United States                     EPA/600/R-94/167
Environmental Protection                 FEBRUARY 1995
Research and


                                February 1995
   RESEARCH  PLAN FY 1997-2001:
                David A. Flemer
          Environmental Research Laboratory
              1 Sabine Island Drive
           Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561-5299
              William L. Kruczynski
                  Region IV
              1 Sabine Island Drive
           Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561-5299
                 PROPERTY OF
             GULF BREEZE, FL 32561

      The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.  It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative
review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.





3.1.   Background	3.1
3.2.   Causes of Loss of Coastal Wetlands and Wetland Function	,3.2



6.1.    National Concerns	6.1
6.2     Programmatic Priorities 	6.3
6.2.1.     Office of Water	6.3
6.2.2.     EPA Regions	6.3
6.3.   Water and Sediment Quality Criteria	6.4
6.4.   Wetland Creation and Restoration	6.4
6.5.   Research and Technical Support Required for Program Information 	6.4
6.5.1.     Research Objectives	6.4

7.2.   Program Management 	7.1
7.3.   Program Quality Assurance	7.2
7.4.   Coordination with Other Federal Agencies	7.2
7.5.   Project Area 1: Wetland Function	7.2
7.5.1.     Purpose and Goal 	7.2
7.5.2.     Scientific Approach 	7.3
7.5.3.     Specific Research Issues 	7.4
7.6.   Project Area 2: Wetland Characterization and Restoration	7.6
7.6.1.     Purpose and Goal 	'.	7.6
7.6.2.     Scientific Approach	7.6

7.7.   Project Area 3: Landscape Function 	7.7
7.7.1.     Purpose and Goal  	7.7
7.7.2.     Scientific Approach	7.8
7.8.   Project Area 4:  Risk Reduction	7.9
7.8.1.     Purpose and Goal  	7.9
7.8.2.     Scientific Approach	7.9
7.9.   Anticipated Results of Projects 1 Through 4	^	7.10
7.9.1.     Project 1	7.10
7.9.2.     Project 2	'.	7.10
7.9.3.     Project 3	7.11
7.9.4.     Project 4	7.11

8.1.    Resources 	8.1


Figure 1. Impact of physical alterations on and materials discharge into the estuarine
ecosystem	2.2

Figure 2. The hierarchial nature of ecosystems	2.3

Figure 3. Integration of research, monitoring and resource management	5.4

Figure 4. Components of the Wetlands Research Program (WRP) risk-based framework
for wetland protection and management	5.5

Figure 5. Proposed research strategy for the coastal wetlands research program  	5.6

Figure 6. Comparison of present and future information in resource management as
 applied to coastal wetlands	6.2

Figure 7.  Relative magnitudes of realism, controllability (predictability), and
generality in research systems at various scales in a hierarchical scheme  	7.5

       We thank William Davis and Andrew McErlean for comments on an earlier draft of the
paper.  Michael Durako, Judy Stout, Eugene Turner, Paul Carlson and David Tomasko are
thanked for their helpful comments and encouragement and their assistance is acknowledged.
Fred Kopfler pointed out that arrows in the figures did not always "fly" in the correct direction.
Mary Kentula is thanked for clarification of several programmatic issues and Fred Weinmann
pointed out several technical and policy relevant wetland issues especially germane to the Pacific
Northwest. John Meagher and Phil Oshida are acknowledged for helping identify top research
priorities.  Betty Jackson improved the organizational structure of the document and Sheila
Howard assisted with final editing. Val Coseo assisted with the typing and Steve Embry helped
with the illustrations.

                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       The Wetlands Research Plan (WRP) FY 92-96 provides the conceptual framework for
freshwater wetlands research within the Office of Research and Development.  The plan
presented herein, the Coastal Marine Wetlands Research Plan (CMWRP), documents research
objectives and strategies for the coastal initiative should resources become available. The
CMWRP is an extension of the WRP and provides the rationale and approach to effectively unite
the two plans into an integrated whole.

Program Objectives

       The CMWRP is an applied research program intended to  support coastal wetland
resource  management and regulatory activities.  Its purpose is to provide technical support to
EPA programs within the Office of Water and the Regional Offices.  The plan is intended to
provide scientifically sound and relevant research that will improve the Agency's effectiveness in
carrying out its regulatory activities related to coastal wetlands. The principal objectives are to:
1.  improve the quality and relevance of coastal wetland research, and 2.  improve effectiveness of
ways to infuse current ecological theory and results into management deliberations.

