Photo Credit: Chris Pickerell
NATIONAL
rfg ESTUARY
HABITAT PROTECTION & RESTORATION [program I PROGRAM
-------
Photo Credit: Donna Bollercbach
-------
Photo Credit; Mare Hlrtz
Photo Credit: Krtstle Gianopolut
Photo Credit: Nancy Laursori
Photo Credit: Stephan Gersh
Photo Credit: Oregon Department of Fish arid Wildlife
-------
Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
16 REOPENING SHELLFISH BEDS
The Center for Inland Bays
24 OYSTER GARDENING
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
32 EXOTIC PLANT CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
39 WETLAND RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
45 RECONNECTING IMPOUNDED WETLANDS
Long Island Sound Study
D I RESTORING ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGES
-------
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
57 RECONNECTING TIDAL FLOODPLAINS
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
64 RIPARIAN, FLOODPLAIN, AND WETLAND RESTORATION
New Hampshire Estuaries Project
71 LAND PROTECTION
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
78 LAND ACQUISITION AND WETLAND RESTORATION
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
86 SEAGRASS RECOVERY
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
95 RIPARIAN AND INSTREAM ENHANCEMENT
5
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM: A NETWORK
PROTECTING AND RESTORING COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
Estuaries are transitional zones between fresh
water from rivers and salt water from the ocean.
They are the most biologically productive, eco-
nomically valuable, and densely populated plac-
es on earth. Estuaries and their nearby habitats
provide essential breeding/nursery areas, food
and cover, and critical migratory corridors for
many coastal and marine organisms.
The EPA has designated 28 of these special
places along the coastal United States as estu-
aries of national significance or National Estu-
ary Programs (NEPs). The NEP, EPA's flagship
national watershed program, was established
under the Clean Water Act to maintain and im-
prove water quality, and to protect and restore
habitat, native fish, shellfish, and wildlife popu-
lations that inhabit those areas.
Each NEP is unique in many ways. Their geo-
graphical locations and habitats they contain
vary widely. Their program boundaries, or area
in which they conduct their efforts and focus
their work, range from very large approximate
23,000 square miles down to roughly 90 square
miles. NEPs encompass a variety of habitat
types throughout their coastal watersheds, from
forested uplands, down to barrier beaches,
and everything in between (such as seagrass
beds, mudflats, and salt marshes). Some NEPs
are urban and densely populated, while others
belong to rural watersheds with small popula-
tions.
However, habitat loss and degradation—the
disruption of an environment's normal ecologi-
cal functions—is a common problem among all
the NEPs and likewise, watersheds all across
the country.
NEPs have already documented losses in the
quantity and quality of estuarine habitats. Like
other coastal areas, impacts to habitat are a re-
sult of historic and continuing human uses and
increasing population growth. NEPs and other
coastal areas are also vulnerable to the effects
of climate change, including sea level rise and
its resulting impacts on habitat. Invasive spe-
cies are an added and particularly complex
problem as they crowd out native plant and ani-
mal populations, especially where habitat has
been disturbed.
-------
Photo Credit: Costal Send Bays and Estuaries Program
Photo Credit: Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
Photo Credit: Maryland Coastal Bays Program
HABITAT LOSS & DEGRADATION
Photo Credit: Center for the Inland Bays
Photo Credit: Stephan Gersh
i m vvHMII i^ni'fc.j .
-------
COMMUNITY DRIVEN,
PARTNERSHIP BASED
Addressing these kinds of problems requires
thoughtful responses based on sound scientific
study, strong partnerships, community Involve-
ment, and effective action. A community based
program from the very beginning, the NEP works
excluslvelythrough partnerships made withlnall
levels of government, environmental agencies
and non-profit organizations, business, aca-
demla, and citizens to provide a healthier en-
vironment for the plants and animals that live,
feed, rest, and reproduce within their estuary's
habitats. This collaboration Is also fundamen-
tal to the many public outreach programs NEPs
need to Inform and educate communities about
the living resources in their communities and
how to protect them—an essential module in
every NEP plan that helps ensure widespread,
long-term support of this important work.
Each NEP works with their many stakeholders,
and uses their expertise to collectively develop
a Comprehensive Conservation Management
Plan (CCMP) with specific tailored actions de-
signed to protect the estuary and its resources.
The object is to create and Implement a plan
that addresses the whole range of environmen-
tal problemsfacingtheestuary—includingthose
that address habitat loss and degradation.
There is a wide range of NEP habitat efforts
contained in each CCMP and level of NEP in-
volvement implementing those actions. NEP
habitat efforts generallyfall Into two categories:
restoration, which involves returning damaged
or lost habitats to a preexisting historic or natu-
ral condition; and protection, which preserves
existing habitat and prevents further degrada-
tion. Habitat projects often involve working with
multiple habitat types on a single site and may
require a variety of techniques and efforts to
protect and restore them. Further, both pro-
tection and restoration can take place on the
same habitat site. Key to these efforts is taking
steps to improve water quality as well. Lower-
ing temperature, reducing sediments, nutrients
and bacteria, and increasing dissolved oxygen
all benefit the health offish and wildlife.
Some NEPs take an active role by hiring con-
tractors to conduct the site modification work,
(e.g., restoring tidal flow to a wetland), pur-
chasing lands for open space, or facilitating
easements from a willing landowner. Many
NEPs provide funding and/or technical assis-
tance to partners to Implement projects such
as replacing culverts, or installing fish ladders.
Yet other NEPs are Involved long before the
-------
Photo Credit; Banrtarta-Terrebonna National Estuary Program
Photo Credit Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
Photo Credit Salem Sound Coastwatch
HABITAT
RESTORATION AND
PROTECTION
Photo Credit Cases Say Estuary Partnership
Photo Credit Gary Raulenan
-------
'earth-moving" even begins, by collaborating
on engineering designs, assisting in obtaining
appraisals, and helping to move through the
permitting process. Frequently, NEPs work with
volunteers and community members, whether
planting native vegetation, removing invasive
plants or growing oyster reefs. Whatever the
level of NEP engagement is on a particular proj-
ect, one thing remains unchanged from coast
to coast, restoration and protection efforts re-
quire extensive coordination with partners from
many areas. The NEP is uniquely positioned to
do just that.
ESTUARIES PROVIDE
UNMATCHED ECONOMIC
VALUE
NEP projects produce far-reaching results for
plants and animals, they also lend important
benefits to people. Strong, functioning and
thriving estuary habitatsarecriticaltosustaining
billionsofdollarsthrough employment,tourism,
commercial and recreational fishing, shipping,
transportation, science, foodstuffs, and more.
10
Estuaries provide essential habitat for 80-90
percent of the country's recreational fish catch
and more than 75 percent of our commercial
catch (The National Estuary Program Coastal
Condition Report 2005, U.S. EPA, June 2007;
NOAA; NRC)
Coastal tourism—boating, swimming, surfing,
fishing and bird watching—attracts some 70
percent of the U.S. population every year, pull-
ing in as much as $12 billion annually; and boat
products and services generate another $10
billion. (The National Estuary Program Coastal
Condition Report 2005, U.S. EPA, June 2007;
NOAA; NRC)
4
Estuary regions comprise only 13 percent of
the land area of the continental US, yet contain
43 percent of the US population, and produce
49 percent of the nation's output (The Econom-
ic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries:
What's at Stake? Ed. By Linwood H. Pendle-
ton. Arlington VA: Restore America's Estuaries
2008)
K
1
i i
NEP study areas encompass coastal areas
that support over $4 trillion in economic activity
' SSr
¦I
r
* f
-------
.. Jti
i
a
and 39 million jobs (Economic Profiles for EPA's
National Estuary Program, U.S. EPA, National
Center for Environmental Economics 2003)
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES
DEPEND ON SOUND
PLANNING
The CCMP addresses the entire range of en-
vironmental problems facing the estuary, and
provides a blueprint to identify, prioritize, and
tackle habitat loss and degradation.
Some universal CCMP objectives for NEP habi-
tat restoration and protection work include:
• Assessing habitat conditions: monitoring
and sampling the habitat's physical, biological,
and chemical characteristics and documenting
changes to determine status and trends.
• Setting habitat goals: identifying and evaluat-
ing habitat sites to target the number of acres
and species of concern, and prioritizing efforts.
An inventory is often developed and sites are
mapped.
• Funding and implementing projects: habitat
protection and restoration: Providing the funds
and technical assistance to conduct on-the-
ground restoration and acquire land for protec-
tion. Projects are designed to improve habitat
structure and functioning so species have the
necessary conditions to live and thrive.
• Evaluating outcomes: monitoring efforts and
tracking progress to determine the effective-
ness of its habitat efforts is a central compo-
nent of every NEP plan.
-------
Photo Credit: Jim Young
Photo Credit; Charlie Splekwmsn
Photo Credit: Tampa Say Estuary Program
SOME OF THE SPECIES FOUND IN OUR NATIONAL ESTUARIES
12
-------
3
-------
ACHIEVING
ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
NEP habitat efforts produce tangible results.
NEPs have restored and protected over 1.2
million acres of estuarine habitat since 2000.
Wetlands (salt marsh, forested wetland, fresh-
water wetland, shrub swamp) have constituted
the largest portion of acres.
LOOKING AHEAD
These results are an important achievement
that will go a long way in protecting the integ-
rity of NEP coastal ecosystems and their natu-
ral resources. As the NEP moves forward in its
work, continued success requires NEPs keep
studying current and emerging impacts to habi-
tats, increase their scientific understanding of
restoration techniques, reassess actions they
have taken, and implement new restoration and
protection efforts to enhance these very valu-
able and critical estuarine habitats.
What follows are a number of significant NEP
habitat efforts that have taken place across
the country. The work illustrated here provides
a good cross-section of the different types of
NEP protection and restoration projects that
showcase how NEPs are "Effective" in produc-
ing environmental results.
-------
National Estuary Programs have protected and restored
over 1.2 million acres of habitat since 2000.
Barrier Island
Beach & Dune
Estuarine
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
Mangrove
Wetland
II I Barrier Island
Beach & Dune
¦ Estuarine
¦ Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Mangrove
¦ Wetland
Riparian
¦ Instream
Upland
¦ Other
15
-------
Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
REOPENING SHELLFISH BEOS
www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu
The Casco Bay region is the most densely
populated area in Maine. While the watershed
represents only three percent of Maine's land
area, Its 41 municipalities include a quarter of
the state's population. Composed of 578 miles
of shoreline, including 785 islands, islets, and
exposed ledges in Casco Bay, the water sur-
face covers nearly 200 square miles.
The bay supports a wealth of industries includ-
ing shipping and petroleum transport, commer-
cial fishing, tourism, and recreation, and shell-
fish harvesting. Fishing, recreation, and tourism
in Casco Bay generate hundreds of millions of
dollars annually.
Despite increasing population, much of the area
still contains high value habitat, including rocky
and sandy beaches, eelgrass beds, saltmarsh,
and riparian habitat, which provides nursing,
refuge, and feeding grounds to 850 species of
marine life, including clams, quahogs, mussels,
and other mollusks, lobsters, fish, seals, and
tens of thousands of water birds.
The Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (CBEP),
one of 28 National Estuary Programs across the
country, has been working with its partners to
successfully attain and maintain a functioning,
healthy ecosystem which supports endangered
and threatened species, fisheries, commerce,
and recreation.
CHALLENGES
Clamming and other shellfishing represent an
important tradition and provide a considerable
livelihood and economic value to Casco Bay
residents and commercial harvesters alike. Yet
in recent decades, increased bacterial pollution
from sources such as stormwater runoff, mal-
functioning septic systems, combined sewer
overflows, and overboard discharges have led
to a decline in water quality, causing consistent
and extended closures of portions of harvest-
able areas across the bay.
To address bacterial pollution that results in
shellfish bed closures, CBEP and its partners
have launched several programs to improve
water quality and facilitate the reopening of
high productivity dam-flats. They've taken ac-
tive roles in getting local plumbing codes and
16
mt
-------
regulations revised, removed faulty sewage
structures, fostered improvements in waste-
water treatment facilities, and undertaken other
important activities that have resulted in better
water quality and shellfish habitat
Unfortunately, shellfish bed closings are still a
common problem throughout Casco Bay and
other parts of New England. Of particular con-
cern are the intense and prolonged outbreaks
of red tide, a harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) of Al-
exandrium, which produces a biotoxin that in-
fects filter-feeding shellfish and causes para-
lytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).
The routine procedure for monitoring red tide
contamination in Casco Bay has entailed low-
tide sampling, a time-consuming and restrictive
process that often resulted in a limited numberof
sample collections. Subsequently, public health
managers were often required to close shellfish
beds based on incomplete data or complete
absence of data. This caused large-scale clo-
sures all across Casco Bay, bringing shellfish
harvesting to a halt until the HAB passed, typi-
cally in late summer. With indications that a red
tide outbreak could recur for several years or
more, it became imperative for resource man-
agers to improve their ability to make localized
decisions on closing and reopening shellfish
harvesting areas in order to still protect human
health but have less of a negative impact on
the shellfishing industry.
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
In an effort to better understand harmful algal
blooms and keep more shellfish flats open dur-
ing a red tide event, the Casco Bay Clam Team,
a multi-stakeholder collaborative group that ad-
dresses shellfish issues (facilitated and funded
by CBEP), and the Maine Department of Marine
Resources (DMR), worked together to step up
red tide monitoring efforts in Casco Bay with an
experimental PSP monitoring initiative.
The monitoring crew created 28 sampling sta-
tions across western Casco Bay and 15 sta-
tions in eastern Casco Bay. They also included
in the study three existing stations routinely
sampled by DMR to compare boat-based and
-------
land-based sampling results. The 43 new sta-
tions consisted of anchored buoys with sentinel
mussel bags attached. Over the course of sev-
eral weeks, the crew collected nutrient data,
phytoplankton, water profile data, PCP toxicity
in mussel meat, and other bloom dynamics in
Casco Bay.
This proved extremely efficient and benefits
were immediate. Since they conducted the
sampling by boat instead of by land, crews
had the freedom to conduct activities across a
broader territory while increasing the frequency
in which sampling could be performed, regard-
less of tide stage. Having the sampling crew
out visiting a variety of locations around the bay
also afforded them an opportunity to collect ad-
ditional data to correlate with the Incidence and
levels of biotoxin found.
To improve management of shellfish beds, CBEP
funded the purchase of 10 new automated
weather-monitoring stations and located them
throughout the bay in areas adjacent to highly
productive clam flats. The additional climatic
data, instantly available online, allow shellfish
18
Checking a phytoplankton net tow In Casco Bay
Photo: Karen Young, Casco Bay Estuary Partnership.
resource managers to better understand the
impact of precipitation on shellfish beds and
avoid unnecessary closures that were previ-
ously made due to a lack of local climate data.
