoration actions. By helping to identify multiple and cumulative problems, determine major information needs, and identify potential solutions, the approach thereby becomes a means of minimizing uncertainties while optimizing the beneficial ecological outcome. The Systematic Approach: Components and AdvantagesThe systematic approach to coastal restoration presented on this Web site is comprised of five basic components of the systematic approach (Figure 1): Planning and Implementation The systematic approach facilitates consensus in identifying realistic goals and measurable performance criteria at the planning stages. Through the development of conceptual models, it provides a basis for understanding the complexity of an ecosystem, including interacting processes, limiting factors, and various uncertainties, which can then be incorporated into project planning and option analysis. A restoration project is an experiment, with variables that can derail even the most thought-out plans. A systematic approach provides a means for addressing the unanticipated at the planning stages, and a strategy for flexibility under varying conditions during implementation. It also provides a framework for prioritizing tasks and eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort for a more cost- and time-efficient program. Performance Assessment, Adaptive Management, and Dissemination of Results A systematic approach is particularly advantageous to developing and implementing a monitoring plan. A clear, concise delineation of goals and performance criteria and the selection of appropriate monitoring parameters are critical to the success of a program. Monitoring provides essential information on how the project is progressing toward achieving goals. A systematic approach to this task enables a more rapid and flexible response to changing conditions. Problems can be addressed and actions modified in light of new information. This process of adaptive management recognizes that ecosystems are characteristically dynamic, heterogeneous over space and time, and constantly changing. A systematic approach is necessary to incorporate feedback mechanisms and to evaluate tradeoffs associated with various options. It effectively integrates science into the decision-making process while continuing research to improve our understanding of complex ecosystems. Through a systematic approach, a baseline and reference points are established against which change can be measured and evaluated. This "learning while doing" is recognized as an important part of the learning process by providing information to alter the project conditions if goals are not being met. Through the systematic approach and the final step of dissemination of results, each project becomes an important opportunity to advance the science and improve the probability of success of future programs. ConclusionIn conclusion, despite the uniqueness of each individual project, a systematic approach to coastal restoration can facilitate consensus among diverse stakeholders, minimize costs while maximizing information, and provide a framework for sound decision-making. This approach is conducive to increasing our understanding of the complexity inherent to functioning ecosystems. Through this understanding, we can better identify interactions between individual elements as well as gain landscape perspectives of essential interrelationships. We can anticipate potential uncertainties, learn from the resolution of the unexpected, and further develop reliable technologies that enhance restoration success. This systematic approach enhances the effectiveness of a variety of task coordinators working toward a common goal: the protection, restoration, and sustainability of our coastal resources and the communities and economies they support. SummaryCoastal restoration is an iterative process as represented by the arrows connecting the five components in Figure 1. First, during the planning phase, the conceptual model is revised as new information is generated. Then conditions on the ground may dictate reevaluation and possible alteration of plans during the implementation phase. Additional restoration measures are implemented as necessary as the development of the system is monitored and evaluated. Management goals for the system may evolve based on information generated at the site or on the evolving state of the science. The dissemination of results cycles information about projects throughout the restoration community, including scientists, resource managers, and the public, thereby increasing the status of the science and the awareness of restoration potential. ReferencesArdito, T., and D. Finch. 1998. "Restoring Coastal Habitats." State of the Coast Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. Available online: http://state_of_coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/chr_10/chr.html. Borde A.B., and others. 2003. National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration. Prepared for NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC., by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, WA. Culliton, T.J. 1998. "Population: Distribution, Density and Growth." State of the Coast Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. Available online: http://state_of_coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_01/pop.html. Diefenderfer, H.L., R.M. Thom, and J.E. Adkins. 2003. Systematic Approach to Coastal Ecosystem Restoration. Prepared for NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC., by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, WA. PNWD-3237. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. The National Coastal Condition Report . EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr. IEMTF (Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force). 1995. The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies. White House Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C. Available online: https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Ecosystem/ecosystem1.html. Also available through National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA. 22161. Volume I: PB95-265583; Volume II: PB95-265591; Volume III: PB95-265609; the three volume set: PB95-265575. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. Available online: http://www.lacoast.gov/programs/2050/MainReport/report1.pdf. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1996. Our Living Oceans: The Economic Status of U.S. Fisheries 1996. Available online: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/econ/pubs.html. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