          The primary priority research areas in the CMWRP FY 1997-2001 are to:

       • Develop and  demonstrate a comprehensive risk-based approach to coastal wetland
          protection and management that is integrated with the  freshwater-focused WRP.

       • Provide technical support to the Office of Water for the development of water and
          sediment quality criteria, including biocriteria, for the  protection of coastal wetlands.

       • Assess the role of riverine wetlands as early warning indicators of impending stress to
          coastal wetlands.

       • Develop criteria to establish regional reference wetlands.

          Secondary priority research areas include:

       • Determine the contribution of individual and combined coastal wetlands at various
          functional scales, including size, type and location, to  water quality improvement,
          habitat, and hydrologic functions.

       •  Quantify individual and cumulative effects of environmental stressors on coastal
          wetland functions.

       •  Determine the role of land and seascape factors on coastal wetlands functions.

       •  Provide technical support for the development of design guidelines and ecological
          performance criteria (i.e., criteria for growth, survival, and function) for coastal
          wetland creation and restoration.

       •  Compare ecological functions of coastal wetlands criteria to that of freshwater
          wetlands criteria to gain insights into the effectiveness .of indicators of stress and
          success in mitigation and protection.

       •  Conduct an integrated risk assessment based on information developed above for at
          least one major wetland type.

       •  Provide technical support to the issues of:
           — the national policy of "no net loss" (NNL) of wetland area  and function, and
           — the role of wetlands in reducing nonpoint source pollution.

Program Organization

       The CMWRP will develop information at three major spatial scales. Studies of
individual wetland sites are required to understand local (small scale) processes that contribute to
wetland functions, wetland responses to environmental stress, and wetland "assimilative
capacity" for individual and cumulative stresses.  This information is essential for establishing
precedent and for categorizing wetlands to assist  resource management and regulatory agencies
in determination of what activities to undertake initially. Similar wetland types must be
characterized so that an understanding of natural, restored and created wetlands can be extended
to similar wetlands in different landscape settings and to integrate  responses to stress at larger
scales. The largest research observational scale, the landscape level, is essential because regional
hydrogeomorphic processes (e.g., hydrological processes) often affect the productivity of
wetlands; and the totality of similar wetland types involves integration at this scale. The national
or sum of landscape scales will be considered when development of national criteria for
protection of coastal wetlands is the primary objective.

       The CMWRP  is organized into four project areas:  1.  Wetland function, 2. Wetland
characterization and restoration, 3. Landscape function, 4. Risk reduction.  The first three
emphasize research at different spatial scales and the fourth synthesizes information from  various
scales to provide an understanding of more complex issues. This approach is consistent with the
basic ecological principle of scale which requires that evaluation of wetland function must relate
the  scale of the question or problem to the scale of impacted wetland processes.  The  areas are:

       •  Wetland Function Project: This project focuses at small spatial scales involving
          individual wetlands of various types. Wetland function, stress/ response relationships
          and wetland assimilative capacity for various contaminants and physical disturbances
          will be quantified. Information developed in this project will be incorporated in
          larger-scale projects described below.  In particular, information derived at the
          watershed and landscape scale will be used to compare wetland functions between
          riverine and tidal fresh wetlands to assess the early warning potential of the upstream
          wetland systems for possible lagged effects of riverine-borne stress to
          coastal/estuarine wetlands. For example, riverine-borne toxic chemicals may
          flocculate in low salinity waters and not reach an effects concentration to target
          species in waters of higher salinities until very high riverine concentrations occur.

       •  Characterization and Restoration Project:  This project scales information on
          function from individual wetlands to units of similar wetlands at the watershed and
          regional/landscape level. The  scaling may involve different wetland types whose
          functions are comparable - a concept analogous to the ecological concept of "guild."
          This information is relevant to issues of wetland creation/restoration.

       •  Landscape Function Project: This project scales up from the intermediate to
          watershed/landscape levels.  Attributes of combined wetlands are compared across
          landscape features to assess how landscape features affect wetlands and how wetlands
          affect landscape functions. This dual approach will provide insight into how wetlands
          are coupled to processes that serve as constraints to processes operating at smaller
          scales. Hierarchy theory will be tested as an organizing principle.

       •  Risk Reduction Project:  This project uses information developed from the three
          previous projects to integrate the "pieces" into a synthetic whole. The project will
          evaluate the utility of the risk-based approach to address complex issues, such as
          NNL of wetlands, across major landscapes.

Program Management

       Program management will be the responsibility of the Gulf Breeze  Environmental
Research Laboratory.