The data also gives shellfishers immediate ac-
cess to localized climate conditions and the
assurance that any closures are in fact based
on the best available information.
The Clam Team also identified the need to in-
crease the capacity of local communities to
conduct and assist with shoreline surveys, a
required component of the National Shellfish
-------
Softshell Ciams from
Casco Bay in Maine.
Photo: Matt Craig,
technical program coordinator,
Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
Sanitation Program (NSSP) that helps identify
potential or existing bacterial pollution sources
and ensures shellfish are fit for human con-
sumption.
CBEP sponsored a two-day training workshop
for municipal staff and shellfish industry work-
ers, representing nearly all of Casco Bay's
coastal communities. Regulatory staff from
DMR, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
and the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection provided classroom training. DMR
staff followed up with field training, resulting
in the identification of new pollution sources
while allowing productive flats in the Mid-Coast
Maine region to remain open rather than face
imminent administrative closures. Participants
expressed appreciation for the thorough expla-
nation of the complex NSSP, the detailed case
studies provided by workshop leaders, and
the workshop's discussion-rich format, which
served as a unique forum to foster new and
improved communication channels among the
various stakeholder groups. Based on the suc-
cess of the shoreline survey training initiative,
Maine DMR duplicated the program further up
19
-------
Maine's coast CBEP is also involved in several
stewardship initiatives to help bolster efforts to
improve shellfish habitat, including:
• A regional voluntary property transfer septic
inspection program in which CBEP promotes
the distribution of septic system fact sheets
and other educational materials to realtors, ho-
meowners, and other key audiences to encour-
age septic system replacement and to recom-
mend septic testing at property transfer.
• Following a CBEP-funded study in Brunswick
to assess methods for providing regular septic
system inspections and maintenance, the Town
partnered with pumping contractors to auto-
matically notify septic owners of maintenance
and pumping needs. The Brunswick model Is
also available for other municipalities.
• CBEP supports Friends of Casco Bay's mo-
bile pump-out boat program (Casco Bay was
declared a No Discharge Zone in 2006), serving
hundreds of Casco Bay boaters each year—an
especially important program that has helped
replace shoreslde pump-outs that Incurred
damage during storms.
• CBEP participates in the Healthy Coastal
Beaches Committee, which promotes public
education activities and products, a program to
recruit new towns Into the monitoring program,
training for town and state park beach person-
nel, lab personnel, GIS maps of participating
beaches and monitoring sites, an on-line data-
base for monitoring data, and educational bro-
chures, posters, and signs.
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
Increasing the number of monitoring stations,
improving the proximity of stations to specific
harvest areas, and increasing sampling fre-
quency proved extremely successful. Some
11,000 shellfish acres ordered closed the pre-
vious year remained open during the entire red
tide outbreak. Among areas that did close, the
closures were of shorter duration than during
previous PSP events. Increasing the frequency
and spatial scale of testing also proved to be
more protective of human health than the old
sample monitoring method.
-------
Comparison of 2005 and 2006 soft shell clam (Mya) closures In
eastern Casco Bay. The tan area was closed In 2005 and 2006. The
purple are remained open throughout the 2006 red tide.
Maine Department of Marine Resources
Estimation of Mya closure areas
(2005 and 2006)
Legend
| 2005 PSP Mya closures
] 2006 PSP Mya closures
Over 11,000 acres of Casco Bay
remained open to Mya harvest during the
2006 PSP event
isc
4
9
V v/? /I
I ' ' i I I I I I ' I M m i I
0 0.5 1 2 3. 4 Miles
While questions about bloom dynamics and
their origin remain unanswered, the program's
overwhelming success in other areas as well as
the promise it shows for providing more oppor-
tunities for study, enabled DMR to obtain addi-
tional funding to implement it again. Based on
the success of the Casco Bay pilot program,
the new monitoring protocol was expanded
state-wide in subsequent years by the Maine
DMR. CBEP is also supporting a nutrient analy-
sis to help determine whether excess nutrients
prolong red tide blooms in Casco Bay.
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
Maine shellfish resource managers have to
cover nearly 1,000 miles of coastline per per-
son, the highest ratio in New England, making
matters of efficiency a top priority. Developing
and implementing the shellfish monitoring pro-
gram by boat rather than by land, which has
been the general practice by Maine's resource
managers, substantially increases the efficien-
cy of monitoring, allowing for more stations to
be sampled over a broader range in a shorter
period of time. The realization of efficiency of
scale—the most valuable lesson learned—has
led to increased discussion about applying a
similar approach to other efforts.
Also, when designing the first monitoring pro-
gram, resource managers quickly realized it
was difficult to locate PSP-free mussels to use
at buoy stations once a red tide bloom had al-
ready begun. To simplify the process of pre-
paring stations during subsequent monitoring
years, crews learned to obtain "clean" mussels
well in advance of the anticipated red tide out-
break (usually in the spring) in order to ensure
that mussel availability would not restrict the
geographic or temporal span of a given sea-
son's monitoring.
Intensive monitoring of red tide also provided
clues and raised important questions about the
impact of harmful algal blooms at smaller spa-
tial scales within Casco Bay. On several occa-
sions, crews collected samples simultaneously
from buoy stations and nearby intertidal mussel
beds when low tide permitted. They discovered
the mussels collected at buoy stations gener-
ally contained higher toxicity levels than those
collected intertidally, suggesting that buoyed
mussels provide equally or perhaps even more
protective indicators of toxicity for protecting
public health. One possibility, hypothesized by
the project scientists, is that buoyed mussels
are continually submerged compared to inter-
tidal mussels, which are under water only part
of the time. Tide cycles might also create an
uneven distribution of exposure to Alexandrium
cells among intertidal mussels. More studies
would help to clarify the difference between
the toxicity levels found using the two meth-
ods, and determine the possibility of develop-
ing a new buoy-specific method of monitoring
red tide.
-------
"A traditional sampler usually can cover a maximum of
8 to 10 stations in a single day...assuming a 3 to 4 hr
window of opportunity around low tide. By contrast,
30-plus sampling stations can be covered during an 8- to
9-hour boat-based sampling day...including the collection
of associated data such as water column profiling, nutrient
sampling, etc. at each station."
- Casco Bay Red Tide 2006: Intensified Paralytic Shellfish
23
-------
The Center for
OYSTER GARDENING
www.inlandbays.org
Delaware's three Inland Bays—Rehoboth Bay,
Indian River Bay, and Little Assawoman Bay—
cover 32 square miles and are separated by a
barrier beach from the Atlantic Ocean.
The Inland Bays are drowned river valleys with
fresh water inflows and shallow coastal lagoons
bearing an average depth of three to eight feet—
essential habitat for many aquatic plants, shell-
fish, crabs, and worms. This depth also makes
the bays more vulnerable to impacts from rapid
development and agricultural runoff (eutrophi-
cation).
The Center for Inland Bays (CIB), one of 28
National Estuary Programs across the country,
works to promote the responsible use, health,
and protection of the Inland Bays and their wa-
tershed through research, restoration, educa-
tion, and public policy.
CHALLENGES
Persistent eutrophication and sediment erosion
from decades of sustained nutrient input and
developmentfromwithinthesurrounding water-
shed have degraded water quality and altered
the diversity and abundance of various species
of fishes, invertebrates, submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV), and other habitat. Excessive
nutrient levels, namely nitrogen and phospho-
rous, are the most serious environmental prob-
lems facing the Inland Bays habitat.
Looking at historical reports of water quality
and ecological conditions in estuaries through-
out the mid-Atlantic, the CIB assessed that
most of the great water quality reported was
likely due in part to their having healthy oyster
populations, as oysters are naturally equipped
to filter water, maintain its clarity and quality,
and recycle nitrogen and phosphorous.
Despite strong evidence in some parts of the
Inland Bays that native oyster populations had
previously existed, no quantifiable population
had existed for several decades. Many geologi-
cal transformations had taken place in the bay
waters—in years past, the bays had changed
back and forth several times from an estuarine
setting to a fresh water setting, which would
have challenged oyster survival.
-------
Little Assawoman Bay, Photo: Center for Inland Bays
This was a troubling discovery since a single
healthy oyster has the ability to filter as many
as 50 gallons of nutrient-dense water per day—
something the Inland Bays needed. In addition,
having oyster reefs in the bays would provide
important habitat and refuge for grass shrimp,
worms, barnacles, plankton, and other small
organisms which support larger fish and crabs.
Although the estuarine waters of the Inland Bays
can support naturally-occurring oysters today,
they still face some challenges. Oyster spat are
about the size of a pinkie fingernail before they
reach maturation, making them easy prey for
crabs and sea birds. Oysters are also vulner-
able to different species of macro algae found
in the bays, which can readily attach to the oys-
ters and if abundant, biofoul and kill whatever
is on the reef.
With a strong focus on improving water quality
and restoring habitat for other aquatic life, the
CIB and its partners decided to develop a plan
to try to circumvent those obstacles so they
could restore the American oyster population in
the bays.
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
Pointing to a successful oyster restoration pro-
gram implemented in the Chesapeake Bay re-
gion, the CIB felt encouraged to start a similar
effort in the Inland Bays. During the late 1990s,
the CIB had been funding and participating in a
demonstration project with aquatic researchers
from the University of Delaware at the James
Farm Ecological Preserve, a study area man-
aged by the CIB.
Placing cultured native oyster spat in off-bot-
tom gear, the University of Delaware's Marine
Advisory Service found that oysters could grow
quite well, have little to no mortality rates and
they even developed faster than if they were
to grow naturally in deeper water. Keeping the
oyster spat away from the bay floor allowed for
increased water flow, greater access to particu-
late food, and protection from bottom preda-
tors.
With such encouraging results, the CIB decided
to keep going by building an artificial reef made
of dead oyster and clam shells, use the new
seed stock to plant juvenile oysters on it, and
place it in a small area in the Indian River Bay. A
$40,000 grant from EPA's regional geographic
initiative supported the effort. The work contin-
ued to show promising results. They found that
oysters grew best In areas of Little Assawom-
an Bay that had moderate tidal flow but would
also do well in other areas when gardened.
With that information, CIB thought it logical to
move beyond the demonstration site and try to
grow oysters at different locations throughout
the Inland Bays. Since the task would require
more manpower and resources, the CIB cam-
EJ. Chalabala, wildlife
coordinator at the. Center
for Inland Bays pulls an
oyster basket from a
Taylor float. Photo: CIB
-------
paigned for citizen volunteers—residents who
lived along the waterfronts of Rehoboth, Indian
River, and Little Assawoman Bays who would
be willing to train to become oyster garden-
ers. A few years later, the CIS applied for and
received a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration five-star restoration challenge
grant for $11,000, which supplied the seed
money to buy the gear and the oyster spat and
begin the work of enlisting and training some
local volunteer oyster gardeners.
The CIS Oyster Gardening Program had offi-
cially begun. The CIS recruited 16 volunteers
from all three bays the first year, which proved
a fruitful endeavor from the very start.
The CIB provided the training and the gear (Tay-
lor floats, which CIB built themselves with raw
materials they purchased at cost from a local
vendor; shellfish baskets, and two bags of spat
at $125 each). The spat was donated by the
University Of Maryland and tested and cleared
free of disease at a lab in Virginia. The CIB
then delivered the oyster spat to the volunteers
and attached the new floats to their docks.
The growers kept the spat clean and safe from
predators during the summer and fall growing
seasons. Staff from the CIB and the University
kept a close eye on the oyster count, growth,
water quality readings, and sampled tissues to
determine how well the oysters were thriving.
Having the system-wide gardening locations—
today there are more than 100 sites—also put
the CIB in a more favorable position to increase
monitoring of the Inland Bays'water quality for
the occurrence of shellfish pathogens. Plus,
a separate program, the Citizens' Monitoring
Program, trained residents to be water quality
monitors and identify alga blooms. Serving as
'the eyes and the ears of the Inland Bays," the
CIB has found the program very helpful when
used I n concert with the oyster ga rden I ng effort.
The CIB is pleased to see that as people get in-
volved in recording water quality and caring for
the oysters, many have become interested in a
variety of other environmental Issues affecting
the bays since they now have a stake In what
happens and have established some owner-
ship. Even residents without docks are joining
the effort by helping other growers keep the
oysters and equipment clean. By the end of the
first year, the volunteer gardeners raised more
-------
"Getting people to volunteer to do this is not that hard.
People see these floats in their neighbors'yards and they
say,'What's that, what are you doing?'When they find out
they're growing oysters to help clean water, it's pretty much
a domino effect. We often get a call from the neighbor the
same day asking how they can get involved."
- EJ. Chalabala, Wildlife Coordinator, Center for Inland Bays
than 100,000 oysters and another 400,000 ju-
veniles were transported directly to the artificial
reef from the culturing facility in Maryland. From
the onset, each site has yielded anywhere from
400 to 500 oysters per season.
Today at orientation meetings, many gardeners
now volunteer to pay the initial costs of get-
ting started and many agree to pick up their
own floats and spat, saving the CIB additional
time and resources. Financial support for the
oyster gardening program also began to arrive
in from unexpected places, such as the Town
of Fenwick Island—a municipal contribution
the CIB wouldn't ordinarily expect to receive—
and local businesses are also intrigued by the
program and eager to assist. A local plumbing
supplier donated 28 floats worth of PVC pipe
one year and continues to supply the material
at cost to the CIB, saving them several hundred
dollars every season—a figure that is certain
to increase with rising material costs and the
always-increasing number of new volunteers
signing up. In addition, Sussex County contrib-
uted a $10,000 assistance award to support
the shellfish gardening program. By 2007, the
CIB also began to harvest its own spat, using
larvae from Rutgers University, which are stored
in a 10,000 gallon tank in Sussex County at the
College of Marine Studies. By culturing its own
oysters, the CIB can deliver oysters at a much
larger size to its growers.
Taylor float and oysters. Photo: Center for Inland Bays
28
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
Since the project's inception, the CIB has de-
ployed more than 1.5 million oysters on the
reef. The number of volunteer oyster gardeners
doubled in the second year and continues to
double each year. By 2007, the CIB had re-
cruited 175 volunteers to grow oysters at 105
sites across the Inland Bays.
In one area where growers have two- and three-
year-old oysters, anecdotal evidence shows
they are beginning to reproduce and form their
In South Bethany, oysters are growing rapidiy in just four months;
Photo: Center for Inland Bays
own spat. The CIB anticipates that in time oys-
ter clusters will be able to attach to nearby
bulkheads and continue to proliferate. In As-
sawoman Bay, the CIB is creating mini oyster
reefs and seeding them near existing erosion
control structures made from rip-rap. Oysters
that cluster into three-dimensional structures
will also provide rich new habitat filled with
nooks and crannies for small fish and crabs to
slip into and hide from predators.
Even dead-end lagoons, where little to no
growth was anticipated, turned out to be pro-
ductive areas. The CIB attributes this to the
great quantities of food these lagoons contain.
In addition to improving water quality and cre-
ating new habitat, as the program continues to
evolve it's likely that new oyster colonies will
perform other important functions. Instead of
having to install bulkheads, seawalls, and other
man-made structures, burgeoning oyster clus-
ters, natural vegetation, and other shellfish will
start to serve as living shorelines—natural bar-
riers that help control flooding, erosion, and im-
prove the local ecology.
-------
'The shellfish gardening program has demonstrated that
our Inland Bays can support a viable oyster population.The
recruitment of over a hundred volunteers to assist in this
effort has also shown us the value of community-
based restoration activities. If we are able to secure
additional financial support, I have no doubts that this
program can be expanded to help us reach a "tipping
point"for oyster recovery in our Inland Bays."
- Ed Lewandowski, Executive Director, Center for Inland Bays
L
Today the CIB has developed strong partner-
ships with area colleges and universities. The
partnerships are paying off in several ways.
Working to develop a stronger research depart-
ment, Delaware State University has been suc-
cessful in securing significant funding to help
CIB enhance its restoration efforts. The school
is also supplying interns to help with field work
while increasing its own recruitment of students
seeking doctorate degrees in marine-related
fields.The oyster gardening program is also giv-
ing geneticists from the University of Delaware
opportunities to study oyster disease such as
MSX and Dermo. Currently, they are trying to
determine its prevalence in the Inland Bays sys-
tem and have started to do some genetic mark-
ing to try to pinpoint disease origin and identify
different disease strains.
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
Oysters have grown well in all locations through-
out the Inland Bays suggesting that restoring
oysters to the Inland Bays on a large scale
would be a success. Their success encourag-
es other coastal managers to borrow from the
lessons learned there. Oysters provide tremen-
dous habitat for all sorts of marine life, such as
eels, grass shrimp, angelfish, crabs, and plenty
more, including the much larger fish that are at-
tracted by the smorgasbord of new food avail-
able.
The oyster flourished when raised on the water
column, however because many volunteers are
summer vacationers who leave in the winter,
CIB realized oysters left at that height would
freeze and die. After having lost a few bushels,
CIB and the volunteers lowered the baskets to
rest about four inches above the bay bottom
during the winter, which has worked out very
well.
After the CIB started growing their own spat,
they began growing them out a little longer and
distributing a mix of spat and larger oysters to
the growers, which is having a positive influ-
ence on growth numbers. Also, since CIB uses
disease resistant strains of spat, they've been
able to grow oysters virtually disease-free in
the bays the entire time.
-------
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
EXOTIC PLANT CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT
www.chnep.org
Unlike other estuaries in southwest Florida that
are mostly influenced by the Gulf of Mexico,
large rivers of the Peace, Myakka and Caloosa-
hatchee give Charlotte Harbor its unique fresh-
water characteristics. These three watersheds
are also a major source of surface freshwater
supplies. The Charlotte Harbor estuary and its
adjoining waters also provide essential refuge,
feeding ground, and nursery areas for hundreds
offish and wildlife species including manatees,
dolphins, sea turtles, storks, American alliga-
tors, frogs, osprey, belted kingfishers, and a va-
riety of others that depend on Charlotte Harbor
habitat for all or part of its lifecycle.
Defined by Its subtle topography, subtropical
climate, and subtropical plant communities, the
Charlotte Harbor study area spans seven coun-
ties and 4,700 square miles and Is a fundamen-
tal support to agriculture, fishing, mining, and
recreation/tourism uses that are valued annu-
ally in billions of dollars.
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
(CHNEP), one of 28 National Estuary Programs
across the country, has been working with its
many partners to successfully attain and main-
tain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which
supports endangered and threatened species,
fisheries, commerce, and recreation.
Photo: Lee County, Florida
-------
CHALLENGES
Once valued as a fast-growing tree with seeds
that spread easily and rapidly, melaleuca (mela-
leuca quinquenervia), native to Australia (and in
endangered there), was introduced to the Unit-
ed States during late 1800s.
With its prolific seed production, tolerance of
brackish water, flooding, and fire, melaleuca,
also known as punk tree, has become a seri-
ous threat to estuarine habitats in southwest
Florida and the Everglades where, according to
scientific research, invasion has resulted in 60
to 80 percent losses of biodiversity in freshwa-
ter her baceous marsh communities. A slight
change of hydrology and land disturbance—
even that of automobile tires pressing into the
soil—can spur rapid melaleuca growth.
In addition to displacing native vegetation and
degrading wildlife habitat, melaleuca trees
flower several times a year producing large
amounts of pollen that can cause human health
problems, such as respiratory allergies, which
a purported 20 percent of the population suf-
fers in areas where it is prevalent. Melaleuca
monocultures also block access to boaters,
hikers, birdwatchers, and other outdoor enthu-
siasts, posing an economic threat to communi-
ties that depend on parks and tourism.
Without a steady and concerted effort to con-
trol infestation, some researchers suggest
many of the remaining natural areas in southern
Florida will be lost to an overgrowth of mela-
leuca within the next few decades.
33
"In the high marsh, melaleuca is taking over small plants
and grasses and displacing where the invertebrates grow,
reducing the food source for the birds that fly over. In the
pine flat woods, it displaces grasses, palmetto, and the
ability of the forest to replace its pine trees. The growth rate
is enormous...by the time you get to a 10-year-old-forest,
it might be nearly 100 percent melaleuca."
- Lisa Beever, Director, Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
At the 307-acre Pop Ash Creek Preserve, past
land uses and hydrologic modifications have
disturbed about 90 per-
cent of the area; melaleu-
ca is the most widespread
of the non-indigenous
species.
Although the preserve had
been highly altered, there
remains much habitat and
foraging ground for many
species. In August 2003,
Lee County acquired the
first land parcel of the Pop
Ash Creek Preserve as a
conservation 20/20 proj-
ect, a local land acquisi-
tion program. The project
had several aims: restore
native plant communities,
provide more habitat and
opportunitiesforadditional
species, boost tourism
and improve the integrity
of coastal habitat in southern Florida.
20 30
Source: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Conservancy
Date: March 15,2007
Projects w/ Exotic Removal
ImuhIs
34
The objectives were also part of the Lee Coun-
ty Master Mitigation Plan in which the CHNEP
had designed a method to
identifyprloritylandforhab-
itat restoration, such as
melaleuca removal, on a
Graphic Information System
(GIS) map. To complete the
task, CHNEP brought to-
gether a number of agen-
cies, private, public, and
not-for-profit groups, and
local state and federal gov-
ernments that worked in the
area in order to identify par-
cels to acquire and restore.
Some of the previous meth-
ods used to control mela-
leuca growth at the preserve
Included cutting and apply-
ing chemicals (the hack and
squirt method) and pre-
scribed fire, but the appli-
cations were not effective
enough. The trees continued to grow and
-------
"Pop Ash Creek looks pretty incredible now. Our melaleuca
do not look as healthy as they used to.... Look at the post
treatment in the wet season and you see the hydric pine
flatwoods with native vegetation there.That dog hair mela-
leuca is all gone. It is just beautiful, it really is."
- Lisa Beever, Director, Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program
spread faster than conservation crews could
manage. Recognizing the value in restoring na-
tive vegetation and protecting the preserve from
continued infestation, the CHNEP granted some
of the funding the county needed to implement
an experimental program consisting of intro-
ducing some newly approved bio-controls, re-
working a variety of past removal efforts, and
following up with a maintenance plan.
Depending on the size and density of the mela-
leuca and the type and structure of the underly-
ing natural community, the team tried new ap-
plications of old methodologies, such as
prescribed fires, and introduced some newer
procedures, including the release of two in-
sects from Australia that can weaken and even-
tually devastate melaleuca without affecting na-
tive vegetation. Lee County Parks and
Recreation Conservation's 20/20 program staff
conducted much of the work and some they
contracted out to private firms.
The main goal of the experiment was to kill in-
vasive melaleuca seedlings, also known as
'dog hair" because of their tiny tightly packed
stems growing up against each other, before
they reach maturity. Intercepting growth at the
juvenile stage would help reduce the costs and
effort they would have to put into future resto-
ration. Furthermore, by eradicating as many
seedlings as possible, in case of a wildfire,
public use or some other disturbance that typi-
cally encourages melaleuca growth, a wide-
spread invasion is less likely.
-------
Pine flatwoods before treatment (with melaieuca) Pine flatwoods after treatment
Photo: Lee County
Pine flatwoods after treatment during wet season
Photo: Lee County
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
CHNEP contributions have allowed the removal
of non-indigenous invasive melaleuca from
approximately 63.5 acres of the northern por-
tion of the preserve. Funding provided by CH-
NEP has also allowed a 'jump start' on stew-
ardship activities in the northern 20 percent of
the preserve.
Lee County Parks and Recreation has been
able to treat the invasive trees much earlier
than originally planned in its Land Stewardship
Plan, especially the very thick stands of
melaleuca, which were a main seed source for
the rest of the reserve. Removing the trees also
helped pave the way for Lee County Natural
Resources and the Conservation 20/20
program to begin a design to fix hydrological
alterations on the site.
The experiment was presented and well
received at the Florida Academy of Science
annual meeting.
37
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
In the past, it was customary to wait until the
melaleuca was treated and controlled with
chemicals before reintroducing fire to the site.
However, this experiment shows that seedlings
and saplings do not need those initial controls
but that using fire alone can eradicate as much
as 50 percent of the seedlings and saplings.
This resulted in the need for less herbicide,
which has shown to be less effective and dam-
aging to native plants anyway.
Before starting the groundwork, particularly
when using prescribed fire, CHNEP also found
it necessary to communicate with neighbor-
ing property owners to explain why they were
destroying trees that live in a preserve. The
team sent out notices and set up meetings with
neighborhood organizations to involve the pub-
lic and give them an opportunity to learn about
what's going on and what to expect.
While many areas of the preserve had been
used for cattle grazing, they learned that
once the cattle are removed the melaleuca
would start to habitat the area. As a result, a
"These results really have changed the way we look
at fire. In the past we always treated all melaleuca
before burning, which meant a much higher—often
prohibitive—cost. With fire we can be on the ground
much faster...we're seeing a lot more plant diversity
now in the areas that we burned."
- Cathy Olson, Conservation 20/20 Senior Supervisor,
Lee County Parks and Recreation
technique now is to leave the cattle on the land
until the appropriate management strategies
begin, and then transfer the cattle to an area
where they are safe from chemical, fire, and
other treatments.
-------
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
WETLAND RESTORATION & PROTECTION
www.gbep.state.tx.us
Galveston Bay Is the defining geographic feature
for the Houston metropolitan region, and serves
as the foundation for its economy. Galveston
Bay and its many waterways and diverse natural
features afford an array of recreational oppor-
tunities for residents and visitors, and play an
essential role in maintaining quality of life.
The Galveston Bay watershed features an
amazing diversity of habitats. Two major rivers,
countless bayous, oxbows, cypress swamps,
tallgrass prairies, seagrass meadows, oyster
reefs, and tidal marshes make this one of Amer-
ica's most productive estuaries.
The Galveston Bay Estuary Program (Estuary
Program), one of 28 National Estuary Programs
across the country, has been working with its
many partners to successfully attain and main-
tain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which
supports endangered and threatened species,
fisheries, commerce, and recreation.
-------
CHALLENGES
Habitat loss poses the greatest threat to the
Galveston Bay watershed. Since the mid-
1950s, the system lost more than 45,000
acres of Its wetlands and nearly all of Its sea-
grasses due to subsidence, erosion, and land-
use conversion. The watershed also lost vast
expanses of coastal prairie, forests, and other
Important habitats. Habitat loss continues at a
rapid pace, and the Impact of this loss is exac-
erbated by fragmentation.
East Bay, one of four major secondary bays
within the Galveston Bay system, provides an
excellent example of rapid wetland loss due to
erosion. This 20-mile shoreline of a relatively
pristine bay has experienced erosion of up to
10 feet per year - destroying fringing marshes
along the shoreline.
40
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
The Estuary Program supported shoreline-wet-
land protection and restoration of East Bay at
the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge because
of Its rich diversity of habitats. Additionally,
rapidly eroding shoreline threatened to expose
fresh and brackish marshes with saltwater in-
trusion, reducing habitat diversity and value to
wildlife, particularly neotropical migratory birds
and overwintering waterfowl.
The Estuary Program convened a steering com-
mittee and began working with the refuge staff,
involved local stakeholders and the public, and
secured funding for the project.
Since East Bay Is very shallow, the original de-
signs called for dredging an access channel to
transport the crushed concrete that was need-
ed to protect more than three miles of shore-
line—but the process was expensive. Although
typically cheaper to work from water, dredging
from a barge would raise costs dramatically.
Colncidentally, because the site is an ac-
tive hunting area, the refuge staff had already
planned to build a road along the shoreline
-------
ANAHUAC
Robinson's Bayou
Oyster
Frozen,
Marsh Pt
116
CP
130
131
Botiv
The East Bay project site stretches along approximately 7 miles of shoreline at the
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, from Robinson Bayou on the West to Oyster
for access and maintenance; the restoration
team was able to revise its logistics plan so
they could share the road and work from the
land. The refuge staff became a key player in
other important ways. For example, by apply-
ing innovative field design, a large amount of
the work was conducted by the refuge staff,
which saved money and increased efficiency.
They even created and built a unique sled de-
sign to pull materials over the land and through
the marsh without causing long-term damage
to the surrounding vegetation—a small Innova-
tion that delivered big results.
More than a dozen additional state, local, and
business partners contributed expertise and
funding to the project, which entailed installing
offshore erosion control structures —18 inch-
es of crushed concrete riprap and some reef
balls—to reduce wave energy, promote shore-
line stabilization, and protect the remaining in-
tertidal marsh within the project area.
The Estuary Program and its project partners
closely monitored the installation ofthe erosion
control structures, and accretion of marshes
behind them during construction.
-------
At a volunteer planting event, 50 boy scouts and
dozens of residents spent hundreds of hours
further stabilizing the water's edge by trans-
planting large clumps of smooth cordgrass, the
predominant intertidal marsh in the area, behind
1,500 linear feet of the breakwater.
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
After two-years of work, the $430,050 East Bay
Wetland Habitat and Water Quality Protection
Project was an overwhelming success that en-
abled the Estuary Program to reach some of
its habitat goals by addressing several action
items in the Galveston Bay Plan: restoring, cre-
ating and protecting wetlands (HP-1), reducing
habitat erosion (HP-9), and developing volun-
teer opportunities (PPE-5).