Priority Wetland Types

       Five coastal wetland types are tentatively identified for priority consideration:
1) seagrasses and other submerged  aquatic vegetation (SAV), 2) tidal freshwater emergent
marshes, 3) mangroves, 4) saltwater emergent marshes, and (5) pocosins.  Within these classes of
wetlands, initial focus will be on seagrasses, SAV, tidal freshwater wetlands, and mangroves.
Although pocosins are perched freshwater wetlands located within the coastal plain, they may
have a direct connection to estuaries,  especially during wet periods and influence estuarine water
quality in ways that are only partially understood (Walbridge and Richardson, 1991).  The

relative habitat value and "connectivity" of pocosins as part of the larger coastal wetland
landscape are not well established for many species or communities. Along the South Atlantic
coast pocosins are being threatened by development (Richardson, 1991; Ash et al., 1983).

Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

       The CMWRP will provide a quality assurance plan to ensure that collected data are of
known quality and meet plan objectives.  The plan provides for coordination of QA plans of each
participating laboratory and ensures that they meet the overall QA requirements of the Program.
The CMWRP QA project coordinator will be given appropriate resources and responsibilities
commensurate with  Program objectives and overall funding and control procedures will be
incorporated into individual research projects.

Technical Information Transfer

       This component of the program assesses dissemination of technical material to interested
parties and make the public aware of the implications of important findings from the program.
Coordination with Regional Technical Information Transfer personnel is essential. The states be
a major focus of technical information transfer. Workshops and symposia are important
mechanisms for information dissemination.  Consideration will be given to scientific
organizations such as Ecological Society of America, Estuarine Research Federation, American
Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Society of Wetland Scientists, The Coastal Society,
and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry as conduits for information
dissemination. Scientists will be assisted in production of manuscripts for publication in peer-
reviewed journals.  Electronic communication (e-mail and bulletin boards) will be extensively
used. Individual products are described in the  Section entitled "Research Products and
Technology Transfer."

                                  1. INTRODUCTION
       Regulatory and resource management policies are experiments:  we should learn
       from them.
                                         Adapted from K. N. Lee, 1993

       This document presents the research objectives and strategy developed for the Office of
Research and Development coastal marine "wetlands" research program (CMWRP) for FY1997-
2001.  The CMWRP extends the established and predominantly freshwater wetlands research
plan (WRP; Leibowitz et al. 1992) seaward and completes coverage of all major wetlands in the
coterminous United States. The plan will interface with the existing WRP and build on what it
has accomplished.  The plan provides for coordination among laboratories within the Office of
Research and Development and other Federal and state research organizations. We use the term
"coastal wetlands" to include seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),
emergent marshes, mangroves, and pocosins.

       The purpose of this research plan is to supplement the Agency's Wetlands Research
Program (WRP) which has historically focused on freshwater wetland systems. The objectives
and strategies presented herein closely parallel those presented in WRP for FY 1992-96.  The
WRP strategy addresses scientific uncertainties and technical needs that have been identified by
the EPA programs within the Office of Water, other Program Offices, and EPA Regions. Coastal
wetlands research was not included in the initial WRP Five Year Plan (1986-1991) because more
information existed for coastal than inland wetlands (Zedler and Kentula, 1986).  A pilot coastal
wetlands research project, "Effects of Stressors on Coastal Seagrass Communities," was included
in the second Wetlands Research Plan FY 92-96 (Leibowitz et al.,  1992). The pilot project, an
ecological process-oriented project, focuses on multiple organizationally-scaled indicators of
effects of chronic light stress on growth and survival of turtlegrass  (Thalassia testudinium) at
several different geographic locations around the Gulf of Mexico.  The project followed guidance
generated by a seagrass workshop held at Mote Marine Laboratory, January 28-29, 1992
(Neckles, 1993). The CMWRP provides guidance and justification for increased funding
decisions as funding becomes available.

       There are compelling reasons to integrate freshwater and coastal wetlands research in
support of coastal marine regulatory and resource management decision-making.  Freshwater
watersheds and their respective wetlands often have at their receiving end a coastal component
(e.g., estuaries), including coastal wetlands.  Freshwater watersheds, and their respective
wetlands, are hydrologically and atmospherically (i.e., air deposition of contaminants) linked to
their coastal counterparts. At large geographic scales, regional airsheds integrate local climatic
variation and processes associated with atmospheric deposition.  Also, rapid and continuing

human population growth (Meadows et al., 1992), especially in the coastal zone, has increased
the potential for deleterious impacts on coastal wetlands. Multiple stresses result in both direct
and indirect effects over a spectrum of geographic scales. For example, changes in water quality,
quantity, and timing in the Florida Everglades, and changes in  upstream land uses have a direct
relationship with ecological changes in Florida Bay, and possibly the nearby Florida Keys,
including the coral reef communities (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Lear, 1993).

       Historically freshwater wetlands have received less research attention than coastal
wetland systems; rigorous analyses of many widely accepted ideas about coastal marshes
occurred only about 14 years ago when Nixon (1980) questioned many of the historical models
then widely advanced as factual.  Newer measurement tools and current conceptual frameworks
have management relevance (e.g., stable isotopes and genetic probes) and could resolve
important scientific uncertainties associated with coastal wetland issues with greater accuracy
and precision than in the recent past. Vernberg (1993) recently summarized the literature on salt-
marsh ecological processes, especially primary and secondary productivity and biogeochemical
cycling, with particular emphasis on Apalachicola Bay, Florida and North Inlet, South Carolina
where relatively long-term data exist. These studies documented the importance of long-term
research to resource management decision-making.

       Without a coordinated program, much of the information about coastal wetland
ecological structure and function may continue to appear in a piece-meal fashion. Failure to
integrate scientific information within and among coastal wetland systems at the watershed and
landscape levels will put coastal wetlands and their inherent ecological values at increased risk .
New scientific information will likely languish without a program that actively involves
scientists, resource managers, regulators, and the public sector. General areas  of active
ecological research applicable to coastal wetlands are the determinants of ecological community
structure (Reice, 1994).  The "nonequilibrium paradigm" emphasizes the importance of
disturbance, patch dynamics, recruitment bottlenecks, and spatial heterogeneity as considerations
that explain biodiversity against a background of physical and chemical gradients.

       This strategic research plan makes numerous references to the importance of ecological
scale in defining ecological causality. Levin (1992) argues that problems of pattern and scale are
central in ecology, unifying population biology and ecosystem  science, and marrying basic and
applied ecology. The scales used in ecological investigations can strongly influence
interpretations of community patterns and processes. For example, one would not expect to learn
much about microbial remineralization of nitrogen in a seagrass meadow bay making
measurements once per day, but measurement of a seagrass's growth rate may be quite reliably
made on the basis of days. Recovery of a decimated population of the relatively slow colonizing
turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinium) could be made possibly on the temporal scale of months to
years. Ecological heterogeneity of various species spatial distribution often requires
measurements to be made from square meters or less to square kilometers depending on the scale
of the question (e.g., local basin biomass production or loss of T. testudinum to integrated spatial
coverage of this species in all of Florida Bay.).

       This document is a strategic report which will be modified through one or more
workshops. The objectives of the CMWRP research strategy are to: 1. provide the program
offices with information to evaluate whether or not priorities are being met, 2. aid the coastal
wetlands research community in determining if the proposed research framework is scientifically
sound, 3. provide a mechanism to minimize potential for research duplication among agencies,
and 4. develop a science and resource management partnership through a process of risk
communication that ensures a heighthened infusion of current ecological theory and results into
management deliberations (Conn and Rich, 1992). The intent is to provide a strategic planning
device, rather than a specific research plan, for implementation. Detailed research plans must be
prepared and peer reviewed before studies are initiated.

       Coastal wetlands are component communities in the larger land and seascape mosaic of
ecosystems (Figure 1).  Most are bounded within estuaries and lagoonal systems. However,
seagrasses often occur seaward of the classical estuarine boundary, and pocosins, i.e., shrub and
forested bogs on southeastern coastal plains (Richardson, 1991; Ash et al., 1983) are located
above normal tidal influence. Estuaries are complex and dynamically-pulsed ecosystems where
freshwater is measurably diluted with seawater. Estuaries and coastal marine systems are
characterized by high biotic productivity; much of which has a high economic value (e.g.,
fisheries). Recreational activities that depend on high environmental quality are also a principal
feature of these systems. Wetlands play an integral role in providing essential habitat for
economically important species, as shoreline buffers to stormwater flooding and erosion, and as
contributors to improved water quality.  Multiple-use conflicts arise over the need to balance
environmental quality and to support economically important trophic relationships and
commercial activities such as:  industrial processes, marine transportation, mining, housing,
waste disposal, agriculture,  and silviculture.