This work armored more than 17,000 feet of the
shoreline, and protected more than 300 acres
of brackish marsh and 5,675 acres of interme-
diate marsh. In addition, hundreds of acres of
coastal prairie are now protected from saltwater
intrusion and habitat conversion.
The marshes behind the rock breakwater struc-
tures are thriving and accreting rapidly. In some
areas, the smooth coordgrass is expanding be-
yond the rock-accreting naturally behind the
breakwater. This healthy and protected new
marsh traps sediments and pollutants and pre-
vents them from entering the bay. The project
design not only helps to improve water quality
in the marshes, but it also reduces the impacts
of flooding and provides refuge for shrimp,
crabs, fish, and birds. Monitoring stations are
currently evaluating the exact rate of marsh ac-
cretion and vegetation spread.
This project earned the Estuary Program and
partners two awards, including the EPA Gulf
Guardian Partnership Award for environmen-
tal excellence and the esteemed Cooperative
Conservation Award from the Secretary of the
US Department of Interior. The following part-
ners helped make it happen:
"Acting through a diverse partnership, we were able to
achieveaphenomenalamountofcriticalhabitatprotection
at a very low cost, representing an outstanding conserva-
tion value. Innovations applied by the Wildlife Refuge staff
were key to the project's success."
42
- Jeff DallaRosa, Habitat Conservation Specialist
-------
Cordgrass moved beyond the
breakwater along the Anahuac
National Wildlife Refuge's
shoreline in East Bay.
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, USDA Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, US EPA-Region 6, Texas
Coastal Program, NOAA Restoration Center,
NOAA Fisheries, TCEQ Galveston Bay Estuary
Program, National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, US EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, Restore
America's Estuaries, Galveston Bay Founda-
tion, Shell Oil Company, NRG Energy, Inc.
43
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
The Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge team
learned from previous shoreline protection
work at the refuge, and applied those lessons
learned to the East Bay project. One important
lesson included determining the best distance
from the shoreline to construct the breakwa-
ter. By placing the breakwater closer to shore,
sediment accumulation rates were much high-
er, which allowed cordgrass to establish quickly
and expand at a faster pace than it had during
previous projects.
The Estuary Program is currently considering
the application of this model for future shoreline
protection.
44
East Bay shoreline after restoration, Photo: Galveston Bay Estuary Program
-------
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Progra
RECONNECTING IMPOUNDED WETLANDS
www.sjrwmd.com/indianriverlagoon/index.html
I
The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) stretches 156
miles along Florida's east coast and is consid-
ered the country's most biologically rich and
diverse estuary. The IRL's coastal wetlands are
extremely productive, providing critical habitat
to myriad species offish, wading birds, and wa-
terfowl. The wetlands also provide water quality
protection and improvement,flood storage,and
serve as a buffer from adjacent uplands.
Recreation and commercial fishing in the IRL
are a major source of enjoyment and contrib-
ute significantly to the region's economy. The
IRL National Estuary Program (IRL NEP) recently
completed an economic valuation assessment
of the estuary and discovered that the Indian
River Lagoon provides over $3.7 billion in an-
nual economic benefits to the State of Florida.
The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Pro-
gram (IRL NEP), one of 28 National Estuary
Programs across the country, has been work-
ing with its many partners to successfully attain
and maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem
which supports endangered and threatened
species, fisheries, commerce, and recreation.
Photo: Indian River Lagoon wetlands; Ralph Brown, SJRWMD
45
-------
CHALLENGES
In an effort to control the mosquito population
during the 1950s and 1960s, more than 40,000
acres of coastal wetlands were diked or im-
pounded. Approximately 75% of the Indian Riv-
er Lagoon's wetlands were impounded during
this timeframe for mosquito control purposes.
Isolating the marshes from the lagoon and flood-
ing them with artisan wells or pumps during the
spring and summer months halted salt marsh
mosquito production by inundating the muddy
wetland soils the mosquitoes need to success-
fully breed. The impoundments worked well at
controlling mosquitoes, but the relief came with
a high cost. Unfortunately, the practice has had
a devastating impact on native vegetation and
wetland functions in the estuary.
Lagoon scientists have documented that isolat-
ed, impounded marshes only harbor around six
to 10 species of fish - a far cry from the many
species that normally inhabit wetlands when
unobstructed. Fish such as snook, tarpon, and
mullet and many other species had either de-
creased or disappeared altogether from the
impounded wetlands. The number of wading
birds, migratory birds, and waterfowl that for-
age and refuge in lagoon wetlands decreased
by impounding these marshes because of the
reduced quantity and diversity of prey caused
by being isolated from the lagoon's waters.
It was clear then that thousands of acres of
wetlands in and around the Indian River Lagoon
- essential habitat to a dozen federally-endan-
gered or threatened species - required immedi-
ate and lasting restoration solutions.
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
Restoring or enhancing impounded marshes
can be a complex task. For example, restor-
ing impounded wetland in Mosquito Lagoon,
the northern lagoon in the IRL estuary, required
a partnership involving time, money, and skill
from the county mosquito control district, Fed-
eral Fish and Wildlife staff and National Park
Service employees and plenty of concerned
stakeholders. A major component of the plan
was to completely remove impoundment dikes
from certain wetlands and rehabilitate others
by reconnecting them to the lagoon with large
-------
gated metal culverts. Strategic planning on that
front ensured the right management measure
would he used in the right location to restore
the function of the wetlands while still maintain-
ing the ability to control mosquito populations.
CCMP HIGHLIGHT:
FISHERIES ACTION PLAN
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
(FFWRI) is implementing a Fisheries Indepen-
dent Monitoring Program to conserve, protect,
and restore the fin and shellfish resources of
the Indian River Lagoon.
The FFWRI is a key member of the IRL Techni-
cal Committee and the NEP management con-
ference.
FFWRI's monitoring program is conducted in
several regions of the state in order to pro-
vide estimates of the relative abundance of
many economically and recreationally important
species. The data obtained will allow the de-
velopment of annual abundance models of
juvenile fishes—models that may be used to
predict the future availability of a species and
provide the numbers and information needed
to determine necessary fisheries management
measures and assess their effectiveness after
they are enacted.
Academic and research institutions active in
the IRL region are also conducting research
projects to inventory and assess the ecologi-
cal requirements of various species, as well
as other fisheries-related studies. Several spe-
cies of shellfish are also important components
of fishery landings, including blue crabs, hard
clams, and oysters, which are harvested from
the lagoon by commercial and recreational an-
glers.
- Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Pro-
gram, CCMP Update, 2008
In order to enhance function and maintain mos-
quito control, the mosquito control districts
often employ a method known as rotational
impoundment management (RIM). This best
management practice allows water levels to be
-------
managed during the summer mosquito breed-
ing season in wetlands where impoundments
were reconnected by gated culverts. In the fall
and spring, during non-breeding mosquito sea-
son, the gates would be left open to allow fish,
shrimp, crabs, and aquatic fauna access to
feeding and nursery wetlands.
To install the culverts, tear down the dikes, and
perform other restoration work, the IRL program
contracted with Volusia, Brevard, Indian River,
St. Lucie, and Martin County mosquito control
districts since they were already familiar with
and responsible for maintaining most of the
mosquito impoundments. Working in these dis-
tricts, several hundred culverts have been in-
stalled, placing them in the most productive lo-
cations, including areas where old tidal creeks
used to flow out of the marsh, and pumps have
been installed so the areas could be flooded
during the breeding season.
IRL wetlands have also been impacted by an-
other historic practice known as dragline ditch-
ing - a mosquito control technique that criss-
crosses wetlands with ditches to always keep
them flooded. This practice was primarily used
in Mosquito Lagoon basin. With assistance from
In a natural salt marsh fish and other
aquatic animals find shelter and food in the marsh.
Dihes built to control mosquito breeding isolate the
marsh from the lagoon and hill vegetation.
High Mater
I
Low Water
Low water
H culvert allouis fish and other aquatic animals to travel
between the marshes and the lagoon, and allouis vegetation to recover.
ion water
IUi.LJrU
t
Loui Meter
-------
"As many as 90 species offish often
occur after an impoundment is
reconnected to the lagoon...
this project shows what can happen
when we restore these impounded
wetlands—it's like a'build it and they
will come' kind of thing....."
T
St. Johns River Water Management District,
Volusia County Mosquito Control District pur-
chased two amphibious trackhoes to refill the
ditches and restore a natural elevation to the
impacted wetlands. These amphibious track-
hoes are well suited for use in environmentally
sensitive wetland areas as they are able to float
on the lagoon and access remote areas with
minimal environmental impacts.
Using conventional excavating machinery
would have been cost prohibitive and would
likely have resulted in substantial impacts. Prin-
cipal support for the project, which averaged
an estimated $6,000 per acre came from St.
Johns River Water Management District and the
mosquito control districts, with additional as-
sistance from the Subcommittee on Managed
Marshes, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva-
tion Commission, and the National Marine Fish-
eries Service.
- Troy Rice, Program Director,
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
49
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
The IRL NEP has reconnected or restored more
than 29,000 acres of previously impounded
marshes to their natural function with more than
700 culvert installations, dozens of dike remov-
als, and additional restoration work such as
dragline ditch restoration.
After years of isolation and limited activity,
the reconnection and rehabilitation of these
impounded wetlands have produced encourag-
ing results for increased diversity and
productivity in plants, fish, and wildlife. The
areas are once again a rich feeding ground for
numerous species and are providing healthy,
new habitat so that juveniles have a fighting
chance to mature.
Monitoring reports show a remarkable number
of fish, macrocrustaceans, birds, and mammals
have returned to live and breed across the re-
habilitated wetlands in Indian River Lagoon.
Having already reached a significant percent-
age of its 37,943-acre goal for wetland reha-
bilitation through continuing established part-
nerships and renewed dedication to this
important priority, the IRL NEP is confident that
with sustained efforts and funding, they will be
able to rehabilitate all of the targeted damaged
wetlands in the coming years.
LESSONS LEARNED
The increases in fisheries and faunas that now
migrate to the restored wetlands of the Indian
River Lagoon provide living proof of the truth in
the adage "build it (or in this case reconnect it
or knock it down) and they will come". While
ideally complete removal of the impoundment
levees is desirable from a habitat/fisheries per-
spective, the IRL NEP recognizes that some
marshes must be managed for mosquito con-
trol in order to protect the public health. Culvert
reconnections within the levees offer a good
second option that allow access to the wet-
lands whilestillenabling mosquito control when
needed.
Building partnerships was instrumental to
IRL wetland restoration. The workwouldn't have
been possible without the assistance of local
mosquito control districts, the USFWS, the
National Park Service, and the St. Johns
River and South Florida Water Management
District.
-------
Long Island Sound Study
RESTORING ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGES
www.longislandsoundstudy.net
-
fe'i'
i
n
3
Q.
rr
o
3"
3
s
0»
Long Island Sound, which spans Long Island
and other parts of New York and coastal Con-
necticut, is one of the country's most unique
watershed regions. The Sound's very diverse
habitat, which includes beaches, dunes, for-
ests, rocky shorelines, wetlands, and more,
supports more than 1,200 species of inverte-
brates, 170 species of fish, and dozens of spe-
cies of migratory birds.
The Sound is one of the largest urban estuar-
ies in the United States and provides numerous
economic and recreational benefits. It gener-
ates some $5.5 billion annually to the regional
economy with more than 8 million residents and
millions more visiting every year.
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS), one of 28
National Estuary Programs across the coun-
try, has been working with its many partners to
successfully attain and maintain a functioning,
healthy ecosystem which supports endangered
and threatened species, fisheries, commerce,
and recreation.
CHALLENGES
Physical barriers in Long Island Sound that
block access to spawning areas have limited
the migration from salt to fresh water of
anadromous fish such as alewives, blueback
herring, American shad, and Atlantic salmon.
These obstacles include dams, culverts, tide
gates, and sections of river with inadequate
water volume.
Some of these structures not only act as a bar-
riertofish but can alterthe habitat by increasing
water temperature, reducing dissolved oxygen,
and providing refuge for warm water fish that
out-compete cold water fish where their ranges
overlap. Dams also provide detention time for
the uptake of nutrients, which in turn promotes
growth of plants and algae and results in eutro-
phication. In addition, aging fishway structures
also pose problems, because they no longer
may safely passing fish.
51
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
The loss of access to upstream spawning hab-
itat not only has adversely affected the local
populations of herring and their fisheries, hut
has a secondary impact on other fish species
and wildlife, such as osprey, which readily feed
on herring.
Riverine Migratory Corridors are river sys-
tems that drain to the Sound and are often bor-
dered by flood plain trees and wetlands. Migra-
tory species such as salmon, shad, and herring
use these rivers to travel to spawn in fresh wa-
ters miles away from Long Island Sound. Rec-
reational and commercial fisheries benefit when
river corridors remain healthy and passable to
migratory fish.
Anadromous Fish spend the adult phase of
their lives in salt waters but move up streams
and rivers to spawn in fresh water. A barrier on
coastal streams and rivers prevents these fish
species from reaching their natural spawning
habitat and reduces their reproductive success.
Source: Long Island Sound Study
To begin addressing the problems, the Con-
necticut Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (CT DEP) Inland Fisheries Division had es-
tablished a Riverine Migratory Corridor team.
However, it was not until LISS joined the col-
laboration—bringing with it a goal to restore
100 miles of riverine migratory corridors for an-
adromous fish by the year 2008—that restora-
tion projects for anadromous fish really began
to take off.
Having Connecticut's program in place provid-
ed a significant springboard from which a large
collaborative working group comprising federal
and non-profit partners could plan and imple-
ment projects to help LISS achieve the 100-
mile goal presented in its comprehensive con-
servation management plan.
To begin, LISS enlisted the help and expertise
of fisheries biologists to investigate dozens of
streams between the dams and tributaries in
order to determine which sites in the watershed
to target, particularly areas that are most suit-
able for passing fish and would provide optimal
spawning habitat.
-------
NOTEWORTHY NEWS IN
NEW YORK
LISS partner New York State Department of En-
vironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) succeed-
ing in bringing together agencies and organiza-
tions that have long worked separately and
often unknowingly against each other. Issues
involving publicsafety regulations, jurisdictional
matters, and in many cases, a lack of under-
standing between stakeholders have stalled
fish passage restoration in LISS NY territory.
For example, during a recent first meeting be-
tween dam safety engineers, administrators,
scientists, EPA, and other environmental agen-
cies, some of the engineers in attendance ac-
knowledged being unaware of the problems
dams were causing fish species. "The subject
just hadn't been part of the focus of their work,"
said LISS partner, Heather Young, a habitat res-
toration coordinator for the NYSDEC who spear-
headed the collaboration and organized field
visits to several dam locations for a visual,
hands-on experience.