       Rivers transport materials,  including contaminants, across the landward/tidal estuarine
boundary in a unidirectional flow.  Freshwater flow varies episodically, diurnally, seasonally,
annually, and interannually. In contrast, the seaward boundary is open to bi-directional
exchanges of materials  and energy from tides and climatic forcing on coastal water masses (e.g.,
barometric pressure effects and far-field wind effects on coastal water mass circulation and
mixing, and effects of seasonal oceanic thermal expansion at mid-latitudes on water level).  In
addition, direct input of materials to the estuary and wetland communities from the estuarine and
coastal margin can influence the ecological status of wetlands, especially sediment and water
quality. Physical modifications, either inland or within the estuarine/wetland complex (e.g.,
channel deepening and  dredge material disposal) can affect functional relationships within
wetlands in fundamental ways.

       The complexity of estuarine/wetland ecosystems can be viewed in a hierarchical
framework for research purposes (Figure 2). Knowledge of these relationships at all levels of
biological and ecological organization is essential to development of a meaningful and
responsive coastal wetlands research plan.  An understanding of extrapolation of research results
access scales is facilitated by a hierarchical perspective (Allen and Starr, 1982) because an
inherent scaling of processes is involved.

                                     a KINO
                              f RIVER CHANNELIZATION^
                                   LAND PLUMS
                                PORT CONSTRUCTION
                                  BULK HEADING
                              k FRESHWATER DIVERSION J
                                . SEA LEVEL CHANGE ,
                                 • PRODUCTIVITY
                                 • SHORELINE
                                 • CIRCULATION
                           HYDROLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY
             THE ESTUARY
TOXIC        8EA9RAI
                                • B.O.O.
                                • PATHOem
                                • TRACE MIETALS
                                • ORGANIC
                                • TOXIOTV
                            LAND AND WATER USES
                         SIWAOSOUTMLL     SILVICULTURE
                         INOUSTHAtOUTMU,   AAMICUUURI
                         SHIPPING SPILLS      MAMCULTUM
                         HOUSING             NETWORK
Figure 1.  Impact of Physical Alterations and Materials Discharge on the Estuarine Ecosystem
(Adapted from Dorcey and Hall, 1981).

                                 U1V1TED STATES
                                   GULF OF MEXICO
Figure 2.  Scales of ecosystem study (Adapted from Kemp et al., 1980). An example of how
experimental field studies are imposed between mesocosms/experimental ponds to region-wide

                            3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
3.1 Background

       Coastal wetlands are an integral component of coastal landscapes and seascapes, and they
contribute to the overall trophic structure and environmental quality of the land-sea margin
(Lasserre and Martin, 1986).  Loss of wetland habitat or function is often directly related to land-
use changes and/or human population growth.  Many facets of the problem(s) are similar to "the
tragedy of the commons" (Hardin, 1968). Loss of wetland function varies by coastal wetland
type. The conflict has four important elements: (1) development pressure and historical
individual land-use rights that involve the governmental "taking issue," (2) an inadequate
scientific understanding of wetland ecological structure and function at various scales in the
landscape/seascape, (3) appropriate education of the public and governmental officials regarding
the extent and magnitude of the conflict and potential consequences if losses are unchecked, and
(4) the legal imperatives of existing laws (e.g., Clean Water Act - CWA). Scientific uncertainties
include the basis for measurement of varied benefits of wetlands, management of development
pressure, estimation of assimilative capacity to stress, and restoration and creation of wetlands to
provide desired benefits on a sustainable basis  (The Conservation Foundation, 1988).

       A general problem involves the reconciliation of wetlands importance relative to their
often disproportionally small areal extent in the coastal zone. To many people, small  incremental
losses of wetland habitat or function  within their lifetime may appear inconsequential, but over
time the problem becomes acute. Also, only recently have wetlands been characterized as natural
habitats of concern or benefit; to many, wetlands are regarded as a nuisance or a public health
problem. When wetland habitat and function are degraded at the large scale, e.g., Florida
Everglades and Florida Bay, then regulatory and resource agencies at state and Federal levels are
more likely to develop action plans in response to public pressure.  Small wetlands receive less
regulatory attention because of the inability of regulatory agencies to respond to voluminous
permit requests (e.g., Section 404 Dredge and Fill Program, Clean Water Act).  However,  total
impact of these habitat losses could be severe (e.g., migratory corridors, refuges and local  ground
water recharge). So, the challenge to the scientific community, environmental regulators and
natural resource managers to protect the wetland "commons" is considerable.

       Human population growth and demographics is a national and international issue that
appears to be beyond the reach of effective governance. Local governments develop growth
management plans but their consistent implementation is subject to much uncertainty. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that about 110 million
people ~ almost one-half of our total population in 1990 — live in coastal areas (Culliton et al.,


1990). The trend suggests that by the year 2010 the coastal population will increase from 80 in
1960 to more than 127 million people.  The population of some coastal states, such as Florida,
probably will increase by more than 200 percent from the 1960 population level. Continued
population growth presents an incredible pressure on coastal environmental quality, especially
coastal marine habitats and related ecosystems. Population growth upstream of the coastal zone
will exacerbate the problem through riverine transport of contaminants and other materials (e.g.,
sediments, pathogens nutrients, etc.) and changes in hydrology. The productivity and other
ecological values of coastal wetlands will likely continue to be threatened by further population
growth. Without increased awareness by the public and management entities,  loss  of wetland
function, habitat, and amenities will likely increase.

3.2 Causes of Loss of Coastal Wetlands and Wetland Function

       Changes in distribution, abundance, and dominance of wetland plant species are
characteristic features of ecosystems under stress. The challenge is to distinguish among natural
factors and anthropogenic influences causing change, understand mechanisms  and  determine
feasibility of control options. Major causes of losses of coastal emergent and submerged
vegetative communities vary over time for a given community and vary among community types.
Some important causes include: urban development, industrial development, agricultural
practices, including drainage, drainage for mosquito control, changes in riverine flow, sediment
import requirements for nourishment, dredge and fill, and disease.

       Change in wetland community structure is usually accelerated through  human influence.
A well-documented example was the dramatic reduction of SAV in Chesapeake Bay beginning
in the 1960's (Orth and Moore, 1983). An  important causative factor was the decreased light
availability associated with increased nutrients  and sediment supplies (e.g., Dennison et al.,
1993). Newell (1993) argues that reduction in "top-down" grazer control of phytoplankton in
Chesapeake Bay, especially by oysters, may also be an important contributing  factor to reduced
light availability to SAV. Declines of SAV are being documented worldwide  (Dennison et al.
1993). SAV reduction in Chesapeake Bay was preceded by a Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum) invasion during the late 1950's in several tidal fresh to lower mesohaline areas (Bayley
et al., 1978).  In retrospect, it is unclear whether this change resulted from anthropogenic stress or
was largely associated with natural, but opportunistic, successional processes.  Brush and
Hilgartner (1989) detailed a historical bio-stratigraphic analysis of SAV changes in Chesapeake
Bay. Plant species dominance changed over the centuries. However, no evidence  for a dramatic
reduction in the sediment biostratigraphic record of SAV, equivalent to the more recent decline
beginning in the 1960's nd 70's, was observed.  Brush (1992) also reported that Perdido Bay,
Alabama/Florida, a northern Gulf of Mexico estuary, experienced major changes in dominance of
SAV species over several centuries.

       Many other aquatic habitats and associated wetland plants, including emergent marsh
plants and SAV, have been presumably eliminated from tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. For
example, Joppatown, on the Gunpowder River northeast of Baltimore, Maryland, and Port
Tobacco, Maryland, on the upper Potomac River estuary (which are now land-locked)


historically were formerly major Chesapeake Bay ports. Presumably, there were wetlands
associated with these waterways that were eliminated through extensive sedimentation during the
1700's as a result of practices associated with land clearing for agriculture, e.g., growing tobacco,
housing construction and road building (Flemer et al., 1983).

                        4. MAJOR ISSUES OF CONCERN
       Overall, there are some major uncertainties concerning individual and
synergistic/cumulative effects of environmental stressors on wetland function e.g., hydrologic
modification, physical alteration, sedimentation, nutrient loading, toxic contaminants and
disease). This uncertainty limits our ability to discriminate effects or assign cause to effects. The
lack of early warning indicators of stress continues to hamper attempts to attenuate negative
effects before major degradation occurs. Typically, we spend a considerable effort on cataloging
the loss of wetlands, but little research has been performed on identifying early warning
indicators of incipient ecological change.