As a result, NYSDEC and others are now work-
ing alongside the safety unit in an effort to help
guide their thinking in the revision of their regu-
lations, an effort they hope will place fish pas-
sage projects higher on the state's agenda.
The Jordan Millpond Dam Fishway project was
one of CT DEP's efforts to help LISS re-estab-
lish riverine migratory corridors. The Jordan
Millpond Dam, built over 150 years ago and
listed on the National Register of Historic Plac-
es, included an eight-foot-high stone masonry
dam and retaining wall. The barrier prevented
anadromous fish from migrating from Long Is-
land Sound to the upper reaches of Jordan
Brook as well as the entire Nevins Brook In Wa-
terford, CT. However, the team saw that ana-
dromous species still gathered in the tidal wa-
ters at the base of the dam each spring,
indicating that a historic riverine migratory cor-
ridor existed; surveys of the upstream water-
shed revealed suitable spawning and nursery
habitat for the fish.
The privately owned dam was located at Jor-
dan Mill Park, a 7-acre parcel of waterfront
property donated to the town in 1961 with a
right-of-way easement to allow public to ac-
cess the park from a nearby street via a foot-
bridge over the Jordan Brook. Also, a 27,000-
gallon oil spill in Long Island Sound led to
contamination, despite efforts to clean it up,
from Fishers Island Sound to the Connecticut
River, a shoreline distance of approximately 18
-------
"We have a general boundary for
our restoration projects, but our
fish projects extend as far up
into the state of Connecticut as
possible. Some kid fishing
in a stream way upstate in
Connecticut ultimately benefits
from a LISS habitat project like
improved fish passage because
the fish that he or she catches
might be a species that never
could have reached that point
in the last 50 or 100 years."
- Louise Harrison,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist
and EPA Liaison
54
miles. This spill adversely affected anadromous
fish species, causing mortality from direct con-
tact with contaminants and reduced forage
base and degradation of physical habitat. In
addition, scientific research suggests that pe-
troleum products also may have interfered with
the imprinting/homing mechanisms that are
crucial to an anadromous species'ability to mi-
grate to and from freshwater streams. As a re-
sult, a majority of the $100,000 settlement, se-
cured through NOAA's Damage Assessment
and Remediation and Restoration Program,
helped pay for the construction of the Jordan
Millpond Dam project. The CT DEP, as spill-
case co-trustee with NOAA, matched grant
monies through NOAA's Community-based
Restoration Program (CRP). Save the Sound (a
program of the Connecticut Fund for the Envi-
ronment), the Connecticut Corporate Wetlands
Restoration Partnership (CWRP), and the Town
ofWaterford contributed additional funding and
resources to the project.
-------
Jordan Mlllpond Dam and Ftshway looking upstream
Photo: NOAA
LISS helped plan meetings, site visits, and
budgeting, and assisted with the planning de-
tails, including support through permitting hur-
dles, before construction of the fishway began.
Contractors then installed a 65-foot long Alas-
kan Steeppass fishway on the southern bank
of Jordan Brook leading up to the spillway to
safely pass two targeted species of anadro-
mous fish—the alewife and sea-run brown
trout-and potentially other species. Construc-
tion involved cutting a notch into the southern
end of the spillway, removal of bedrock from
the southern bank, and the installation of four
prefabricated aluminum steep-pass units. They
also built entrance and exit structures and con-
structed a concrete resting pool approximately
halfway up in order to slow water velocity. A
stone weir located below the entrance struc-
ture directs fish into the passage.
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
LESSONS LEARNED
The Jordan Millpond work has restored access
to 4.25 miles of Jordan Brook and its tributaries
as well as to approximately 8 acres of high-
quality spawning habitat behind the dam. This
project is one of many LISS-sponsored initia-
tives that collectively can benefit at least 13
fish species in the Long Island Sound Study
area, such as shad, salmon, alewife, herring,
and trout.
In fact, by 2006, the working group had already
helped LISS surpass its goal to restore 100
miles of river passage by 2008. The achieve-
ment moved the LISS Policy Committee to set a
second goal of restoring 50 additional miles by
2011. With 44 fish passage projects completed
and 142.8 river miles restored, it is clear that
LISS once again will fulfill its new restoration
goal ahead of schedule.
Volunteers are assisting LISS and partners at
various locations by tallying total fish popula-
tion and tracking new fish species that enter
the enhanced and restored habitat areas with
information gleaned from installed fish counting
mechanisms.
Through careful study and deliberate planning
with its partners, LISS discovered that remov-
ing or modifying specific dams allowed them to
achieve more miles and open more waterways
than they originally had planned. For example,
opening a dam one-quarter mile upstream freed
additional waterways and tributaries existing
between the project site and another dam. Tak-
ing into account the length of those tributaries,
LISS was able to achieve a lot more mileage
and many more places for fish to spawn once
they passed through the dam. This realization
underscores an effective, efficient, and cost-
effective approach that LISS can apply to all
passage restoration plans.
"You can get a lot of bang for the buck if you take
out a certain dam because you're not just opening
passage through a dam site to the next dam--you're also
allowing fish potential access to all the tributaries of that
reach...even small projects can make a big difference."
56
- Louise Harrison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
-------
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
RECONNECTING TIDAL FLOODPLAINS
www.lcrep.org
The Columbia River originates in Canada and
flows south 1,214 miles to the Pacific Ocean,
receiving waters from seven states and one
province. It is the fourth largest watershed in
the United States, draining a total of 259,000
square miles, and has the second largest vol-
ume of flow of any river in the United States.
Hundreds of species of fish and wildlife use
portions of the lower Columbia River and estu-
ary during a portion of their life. They swim in
its waters, dwell along its banks, and fly and
nest in the surrounding heights. Columbia River
salmon and steelhead runs were once the larg-
est runs in the world. Thirteen Columbia River
salmonid species are listed as threatened or
endangered, as are some birds, mammals, and
plants.
The Columbia River generates electric power
for residents and businesses, provides irriga-
tion for crops, and harbors deep-water ships
that come and go across the Pacific. Millions of
people depend on the river for employment in
water-related industries, for commerce, and for
transportation.
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
(Estuary Partnership), one of 28 National Es-
tuary Programs across the country, has been
working with Its many partners to protect the
lower Columbia River ecosystem and its spe-
cies, to reduce toxic and conventional pollution
and to provide information about the river to a
range of audiences. The Estuary Partnership's
mission is to preserve and enhance the water
quality of the estuary to support its human and
biological communities.
Harrington Point, Oregon Photo: Ed Deery
57
-------
The Estuary Partnership's Habitat Restoration
Program incorporates a wide variety of activi-
ties ranging from funding on-the-ground habitat
restoration, to effectiveness monitoring at res-
toration sites, reference site studies, and devel-
oping a regional habitat prioritization tool. The
Estuary Partnership has secured funding from
the Bonneville Power Administration, NCAA,
and EPA to implement the program. Profiled be-
low is one of more than 30 projects the Estuary
Partnership has funded.
CHALLENGES
Many sites in the Columbia River Estuary are no
longer available for habitat restoration because
of urban, agricultural, industrial, or residential
uses. In the Grays River region, however, many
areas remain relatively free of urban impacts.
Some sites contain remnant old-growth Sitka
spruce forests, intact wetland swamps, and
backwaterchannels—prime habitatandforaging
ground for fish, bald eagles, which nest along
the tributaries, and potential nesting habitat for
the threatened marbled murrelet seabird.
58
However, several tidally-influenced tributaries
within the Gray's River Watershed had been cut
off from the river's twice daily tidal cycle-diked
forfarming and logging purposes. Reconnecting
these channels to tidal influence would provide
high-quality rearing habitat for cutthroat trout,
steelhead, Coho, Chinook, and some chum
salmon, which were already using other Gray's
Rivertributariesforspawningand rearing. Infact,
the Grays River watershed supports the largest
population of chum in the Columbia River Es-
tuary. Connecting previously diked areas back
to the tidal prism would also trigger vegetation
and other ecological changes associated with
the historic habitats and habitat functions im-
portant in the Columbia River Estuary.
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
The Columbia Land Trust (CLT) applied for
funding through the Estuary Partnership's Habi-
tat Restoration Program for a project to protect
and restore several hundred acres of habitat in
the Grays River Watershed. The project scored
well in the Estuary Partnership's ranking crite-
-------
Photo Credit: Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
ria, in part because of the opportunity to imple-
ment a large scale ecosystem project over time
and because of the landowner's willingness to
sell such sizeable parcels of land with valuable
estuarine habitat and varying degrees of func-
tion. Connecting the river with several hundred
acres of floodplain (across multiple individual
sites) would produce far-reaching results and
could be a significant achievement in the Estu-
ary Partnership's effort to protect, and restore,
the Lower Columbia River watershed system.
Specifically, the project aimed to accomplish
the following goals:
• Permanently protect 850 acres of habitat,
including spruce-swamp forested wetlands,
inter-tidal channels, and emergent/scrub-shrub
wetlands.
• Restore floodplain connectivity to 500 acres
of tidal backwater, riparian, and wetland-forest-
ed habitat.
• Restore over 300 acres of potential salmonid-
rearing habitat.
• Enhance approximately 3.0 miles of riparian
shoreline.
-------
• Protect three bald eagle nests and over 100
acres of potential marbled murrelet nesting
habitat.
Through its Habitat Restoration Program the
Estuary Partnership provided a good deal of
the funding for the project, including land ac-
quisition, design, permitting, restoration, and
monitoring activities. Estuary Partnership funds
came from awards through the Bonneville Pow-
er Administration's Fish and Wildlife Program
(BPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Targeted Watersheds Program.
The project's primary goal was to increase wa-
tershed function and provide an anchor point
for stabilizing the Grays River system, with a
focus on restoring or enhancing estuarine and
riparian wetlands, which provide important ju-
venile salmon rearing habitat, for both Grays
River species and other Columbia River basin
salmonids. Through the project, the Columbia
Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy ac-
quired 11 properties which varied in size from
20 to 226 acres and included a wide range of
habitats, from spruce swamps and other intact
wetland habitats to diked farm and forestland
"Multiple ownerships can make large-scale restoration
difficult...but I think the reason the Grays River project
was successful is because we showed that we were
able to implement these ecosystem-scale actions."
- Evan Haas, Habitat Restoration Coordinator, Estuary Partnership
areas, to disconnected backwhater channels
and small roads - all within roughly two miles
of each other.
Other project aspects included removing tide
gates, upgrading culverts and cross dikes, re-
moving interior roads and channel crossings,
filling agricultural drainage ditches, planting
native vegetation, reestablishing tidal connec-
tion to the floodplain, and establishing weed
management and monitoring programs. For
example, at one site, the main objective was
to restore tidal influence to a 163-acre parcel
of formerly agricultural land. In addition to the
habitat benefits, most work had the potential
to provide significant other long term benefits,
including increased flood storage capacity, im-
proved sediment dynamics, improved water
quantity, and improved habitat conditions for
salmonids (particularly temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and stream flows).
In addition to funding assistance from the Es-
tuary Partnership, the multi-year Gray's River
-------
project required a variety of other assistance
from Federal, State, and local entities. Part-
ners such as the Columbia River Estuary Study
Taskforce, Ducks Unlimited, Washington Salm-
on Recovery Funding Board, Lower Columbia
Fish Recovery Board, Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Pacific Coast Joint Venture,
and several others helped fund, monitor, and
perform on-the-ground restoration activities in
the Grays River region. The Estuary Partnership
tracked and received information on the resto-
ration work, baseline documentation, monitor-
ing data, site surveys, permits, and construc-
tion plans during the course of the project.
One site within the Grays River project area is
serving as a reference site. The Secret River
site is a 226-acre parcel hydrologically con-
nected to the Columbia River with intact upland
forests, high-quality wetlands, intertidal areas,
and excellent rearing habitat for salmonid spe-
cies. The near pristine nature of the Secret Riv-
er site will be a gauge against which restoration
efforts on the other parcels, and at other lower
Columbia River restoration sites, can be mea-
sured against and compared to.
61
"The Estuary Partnership's Habitat Restoration Program
provides a framework - and funding - to ensure projects fit into
a regional strategyandthatinvestmentsareeffectiveand efficient.
The Grays River Project is a great example of a collaborative
project that used multiple funders to get us further than any
partner could have done alone.0
- Debrah Marriott, Executive Director, Estuary Partnership.
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
Restoration in the Grays River region has met or
exceeded all goals, including;
• Permanent protection of 986 acres, which
are now managed by the CLT (original goal was
850 acres).
• Restoration of tidal activity to 589 acres of
floodplain (original goal was 520 acres).
• Juvenile salmonids are able to access well
over 300 acres of rearing habitat during differ-
ent times of the year and water events (original
goal was 300 acres).
• Protection of three bald eagle nests and over
100 acres of potential marbled murrelet nesting
habitat.
• Enhancement of approximately three miles of
riparian shoreline through planting and weed
management.
At the Grays River restoration sites, the emer-
gent marshes and much of the forested areas
are now inundated at least once per day, af-
fording juvenile fish access to a variety of food
Seal Slough; Grays
River restoration site
Photo: Lower Columbia
Estuary Partnership
sources and abundant cover. Sampling at a
Grays River site showed hundreds of Coho
Salmon (age 0+) are using the tidal channels
during falling tides in the spring. The habitat
protection and restoration projects provide
excellent foraging opportunities for chum and
are prime rearing habitat and productive forag-
ing areas for steel head, searun cutthroat, and
Chinook. Restoring the natural function of the
floodplains and wetlands and reconnecting ri-
parian areas have also increased flood stor-
age capacity and more natural sediment and
organic transport systems, which will improve
water quantity through subsurface recharge.
This also helps cool water temperatures and
augment low flows, improving juvenile salmon-
migration conditions.
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
Recognize the complexity of large-scale proj-
ects. Projects with as many components as this
one require organization, flexibility, and persis-
tence. Many factors need to be orchestrated,
and a delay in one area can affect other com-
ponents.
Respect timelines. In every project, much needs
to be accomplished during the contract period,
so it is important to prepare well, track prog-
ress, and keep everything in order during the
inevitable changes in the project.
Work together and have a plan. A coordinated
effort by all parties helps ensure timely comple-
tion of the work and high-quality results.
Stewardship ethics matter. Stewardship of the
land extends beyond the project boundaries
to neighboring properties and the surrounding
community. Community involvement needs to
be ongoing.
"The success of the projects
in the Grays River watershed
illustrate the many habitat benefits
that can result when restoration
actions are implemented
on a large scale."
- Evan Haas, Habitat Restoration Coordinator,
Estuary Partnership
63
-------
Morro Bay National E
RIPARIAN, FLOODPLAIN AND
www.mbnep.org
Morro Bay, a small estuary of 2,300 acres, is
fed by Chorro and Los Osos Creeks and is
protected from the Pacific Ocean by a lengthy
sand spit. The 48,000-acre Morro Bay estuary
watershed includes the town of Los Osos, por-
tions of Morro Bay, farms and ranches, parks,
national forest, highways, and more.
Morro Bay is an important stopover on the Pa-
cific Flyway and a critical winter home to numer-
ous bird species. The bay and its 48,000-acre
watershed rank perennially among the top sites
in the nation during the Audubon Christmas
Bird Count. The habitats of Morro Bay, wet-
lands, creeks, rivers, lagoons, and forests, offer
essential nesting and feeding grounds to many
species, including the federally-listed steel head
trout and other species that make up the more
than two-dozen endangered species in Morro
Bay.
The Morro Bay National Estuary Program (MB-
NEP), one of 28 National Estuary Programs
across the country, has been working with its
many partners to successfully attain and main-
tain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which
supports endangered and threatened species,
fisheries, commerce, and recreation.
Program
D RESTORATION
Photo Credit: Morro Bay National Estuary Program
-------
CHALLENGES
On the central coast of California, steel head
trout, once abundant in the streams that drain
into the Morro Bay Estuary, are a federally-listed
threatened species. Numerous migratory fish
passages previously dammed to produce elec-
tricity and roads and lands cleared for logging
have increased erosion and widespread sedi-
mentation throughout the watershed.
Walters Creek, owned and managed by the
California Department of Fish and Game,
meanders through property that was formerly
used as a military training ground and now as a
gun club. Once a thriving migratory fishway for
steeihead trout, the creek was severed with
several culverts, now eroded and failed; and
the channel was so insized and narrow in some
places that it looked more like a ditch than a
stream. The creek's lack of mature riparian
vegetation also accelerated sedimentation in
the channel, clogging spawning gravel and
smothering fish eggs, insects, and other
natural resources thatjuveniles need to survive.
The lack of vegetation also destabilized the
channel, adversely impacted water temperature
and dissolved oxygen levels. This once-healthy
fish-rearing habitat has been greatlydiminished
by clogs and obstructions throughout the chan-
nel as well as by the dearth of complexity in
instream cover for young steeihead to escape
predators and feed.
A dysfunctional culvert and retaining wail carry a tributary to Waiters Creek.
Photo: Jon Hall, MBNEP
65
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
While working on another upstream restoration
project on adjoining land owned by California
Polytechnic State University, MBNEP and the
Department of Fish and Game discovered the
damage at Walters Creek. Sandwiched be-
tween the restoration and erosion control proj-
ect they were conducting upstream and not-
ing another restoration that was planned at the
Chorro Creek Ecological Reserve immediately
downstream, it was evident they would need
to address the gap in the middle. It would also
fulfill MBNEP's Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan by benefiting significant
habitat for endangered species and improving
water quality, both on site and ultimately in the
Morro Bay Estuary downstream.
The Dept. of Fish and Game funded a grant and
MBNEP hired an engineer to develop a concept
plan, which addressed several of the erosion
points with various drop structures designed to
stabilize the creek; MBNEP would create the
revegetation plans for the riparian work. Dur-
ing the development stage, however, MBNEP
quickly realized they were dealing with a much
bigger hydrology issue—one that demanded a
larger, more expensive approach than they had
originally thought. Engineers suggested a bet-
ter alternative would be to remove the defunct
culverts, bury the old channel entirely, and build
in a whole new creek. The plan also called for
adding a new floodplain to lower channel ve-
locities during high flow events, reduce ero-
sion potential in the channel, and create stable
sites for an intensive instream, floodplain, and
streambank revegetation.
A large adult California Red-Legged Frog, an endangered species,
Is captured and safely transferred prior to construction.
Photo: MBNEP
-------
Having enough money to support such an
ambitious project was of immediate concern.
The Dept. of Fish and Game suggested MB-
NEP turn to the Wildlife Conservation Board,
a close partner that generally supported proj-
ects that were affiliated with the department.
The organization also worked with MBNEP on
some previous land acquisitions, which made
the prospect of garnering support for this proj-
ect promising. After meeting with the Conser-
vation Board, MBNEP was encouraged to apply
for the funds. They also attended some grant
board hearings in Sacramento to answer ques-
tions about the project, and in time MBNEP re-
ceived the help they needed to fund and imple-
ment the near million-dollar project. A couple of
other organizations also joined the effort with
smaller grant contributions. To keep the costs
as low as possible, MBNEP hired contractors
to do the groundwork on an hourly basis. MB-
NEP would also handle the permitting process
itself, which at times proved tricky. Since the
project had amassed into quite a large con-
struction site,the water quality control board re-
quired a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Unprepared for the task, MBNEP was able to
seek help from a former staff member who also
worked for the water board. Also helpful, one
of MBNEP's board members raised the point
early that because the restoration site was lo-
cated on property where ammunition is used,
they would need additional permits and other
67
"When we needed help during the permitting process, we
could always reach out to one our committees. It's one of the
benefits of being an NEP—there was always someone on our
board or one of our partners who had either been through this
before or who actually knew the permitting people; that really
helped us keep the project on schedule.17
- Jon Hall, Restoration Coordinator, Morro Bay National Estuary Project
-------
A view of the living
channel liner installed.
Photo: Jon Hall, MBNEP
implements to meet the requirements of an un-
exploded ordinance, including training for the
construction crew. Environmental training and
onsite endangered species experts were also
necessary in case they encountered any steel-
head or the federally-listed red-legged frog dur-
ing construction. This came in handy when later
they did come upon two frogs, which they had
to relocate to a deep pool habitat with lots of
woody debris in Chorro Creek. For two years,
MBNEP, construction crews, scientists, moni-
tors, and engineers moved across five differ-
ent sites removing berms, eroded culverts, and
other obstructions, including a 75' wide by 6'
tall concrete barrier to salmonids.They installed
numerous grade control structures to allow
passage of juvenile steelhead and help stabi-
lize the channel, installed a free-span bridge to
68
-------
increase hydraulic function, and prepared the
land for a large-scale revegetation effort. How-
ever, unlike most creeks, which contain lots of
stabilizing bottom rocks, Walters Creek con-
sisted entirely of highly erodable clay. In decid-
ing how to protect and stabilize the new creek
and habitat during heavy rains, MBNEP's veg-
etation expert investigated conditions further
upstream and discovered many native wetland
grass species that acted as natural stabilizers
in that part of the creek. Instead of sticking to
the original blueprint, which was to plant plugs
and hope they grow and spread quickly, the
team came up with another idea. They created
enormous vegetative mat,
nearly an acre in size, would
help stabilize the creek and
simultaneouslyfllterbacteria
and trap excess sediment
coming down through the channel. For the ri-
parian work, MBNEP developed a 'plant pal-
let' based on field observations. They planted
more than 8,000 plants and trees with appro-
priate tolerances for varying conditions across
the five separate stream bank zones. The Cali-
fornia Conservation Corps, with direction from
the MBNEP, is currently managing the vegetat-
ed areas until they are fully reestablished. Man-
agement activities include monitoring native
vegetation growth and taking corrective actions
as required, controlling weeds, and irrigation
maintenance. Volunteers are monitoring water
and a new bird-monitoring program Is also In
a 'living channel liner". MB-
NEPfoundavendorwillingto
take on the large experimen-
tal project, which entailed
cultivating 33,000 square
feet of sod with the seeds of
same or similar native plants
living further up the creek
and placing it across the
bottom of the creek. This
69
-------
A new free-span bridge, plantings, and boulder grade control at a Walters
Creek restoration site. Photo: Jon Hall, MBNEP
m
progress, which will help assess the ability of
the habitat to supply necessary resources for
feeding and nesting.
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
MBNEP and its partners provided access to
9,232 linear feet of stream for steelhead trout
and other species. The water in Walters Creek
is exceptionally clear today, with no reports of
new erosion in the new channel. The 1,200 feet
of linear channel they cut have slowed water
velocity and decreased erosion and the 1.44
acres of floodplain surfaces are helping de-
crease water velocity and trap sediment. The
re-establishment of healthy riparian corridors
will protect eroding creek banks, increase
shading, and help reduce water temperature
so this historic spawning ground can resume
its former healthy state. MBNEP also installed
7,568 feet of cattle exclusionary fencing to de-
crease sediment source from cattle-caused
erosion and will continue to work on creating a
mature riparian plant community.
LESSONS LEARNED
MBNEP found that doing much of the planning
and strategizing in-house significantly reduced
the cost of the project. When out in the field,
instead of distributing the design and calling for
bids, MBNEP kept costs low by hiring subcon-
tractors who worked by the hour, under their
direction. Instead of using conventional plant-
ing methods, the living channel liner proved a
smarter choice for this project. It eliminated the
need to schedule planting time and seed irriga-
tion to try to ensure a percentage of germina-
tion and cover would be established before the
onset of storms and winter weather. In addition,
installing the sod in concert with the gravel rif-
fles also removed any soil that would otherwise
erode.
70
-------
New Hampshire
LAND PROTECTION
www.nhep.unh.edu
There are two major estuarine systems in the
State of New Hampshire —the Great Bay Estu-
ary (most of which is located about five miles in-
land from the Atlantic shoreline), and the Hamp-
ton-Seabrook Estuary, which is situated on the
coast. The state's largest estuary, the Great Bay,
is a tidally-dominated system characterized by
steep wooded banks and rock outcroppings,
cobble and shale beaches, and fringing salt-
marsh. The Hampton-Seabrook Estuary, a busy
tourist attraction and popular clamming destina-
tion, contains extensive saltmarshes and some
of the last remaining sand dunes in coastal New
Hampshire.
The phytoplankton, saltmarsh plants, algae, and
eelgrass found in these delicate estuarine eco-
systems provide essential habitat and nursing
areas for bivalves, crustaceans, fish, and large
populations of filter-feeding invertebrates. Nu-
merous diadromous fish species spawn in the
freshwater portions of the rivers and streams;
and as many as 110 bird species have been
identified in the estuaries, including several that
are endangered and threatened.
Project
The New Hampshire Estuaries Project (NHEP),
one of 28 National Estuary Programs across
the country, places a strong emphasis on water
resources by supporting projects that protect
streams, shorelands and wetlands.
Little Harbor, New Castle, NH
Photo: The New Hampshire Estuaries Project
71
-------
CHALLENGES
While a significant portion of New Hampshire's
coastal watershed is still relatively intact and
able to carry out many Important ecological
functions, clear signs of degradation and alter-
ation are also evident. A 2006 report from the
NHEP reveals that New Hampshire's estuaries
are under threat largely due to Increased devel-
opment and increasing nitrogen loads.
For the past 40 years and counting, New Hamp-
shire has been the fastest growing state In New
England - with much of its growth focused in
the coastal watershed. While only about 10
percent of the state's land area is in the coastal
watershed, one-third of the state's population
and businesses are located there. Further, New
Hampshire expects to see Its human popula-
tion grow 28 percent between 2000 and 2025.
Population growth has thus far been accompa-
nied by rapid land development, sprawl, and
conversion of natural land cover to impervious
surfaces (roofs, parking lots, driveways, etc.)
Increases in impervious surface cover In a wa-
tershed are tightly correlated with associated
degradation of water quality In rivers, lakes, and
streams. Eight to ten percent impervious cover
in a coastal New England watershed appears
to be the threshold beyond which serious water
quality problems become clearly evident and
persistent. Some of New Hampshire's coastal
subwatersheds are beyond this threshold, and
some are rapidly approaching it. As of 2005,
10 of the 37 subwatersheds in the NHEP's fo-
cus area had greater than 10 percent impervi-
ous surface cover. Beyond conversion of land
and degraded water quality, other negative im-
pacts include loss of plant and wildlife habitat,
fragmentation ofwildlife migration corridors, in-
creased severity of flooding impacts, decreas-
es In summer stream flows, and a decrease in
the relatively rural quality of life valued by NH
seacoast region residents.
As coastal land costs rise and developers suc-
ceed in making indelible marks across larger
areas of coastal habitat it Is becoming increas-
ingly difficult to afford to buy land for conser-
vation. Even when landowners are willing to
donate land for conservation, there remain
significant real estate transaction costs, which
buyers must often pay early in a land protection
project. Yet land acquisition grant funds usually
won't cover those kinds of expenses, making
it difficult for conservation groups to move for-
ward.
-------
"Because our area is developing so rapidly, permanent
land protection is a top priority. When you're protecting
land, you're protecting stream buffers, wetlands, diverse
wildlife habitat, and water quality—all of which helps to
implement central goals of our Management Plan."
- Derek Sowers, Program Coordinator, New Hampshire Estuaries Project
DEVELOPING A STRATEGY
The NHEP has a goal of permanently protecting
15 percent of the watershed land area by 2010.
As of 2005, there were 54,622 acres of pro-
tected land, representing 10.7% of the water-
shed. To meet the 2010 interim goal, the NHEP
needed to find a way to increase the pace of
land protection and address the challenge of
widespread land fragmentation and develop-
ment.
To support the critical work of land protection
experts in the region, the NHEP launched the
Land Protection Transaction Grants Program to
help its land protection partners offset some of
the costs associated with permanent land pro-
tection projects located within the boundary of
the New Hampshire coastal watershed. This
would provide targeted financial assistance in
areas where buyers need it the most.
Using National Estuary Program funding award-
ed by EPA, the NHEP provides matching grants
of up to $3,000 to assist qualifying partner
groups with the costs associated with land sur-
veys, attorney fees, appraisal fees, conserva-
tion staff time, recording fees, title expenses,
stewardship, and other relevant activities-
expenses that are often the most difficult to off-
set with fundraising.
The NHEP decided all grants would be non-
competitive, open to public and private entities,
(including local government) and on a first-
come, first-serve basis, as long as applicants'
projects met certain environmental criteria, in-
cluding at least one of the following:
• Be located at least in part in a Priority Con-
servation Focus Area identified in the Land
Conservation Plan for New Hampshire's Coast-
al Watersheds.
• Contain shoreline on streams, tidal waters, or
lakes.
73
-------
• Be composed of at least 50 percent undis-
turbed wetlands or contain wetlands with a
'prime'legal designation.
• Support exemplary natural communities or
habitat for plants or animals that are listed by
the state as being rare, threatened, or endan-
gered.
The NHEP assembled and coordinated a review
team that consists of NHEP staff and land and
water conservation specialists from the Univer-
sity of New Hampshire and the Society for the
Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Devel-
opment of a grant application was followed by
a publicity effort to attract qualifying appli-
cants.
The program was popular from the onset, at-
tracting dozens of interested applicants from
communities throughoutthecoastal watershed.
The awarded amounts ranged from as little as a
few hundred dollars to the maximum $3,000 al-
lotment and many figures in between that went
toward protecting as few as nine acres up to
several hundred acres of watershed habitat.