       Concern over loss of wetlands and their valued functions has led to a major Federal
mandate to regulate, manage,  and protect wetland resources from activities detrimental to their
maintenance and survival. Research is required to support a variety of Agency wetland activities
for coastal wetlands.  The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary legislative basis for Federal
wetland protection. Particularly relevant "wetland" sections are:  Section 101 (control of point
and non-point pollutants), Section 102 (development of water quality criteria and standards and
biocriteria for wetlands), Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System;
NPDES) and Section 404 (permit activities including use of created and restored wetlands as
mitigation for permitted losses) all play a central role in the Agency's strategy to address wetland
problems. Many research questions relevant to current applied wetland resource management
issues are relatively new to wetland science, a science that shares with  ecology many conceptual
problems of scale (Levin, 1993). Sound policy development will require a continued input from
the research community. Priority issues include:

       •      Major causes of environmental problems in coastal wetlands remain uncertain,
              except in instances where unique or obvious impacts leave little causal
              uncertainty.  By analogy, one can imagine that it would be very difficult to fix a
              clock, if knowledge of the functional relationships among the parts was not
              understood.  The notion that an environmental problem will occur involves
              uncertainty, and this uncertainty can be expressed as a probability. Convention
              has appropriated the term "risk" for this  probability (Bartell et al.,  1992). As
              explained in more detail in the section on "A Risk-Based Framework for Wetland
              Protection," considerable uncertainty typically exists in our ability to reliably
              estimate probabilities that undesirable outcomes will occur in the environment as
              a result of environmental stresses. Theoretical arguments have been made that
              ecological prediction suffers from the "many body problem" (O'Neill et al., 1986),
              problems of scale (Allen and Hoekstra, 1992; Levin, 1992), and non-linear


dynamics, e.g., chaos and fractal relationships, (Hastings et al., 1993).  In the
many body problem, there are too many parts to apply simple linear differential
equations (e.g., rate of progression of the earth around the sun) and too few to
apply statistical mechanics (e.g., gas laws). The potential exists for single toxic
chemicals to pose ecological risks to a variety of wetland types. Bartell et al.
(1992) observed that estimation of risks for the same chemical  on different
ecosystems is limited by current status of comparative ecosystem theory. Part of
the problem involves how well upstream land-use activities and freshwater
wetland issues are addressed. Clearly, risk assessments for coastal wetlands must
include a watershed-level perspective.

Perspective is important in setting expectations regarding ecosystem
predictability.  Ability to predict effect(s) of environmental factors on single
species at the organisms level (i.e., including  humans) is usually much better than
that for populations of ecological communities. This occurs, in part, because of
the inherent complexity of higher levels of organization, indirect effects,
compensatory mechanisms, sample variability and non-linear processes.
Ecological predictions in wetland science will improve, but it will not likely reach
the precision of bioassays on individual organisms.  However, many important
ecological problems, including wetlands, do not require the precision of organism
level bioassays to have the results provide useful insights for applied purposes.
For example, a plausible case is made that the demise of the oyster stocks in
Chesapeake Bay has resulted in loss of filter feeding on phytoplankton to the
extent that blooms of phytoplankton now go unchecked compared to the turn of
the century (Newell, 1993). Algal blooms contribute to deep water hypoxia.
Another example  of relevant environmental research includes the feasibility of
development of a light criterion for growth and survival of seagrasses (Kenworthy
and Haunert, 1991). Thus, an ecosystem perspective has utility because it
approximates important features of natural systems that cannot be achieved by
over simplification.

Direct effects are  reasonably well understood for some coastal wetlands stressors.
But,  not all coastal wetlands have received equal scientific treatment. For
example, tidal freshwater wetlands, especially along the Gulf of Mexico and
Pacific coasts, have received much less scientific attention than those located in
the Chesapeake Bay area. Indirect effects of altered hydrology, pollutants, and
altered sediment input are poorly quantified.  Historically, channel deepening
changed basic  hydrology, with some effects apparent only years later. The Florida
Bay coastal wetlands, including the emergent marsh systems, seagrasss meadows,
mangrove forests, and adjacent coral communities beg for an integrated regional
approach to watershed assessment and management. Regional approaches must
be applied to identify causes of wetland problems across watersheds.  Losses of
submerged aquatic vegetation and seagrass meadows, especially at other sites
around the Gulf of Mexico, are particularly notable problems.  For example,


Tampa and Sarasota Bays have lost 50 and 35 % of historic seagrass coverages,
respectively over the past 30 to 40 years (Duke and Kruczynski, 1992).  In the
Florida Panhandle, a large-scale die-off of Spartina alterniflora was reported for
the St. Joe Bay area in 1990 (Florida Department of Natural Resources). The
cause(s) of that large-scale event was not identified. Additional technical issues

A continuing problem exists in assessing thresholds of significant degradation in
the 404 permitting process. How much loss is associated with a measureable loss
of function?  But, small losses from multiple wetland systems may be important to
wetland function even though individual losses may not appear to be important.