Conservation Easements: Landowners give
up specific development rights to the land and
grant an organization (typically a land trust,
conservation group, or government agency)
rights to enforce the terms of the easement.
Easements are very popular because they al-
low landowners to retain ownership of their
property while ensuring the land is permanently
protected from future development, often with
significant tax benefits to the landowner. Be-
cause development restrictions reduce the fair
market value of the land, easements are often
purchased to compensate the landowner for
the difference in the pre and post-easement
value of the land.
Acquisitions: Ownership (full fee title) of the
land is transferred to a conservation buyer. Ac-
quisitions are sometimes combined with ease-
ments to ensure permanent protection of the
land regardless of ownership.
Donations: A landowner can donate either a
conservation easement or full fee ownership of
their property in order to protect the property
from development. Donations are important in
securing 'matching' funds for acquisition
grants, and often provide the landowner with
significant tax benefits.
-------
OUTCOMES AND
MEASURABLE RESULTS
Since the program's inception in 2002, more
than 25 communities have benefited from 50-
plus land transaction grants distributed by the
NHEP so far, enabling them to protect 3,378
acres of coastal land (0.6% of NHEP study area)
valued at more than $23.6 million; and with the
program now in its third cycle, those numbers
and figures continue to climb.
Newly protected section of the Isinglass River corridor. Photo: Derek Sowers
One of the more recent and notable achieve-
ments is the completion of an effort to perma-
nently protect three separately owned land par-
cels within the Isinglass River Corridor
Conservation Project area. This successful ef-
fort was made possible by a diverse partner-
ship of organizations including the Trust for
Public Land, Bear-Paw Regional Greenways,
the NH Coastal Program, the Town of Strafford,
and private landowners. The effort put an end
to a previously-approved 58-unit housing de-
velopment scheduled for construction and has
permanently protected 270 acres of land and
6,063 feet of stream habitat, including 2,700
feet along the main stem of the Isinglass Riv-
er—property located in one of NHEP's priority
Conservation Focus Areas.
Landowners generously donated the ease-
ments, which together have an estimated value
of $800,000.00. The Town of Strafford, NH
Coastal Program, and the NHEP provided ad-
ditional financial support to help cover project
costs.
-------
To maintain healthy coastal ecosystems, eco-
logically valuable land needs to be protected
from development. The Land Conservation Plan
for New Hampshire's Coastal Watersheds iden-
tifies 75 conservation focus areas totaling over
230,000 acres that are key targets for land pro-
tection activities. The conservation focus areas
were selected for their importance in protecting
water quality and aquatic resources, promoting
large forested habitat blocks, and supporting
critical habitats and species that are valued in
the seacoast region. The plan is intended to
serve as a scientifically defensible guide to sup-
port habitat protection activities - both through
traditional conservation approaches (e.g., fee
ownership and conservation easements) and
regulatory approachesthatlimit developments
high priority areas and encourage conservation
practices.
76
Photo: Sagamore Creek salt marsh;
New Hampshire Estuaries Project
-------
Entrance to the Hampton/Seabrook Estuary. Photo: Chris M. Nevins
LESSONS LEARNED
In the course of implementing the Land Protec-
tion Transaction Grants Program, the NHEP has
learned several valuable lessons about how to
effectively promote high quality permanent land
protection projects in the coastal watershed:
• Work with partners to develop a scientifically
based regional land conservation plan to
identify the highest priority areasfor protection.
This plan is a key resource for many conserva-
tion partners and helps target scarce time
and resources on the most ecologically
important areas.
• Structure the grant program to try to provide
"start-up* funds to facilitate land protection
projects, but include provisions to only invest
National Estuary Program funds in projects with
a high likelihood of ultimate project success
("closed" real estate transactions).
• Strive to provide equitable opportunities for
financial assistance among different applicant
organizations and geographic areas - but also
support coordinated efforts that link conserva-
tion lands together.
-------
Sarasota Bay Estuary
LAND ACQUISITION AND WE
www.sarasotabay.org
Sarasota Bay is part of a 250 square mile wa-
tershed with a coastal lagoon approximately 56
miles long. It is located on the southwest coast
of Florida between the mainland and a chain of
barrier island communities, called keys, which
receive waters from the Gulf of Mexico.
Saltwater wetlands, primarily mangroves across
the Bay, and other habitats provide essential
nursery areas for many aquatic species, includ-
ing dolphins, manatees, black mullet, red drum,
spotted sea trout, snook, shellfish, and crusta-
ceans as well as the endangered loggerhead
sea turtle. Common birds include the great blue
heron, egrets, brown pelican, osprey, wood
stork, bald eagle, and the endangered Florida
scrub jay.
The Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP),
one of 28 National Estuary Programs across
the country, has been working with its many
partners to successfully attain and maintain a
functioning, healthy ecosystem which supports
endangered and threatened species, fisheries,
commerce, and recreation.
Program
LAND RESTORATION
Photo: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
-------
CHALLENGES
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
Wetlands, primarily mangroves, have decreased
in Sarasota Bay 38 percent between 1950 and
1990. Once used as farmland for crop rotation,
most of the area had remained fallow for de-
cades, whereby invasive vegetation and trees,
including Brazilian pepper tree and Australian
pine, quickly overtook the native plants and
wildlife that existed across many parts of the
area.
An important mangrove restoration target and
one of the largest coastal properties in Manatee
County is the Robinson Preserve, a 487-acre
parcel near the confluence of Tampa Bay and
Sarasota Bay In Manatee County.
The Robinson family, the landowners who pur-
chased the space as agricultural land, was
preparing to divert most of the property into a
massive, waterfront PGA-level golf course re-
sort and residential community—an effort that
would destroy or further denigrate the land's
natural ponds, high marshes, lagoons, and oth-
er habitat essential to the survival of fish and
wildlife.
As the Robinson property owner faced delays
and obstacles getting parts of his plan ap-
proved, SBEP partners were busy working on a
restoration project nearby to reestablish a his-
toric intertidal connection between the Perico
Bayou and Sarasota Bay, which would improve
water flow. Incidentally, this led to conversa-
tions with Manatee County about SBEP and
some other partners acquiring the neighboring
land and doing a large habitat protection and
restoration project.
Mindful of the habitat strategy fundamentals of
its comprehensive plan, if the county stepped
In, SBEP would have a prime opportunity to
build on its current goal to restore a mosaic of
wetland habitat for juvenile fish and other wild-
life. The work would also Increase public ac-
cess to natural areas, provide opportunities for
environmental education, and increase aware-
ness of the preserve's beauty and ecological
value.
The SBEP prepared a conceptual design for the
county commission, which endorsed the plan.
The plan suggested a number of restoration ef-
79
-------
forts to recreate tidal connections and wetland
areas as well as new trails and access areas
for people.
Manatee County liked the plan and decided
to offer to purchase the land and obtain the
development rights from the landowner. What
followed became a true cooperative effort with
SBEP, US Fish and Wildlife, and EPA playing
important roles during negotiations between
Manatee County and the Robinson family. The
groups settled on a purchase price agreement
of $10 million, which was much lower than the
property's actual value of $17 million. Florida
Community Trust provided a $6 million state
grant toward the county's purchase—the maxi-
mum dollar amount allowed for land acquisition
projects per grant cycle.
Manatee County hired a firm to create the engi-
neering plans based on SBEP's original design.
Continued SBEP support proved invaluable as
it was in a unique position to handle virtually
all of the permitting processes, which included
working through the tangle of state and federal
building codes, zoning and environmental laws,
and other issues. Soon after, the restoration
Inlet restoration at Robinson's Preserve,
Photo: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
-------
"A recent fishery
assessment shows
approximately 68,000 fish
inhabit each acre of
restored lagoons whereas
approximately 109,000
fish per acre live in a natural
lagoon. So our lagoons are
providing about 67 percent
of what a natural lagoon would
do—and that's just after
construction. Wait a while
until the full productivity of the
system comes back."
- Mark Alderson, Director,
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
work began. The EPA contributed $500,000 to
create and improve wetlands and SBEP com-
mitted approximately $70,000 for part of the
planning and permitting expenses, general out-
reach, and volunteer support. Additional sup-
port for the $5-million effort came from the
Fish & Wildlife, Southwest Florida Water Man-
agement District, and others, including private
entities that helped create a 53-foot observa-
tion tower where visitors can see approximately
eight miles to the north at Tampa Bay. A historic
Florida dwelling was relocated down the Mana-
tee River on a barge from Palmetto to serve as
a visitor's center and nature center.
Meanwhile, the seller still had plans to build a
PGA golf course, albeit with a less ambitious
plan than the original, on 250 acres of land ad-
jacent to the Robinson Preserve. Interestingly,
the arrangement actually worked to the resto-
ration team's advantage by providing a unique,
money-saving opportunity. The county invited
the landowner to bid on and "buy back" all the
soil that it was removing from Robinson Pre-
serve, which was necessary for implementing
the plan's design to recreate the tidal creek
connections and wetland communities. The
-------
Visitors enjoy the new
"daisy trail" at Robinson Preserve
Photo: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
owner agreed, wort the bid, and construction
workers at the preserve were able to trans-
port the material to the neighboring golf course
site where it is now being recycled to develop
greens, tee-off areas, and other necessary golf
course components. This saved the county a
lot of money since they didn't have to pay to
have all the dirt hauled off the site or bear the
burden of contributing to greenhouse gases
attributed to trucking and hauling millions of
dollars worth of material to another site. The
money they received for the soil was reinvested
into the project.
Another creative move involved fashioning up-
side down Australian pine trunks into artificial
reefs and installing them throughout several in-
terconnected fishing lakes to provide additional
habitat for aquatic species—a unique experi-
mental initiative. All adjoining areas between
82
-------
the preserve and the golf course, which will in-
clude more than a dozen residential buildings,
now feature natural barriers built from native
vegetation. Sarasota Bay Buddies, a success-
ful SBEP-sponsored volunteer program of high
school students across the region, engaged
in several planting and clean-up efforts on the
preserve.
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
Robinson Preserve is SBEP's largest land ac-
quisition/habitat restoration project to date—a
monumental achievement and significant addi-
tion to the necklace of SBEP projects that will
encircle the sea and improve the ecological in-
tegrity of the Manatee County coastal water-
shed.
The removal of the excess fill allowed SBEP to
build tidal creeks that connect the Manatee Riv-
er, Palma Sola Bay, and Robert's Bay together.
Prior to the work, these water bodies were only
intermittently connected through the mangrove
forest during high tide events. Now fish, wild-
"We had a lot of volunteer work
at Robinson. Thousands of
volunteer hours were spent re-
moving exotic plants, building
benches and towers, and plant-
ing native plants.The great thing
about this is that we now have
kids who know what Australian
pine is, they know what Brazil-
ian pepper is, they know how
to remove them and they know
aboutthe native plants—what to
pull, what to plant, where they
need to go—they really know
what to do. They bring their par-
ents, too. So we have plenty of
adults who are learning about
this work as well.0
- Julia Burch, Public Outreach Coordinator,
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
-------
life, and the public are able to enjoy permanent
pool connections. This multi-recreational park
went from a fallow, low-functioning wilderness
to lush, multi-recreational complex with a diver-
sity of healthy habitat for fish and wildlife, canoe
and kayak launches, campsites, and trails for
biking, rollerblading, and hiking.
Kayakers prepare to launch
at the new Robinson Preserve
Photo: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
84
Before and after baseline monitoring of vegeta-
tion and wildlife will provide additional informa-
tion on the project's success. Anecdotal evi-
dence shows avifaunal and fishers use have
increased dramatically. The saltern areas that
were restored are naturally colonizing with na-
tive species; this is considered rare for the area
and demonstrates that the project is already
functioning as designed.
LESSONS LEARNED
There were many lessons learned from such a
large project, many of which will be considered
and carried over to future restoration projects.
One of the principal lessons SBEP has learned
is the importance and value of working with a
streamlined permitting process. The coopera-
tion of Florida's permitting agencies and the
relationships SBEP have developed with them
were essential to making the project happen.
Constant and early coordination with funding
partners was also imperative. In one instance,
a funding partner had decided to bid the con-
struction funds out themselves rather than the
-------
county, a move that required modifying the
plans prior to construction and separating some
components. Staying in close contact ensured
there were no surprises.
The heavy equipment used during construc-
tion inadvertently distributed salinity rich soils
throughout the site, making installation of the
freshwaterand upland plantssomewhatdifficult.
For future projects, it may be best to restrict it
to areas intended for estuarine plantings and
to leave other areas intact. Preserving existing
topsoil would give native plants a better chance
to adapt to their new environment. Also,
instead of planting immediately following
the completion of grading work, which
is typical of most projects, future proj-
ects could schedule time for the site to
equilibrate, especially in estuarine areas.
This would also allow newly groomed ar-
eas to be observed through a couple of
tidal cycles so that planting plans can be
matched to conditions.
Because sediment transport has the po-
tential to continue through the full lunar
cycles, the team left erosion control de-
vices in place for two cycles, even af-
ter the excavation was completed. This was a
good preventive measure that helped reduce
sediment transport associated with high and
low tidal events.
85
-------
Tampa Bay Estuary
SEAGRASS RECOVERY
www.tbep.org
Tampa Bay, located on the west central coast of
Florida, is the state's largest open-water estuary
with four major rivers and a watershed covering
2,200 square miles.
Seagrass habitats are one of the most domi-
nant and pervasive natural resources in Tampa
Bay and have served as the primary indicator
for estuarine health for bay managers. Other im-
portant habitats in Tampa Bay include emergent
wetland vegetation such as salt marsh and man-
grove forests. These emergent habitats provide
barriers to pollutants and protect uplands from
waves, storms, and floods. Collectively, these
habitats provide shelter and nursery areas for
more than 200 species of fish, crustaceans,
and shellfish.
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP), one of
28 National Estuary Programs across the coun-
try, has been working with its many partners to
successfully attain and maintain a functioning,
healthy ecosystem that supports endangered
and threatened species, fisheries, commerce,
and recreation.
ram
Roseate spoonbill, Photo: Gerold Morrison
-------
CHALLENGES
Tampa Bay has a variety of seagrasses, includ-
ing turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee
grass (Syringodium filiforme), shoal grass (Hal-
odulewrightii), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime),
and star grass (Halophila engelmannii). Of this
group, turtle, manatee, and shoal grasses are
most common. The grasses declined steadily
throughout Tampa Bay from the 1950s until the
early 1980s.
Fortunately, recent improvements in water qual-
ity, primarily due to sewage treatment upgrades
in the 1980s and TBEP's recent efforts to reduce
nitrogen have reversed this trend and seagrass
habitats have been expanding. In the past two
decades, more than 6,000 acres of seagrass
have returned to Tampa Bay, however, there are
still nearly 10,000 acres of seagrass that were
present in the mid-1900s that are not present
today. While water quality and clarity are now
sufficient for seagrass growth and maintenance,
other factors may limit the complete recovery of
seagrass.
During the same period of major seagrass de-
cline, there also was a nearly 50 percent de-
crease in the length of longshore bars in Tampa
Bay, which run parallel to the shoreline. These
bars help dampen wave energy and provide
suitable habitat for seagrass growing behind
the bars. Few early sequential photographs of
the bay exist and scientists are unsure which
occurred first - the loss of seagrass or bars.
Scientists hypothesize that poor water clar-
ity caused seagrass declines; and without the
seagrass rhizomes (roots) to hold sediment in
place, the bars may have eroded, leading to
further losses of seagrass.
Turtle grass In Tampa Bay, Photo: Tampa Bay Estuary Program
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
With a multi-partner, collaborative effort, the
TBEP is tackling the questions surrounding
seagrass loss and recovery by first ensuring
they achieve its goals to improve water quality
in the bay—the first and most important step.
Maintaining lightavailabilitytoseagrassthrough
the water column is the guiding paradigm of
TBEP's Nitrogen Management Strategy. To help
maintain, restore, and track progress in recov-
ering the bay's seagrass resources, the TBEP
annually assesses water quality conditions in
the bay using data from the Environmental Pro-
tection Commission of Hillsborough County's
long-term ambient water quality monitoring pro-
gram.
TAMPA BAY WATER
QUALITY DECISION
MATRIX
Each major bay segment is presented in a sim-
plified "decision matrix" using a stop-light color
scheme to determine water quality.
• Green indicates TBEP met both water clarity
targets and should "stay the course" and con-
tinue with planned projects to implement its
Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan.
• Yellow indicates one water clarity target was
not met (caution alert) and the TBEP TAC and
Management Boards should review possible
causes and suggest management responses.
• Red indicates that no water clarity targets
were met (action alert) and prompts the TBEP
TAC, Management, and Policy Boards to take
appropriate action to get the program back on
track.
-------
"The'decision matrix'chart
has been really helpful.
When our Policy Board sees
a green year, they know
things are on track. Even if
it is due to a drier year with
less runoff, it's still a good
sign that we are meeting
water quality standards...this
process is actually what led
us to intensively study
seagrass recovery in Old
Tampa Bay, a 'problem area'
for several years."
- Lindsay Cross, Environmental Scientist,
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
1982
Red
Red
Red
Red
1983
Red
Yellow
Red
Red
1984
Red
Green
Red
Yellow
1985
Red
Red
Red
Yellow
1986
Red
Yellow
Red
Green
1987
Red
Yellow
Red
Green
1988
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
1989
Red
Yellow
Red
Yellow
1990
Red
Green
Red
Yellow
1991
Green
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
1992
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Yellow
1993
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Yellow
1994
Yellow
Yellow
Red
Red
1995
Red
Yellow
Red
Yellow
1996
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
1997
Yellow
Green
Red
Yellow
1998
Red
Red
Red
Red
1999
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Yellow
2000
Green
Green
Yellow
Yellow
2001
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Yellow
2002
Yellow
Green
Green
Green
2003
Red
Yellow
Green
Yellow
2004
Red
Green
Green
Yellow
2005
Green
Green
Yellow
Yellow
2006
Green
Green
Green
Green
2007
Green
Green
Green
Green
89
-------
"Our water quality assessment
tells us how well we are doing in
stemming nitrogen sources flow-
ing to the bay. That serves as an
annual report card on our prog-
ress—and it also relates to man-
agement of our seagrass resourc-
es bydeterminingifenough light is
available each year to sustain sea-
grass recovery in the bay."
- Ed Sherwood, Program Scientist,
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
90
TBEP's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a
diverse group of more than 100 scientists, de-
veloped the program, which uses two measures
of water quality to indicate whether TBEP's ni-
trogen load reduction strategies are working.
In addition to its bay-wide water quality man-
agement efforts, TBEP is simultaneously inves-
tigating the role that longshore bars play in the
expansion and recovery of seagrass habitats.
Using a two-pronged research approach for re-
storing seagrass and longshore bars, research-
ers are testing to see if re-planting seagrass
into areas that historically had bars will lead to
sediment accumulation and the development
of a bar feature, and whether re-creating a bar
structure will encourage volunteer seagrass re-
covery behind the bars. To do the work, TBEP
has received more than $750,000 in grants
from five funding agencies and is working with
10 government, non-profit, and university part-
ners to help answer these questions.
Tasks include mapping current and historical
distribution of longshore bars to determine the
actual loss of longshore bars bay-wide and
characterizing the topography and bathymetry
-------
of existing bars in relationship to seagrass dis-
tribution. TBEP research partners used this in-
formation to develop a conceptual model of a
restored seagrass longshore bar system and
coastal engineering criteria needed to re-con-
struct bars with dredged material.
On the ground, TBEP and its partners trans-
planted plugs of manatee grass from an area of
the bay with good water quality to an area with
similar water quality where a longshore bar his-
torically existed. This restoration effort will test
how the grass transplants and whether the re-
established plants are accumulating sediment
to create a bar. Monitoring efforts for this and
other project tasks are well underway.
Volunteers transplant a large plug of manatee grass.
Photo: Holly Greening
The next task will result in the construction of a
500-foot-long experimental longshore bar, uti-
lizing dredged and other materials. TBEP part-
ners have prepared an Environmental Resource
Permit application based on the engineering
design criteria and TBEP expects to construct
in spring 2009. Partners will monitor the sys-
tem's integrity over time and track volunteer
establishment of seagrasses adjacent to the
structure. Scientists will also assess the actual
dampening of wave energy, If any, for both nat-
ural and experimental bar systems in the bay.
-------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
For the first time since the annual water quality
assessment began in the 1970s, all four major
bay segments of Tampa Bay achieved a green
status in the decision matrix, indicating that wa-
ter quality conditions bay-wide have been suf-
ficient to foster seagrass recovery. After two
years of monitoring, there has been complete
recovery of seagrass at the donor location. At
the transplant location, seagrass patches are
growing and coalescing, forming larger patch-
es. Overall, TBEP is making significant strides
toward achieving its 38,000-acre goal for bay-
wide seagrass recovery and protection. Aerial
photographs of the bay in 2006 already indi-
cate the bay is only 9,679 acres short of this
target, setting the stage for additional restora-
tion projects, such as the longshore bar proj-
ect—a project that is instrumental in obtaining
the bay-wide target.
Scientists have documented increases in sedi-
ment elevation behind some of the plots and
additional monitoring during the next phase will
determine if these accumulated sediments will
form a complete bar structure. TBEP is also
measuring wave energy in locations with and
without longshore bars to compare with the re-
sults from the seagrass transplantation and
longshore bar experiment.
A scientist examines
the rhizomes of a
manatee grass plug.
Photo: Tampa Bay Watch
-------
Tampa Bay Seagrass Recovery Goal
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
One of the key lessons learned from this proj-
ect is the importance and necessity of building
partnerships. This enabled TBEP to leverage
more money from various entities. Without
strong partnerships, TBEP feels certain that
many of its projects would never have gotten
off the ground.
The seagrass transplant technique in this proj-
ect used large plugs of manatee grass that in-
cluded the rhizomes (roots) and sediment. It
appears that using larger seagrass plugs with
the rhizomes and sediment intact may lead to
better long-term survival than transplanting only
the plant material.
On a much broader front, because of past and
continuing development,TBEP understands the
unfeasibility of trying to recover all the habitat
acreage that has been lost, although the work
does aim to protect and restore habitat in a
similar ratio to what existed in 1950, TBEP's
benchmark year. TBEP is also taking more of a
'mosaic habitat'approach to habitat restoration
by designing plans that incorporate a diversity
of habitat types and functions, as opposed to
addressing one habitat type at a time. Work will
also include a greater watershed management
approach that expands the planning of habitat
restoration activities to the landscape level
(rather than the parcel level) by acquiring and
connecting multiple sites and incorporating hy-
drologic modifications to create larger contigu-
ous integrated systems. Opportunities exist to
create very large adjoining tidal wetland sys-
tems with extensive salinity gradients and habi-
tat richness. For example, the Tampa Bypass
Canal and Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal—two
highly modified freshwater inflows to the bay,
each several miles in length—are a significant
target for TBEP's plans for large-scale water-
shed-based habitat restoration. TBEP has pro-
posed conceptual plans to the Southwest Flor-
ida Water Management District, one of TBEP's
principal partners, which owns a vast majority
of the riparian lands, as well as many large ad-
jacent parcels.
94
"When we're able to pool our resources, it enables agencies to
look beyond their traditional boundaries and put the focus on
the health of the bay overall....we've seen bay-wide seagrass
recovery because we're working on a collective basis."
- Lindsay Cross, Environmental Scientist, Tampa Bay Estuary Program
-------
Tillamook Estuaries
RIPARIAN & INSTREAM ENh
www.tbnep.org
Tillamook Bay, the second largest estuary
in Oregon, is located on the state's northern
coast, roughly 60 miles west of Portland and
45 miles south of the Columbia River mouth.
The Tillamook Bay watershed—a coastal tem-
perate rainforest ecosystem—possesses an ex-
traordinary natural resource base with extensive
upland forests dominating almost 90 percent
of the basin's land area and rich, fertile alluvial
soils characterizing the lowlands.
Spanning a mere 13 square miles, Tillamook's
low shallow waters average only about six feet
deep and are a critical support to commercial-
ly-valued fish and shellfish, including five salm-
on species. The area also provides important
habitat for seals, which, after years of decline,
are beginning to flourish again. The clams and
crabs that populate the bay's mudflats are a
popular draw for anglers and tourists alike as
are the many native and migratory birds and
other wildlife that live, breed, and feed in the
various habitats of Tillamook Bay.
The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP),
one of 28 National Estuary Programs across
the country, has been working with its many
partners to successfully attain and maintain a
functioning, healthy ecosystem which supports
endangered and threatened species, fisheries,
commerce, and recreation.
CHALLENGES
Three Cruiser Creek tributaries, part of the up-
per Trask River Watershed that provide critical
spawning grounds for migratory fish, including
the federally listed Coho Salmon, were losing its
ability to provide a natural functioning habitat.
Undersized, perched culverts were completely
blocking or severely limiting fish passage. His-
toric fires, subsequent salvage operations, and
a defunct forest road were dumping sediments
into the stream. With a scarcity of refuge areas,
quality pools, and large wood in the stream, the
poorly functioning channel threatened the abil-
ity for migratory salmon to thrive.
The site, a part of the Elkhorn drainage basin
owned jointly by the Oregon Department of
Forestry (ODF) and Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM), was ripe for restoration—and both
agencies had the funding to make it happen.
However, neither agency had the authority to
administer a contract on the other's land. As
they began to collaborate, they saw the poten-
tial fortheir logistical and conflicting administra-
tive rules to turn the project into an inefficient
managerial hassle.
-------
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
AND TAKING ACTION
Seeking a solution, BLM managers approached
TEP, who saw the project as an extraordinary
opportunity for them to participate in a promis-
ing habitat enhancement project that would
measurably improve conditions for the federally
listed Coho Salmon and other migratory spe-
cies, including Fall Chinook Salmon, Winter
Steelhead, and Coastal Cutthroat Trout.
The work aligned perfectly with TEP manage-
ment criteria and TEP was suited to serve as a
third party and coordinate all the necessary ac-
tivities while adhering to the standards and
practices of each agency. By working under
TEP's project management, the two agencies
would be assured their resources were being
managed effectively and efficiently, and that the
restoration activities of each would enjoy econ-
omies of leverage and scale.
To initiate the work, the three entered into a for-
mal Cooperative Agreement in which TEP would
administer the necessary contracts while ODF
and BLM would oversee the groundwork. Sev-
eral others joined the effort, including the local
watershed counci, native plant cooperative,
Bay
school district, and others. Together, the part-
ners embarked on a one-year project— fast by
usual standards—to fully restore fish passage
and spawning and rearing habitat by installing
new culverts, placing log and boulder struc-
tures in the stream channel, eliminating a wa-
ter-polluting road, and planting trees in the ri-
parian area.
96
-------
"Instead of the agencies
implementing the project
independent of one another,
risking duplication, a third
party providing overall
management increased
efficiencies. Many have
talked about that process
since then... partners have
brought projects to our
attention to foster
collaboration with us."
- Rachel Hoffman,
Habitat Restoration Manager,
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
MEASURABLE RESULTS
AND OUTCOMES
The Cruiser Creek project was a great suc-
cess. At the project's end, the partners had
installed three fully-functioning fish passable
structures, restored 1.5 miles of instream habi-
tat, decommissioned 3.5 miles of forest road,
and enhanced five acres of riparian habitat—all
of which are going a long way today to provide
essential spawning and rearing habitat, reduce
road sedimentation, and increase riparian di-
versity.
Restored fish passage at one of the Cruiser Creek tributaries; Photo: TEP
97
-------
Surveyors for the Cruiser Creek project site
found that over-winter retention of smolts has
increased dramatically from 5.0 percent to 17.4
percent over a two-year period since the proj-
ect was completed.
TEP attributes this major success—a 248
percent increase in retention—to the increased
habitat complexity that now exists throughout
the Cruiser Creek project area, in fact, in com-
parison, over-winter retention rates in nearby
untreated control reaches remained nearly
identical at 5.3 percent and 5.6 percent re-
spectively during the same period.
LESSONS LEARNED
TEP managed to keep costs on a relatively large
project lower than usual (planning cost $40,000
and construction cost $150,000) primarily be-
cause they were able to conduct the planning
and engineering in-house. They also saved
money by taking advantage of some donated
materials, such as plants and other vegetation
needed for the riparian work.
98
Placing wood and boulder structures In Cruiser Creek; Photo: BLM
-------
TEP considers the Cruiser
Creek watershed enhance-
ment project the first collab-
orative endeavor of its kind in
the region to offer an oppor-
tunity to leverage the efforts
of state and federal landown-
ers toward common restora-
tion goals.
Decommissioning a forest road adjacent to Cruiser Creek; Photo: TEP
99
This effort also showed that bigger projects
don't always require a several-stage process.
With the right partnerships, good leveraging
skills, and other variables in place, TEP realized
it could tackle large projects all at once and still
achieve effective outcomes
and lasting results.
This important achievement also marks the first
of many habitat enhancement projects as BLM
and ODF ownership patterns form a mosaic
throughout Northwest Oregon.
-------
842K08002
Photo Credit; Eva Furrier
^jgp] NATIONAL
ESTUARY
iSM PROGRAM
vyEPA
www.epa.gov/nep
------- |