Research required to provide scientific basis for development of meaningful water
and sediment quality criteria, standards, and biocriteria for wetlands, especially
for seagrasses and SAV.

The need to improve our assessment and predictive capabilities of coastal
wetlands to accommodate contaminants and other forms of stress without
degrading important wetland functions.

                            WETLAND PROTECTION
       In this section we develop a brief historical perspective and examine how the risk
management framework has evolved.  The section concludes with how the CMWRP research
strategy will be incorporated into the risk assessment and risk management framework.

       Historically, environmental regulators and resource managers have considered environ-
mental risks to represent the probability that something "bad" (i.e., harm) will happen to the
environment should certain human actions be permitted to occur or continue to occur.  This does
not deny that natural events (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, lighting,  and meteorites) can cause harm
or be defined as bad.  And, of course, it is possible to reduce risk  of injury to human health and
property from natural events through prudent actions.  Many environmental activities pose some
potential risks ("bads") to either human health, the quality of life, the economy, or eco- systems
that sustain life (Leibowitz, et al., 1992). The issue, of course, is  the relative extent, magnitude,
and manageability of impact of the risks.

       The concept of risk has traditionally focused on "environmental bads" (Bella, 1974)
because "environmental goods" are accepted with no need for action, except in an environmental
engineering or "marine farming" sense (e.g., mariculture). Thus,  environmental amenities (i.e.,
ecosystem goods and services in the sense  of Odum,  1989) will continue to be provided by
"natural" ecosystems if one avoids the "bads." That is, we cannot provide a "good" which
guarantees that the quality of life will be highly desirable regardless of the other conditions
present. From the perspective of coastal wetlands and environmental planning and management,
only "bads" seem able to dominate the quality of amenities received. The preceding notion is
implicit in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, especially in reference to
environmental problems that transcend local governmental control capabilities (e.g., regional and
global environmental issues such as chlorofluorocarbons).

       Risk assessment associated with ecologically detrimental  materials (i.e., toxic chemicals
and those that cause developmental impairment/dysfunction) involved solely technical analyses
conducted in four sequential steps: (1) hazard identification, (2) stressor/response  relationships,
(3) exposure assessment, and (4) risk characterization.  In addition to this contaminant focus, the
CMWRP includes risk assessment of activities that impact habitat function such as physical
modifications, long-term effects of global climate change, and effects of introduction of alien
species such as Spartina alterniflora in the Pacific Northwest wetlands. In reality, to be
successful, risk assessment and management must consider cumulative effects of multiple
stressors in a context of dynamic ecosystems. Coastal marine ecological risk estimation is still in


an embryonic state. EPA's new five-year strategic plan for environmental protection relevant to
coastal wetlands involves cross-media programs that target geographical areas (U.S. EPA, 1994).

       Risk assessment has been, and continues to be, separated from risk management
(Ruckelshaus, 1983). Policy analyses, decisions, and implementation of management actions
based on the assessment phase to reduce risk were the domain of risk management.  Reasons for
the separation included the decision-makers' desire to maintain scientific objectivity, and concern
that scientists would unduly weight scientific considerations at the expense of economic, social,
political and other issues. It was implicitly expected that the technical community would focus
on the most valued attributes of the ecosystem under consideration. Scientists often did not agree
on what is most important to society, just as  policy-makers could not achieve a consensus on
societal issues; thus, the process became inherently dysfunctional.  However, it was apparent that
this situation was artificial, largely because no one had adequately explained how the two
components were to "communicate" in a realistic, practical sense (Mitchell, 1990).  The WRP
very clearly identified three critical  weaknesses  of this traditional approach.  Risk assessment
separated from risk management had to  be a bottoms-up approach to identify a complete array of
quantitative relationships for the ecosystem of concern. Because of time, cost and constraints of
knowledge, this was obviously not done. Often what was done was judged to be the most
feasible, especially for the short-term, but not necessarily the most important!

       The WRP proposed a major change by incorporation of policy goals and objectives up
front, based on the extant state of knowledge. The approach taken by the WRP and the CMWRP
is to include wetland values, valued wetland components and processes, and characterization of
risks to valued wetlands and wetland function.  In some cases, if the state of the science is not
likely to achieve a reduction in uncertainty, expert opinion is substituted with full recognition of
the qualitative nature of the substitution.

       A second concern was that scientific input is needed to assess the technical feasibility and
effectiveness of alternative management strategies. That is, meaningful scenarios can be played
out initially for planning purposes before all technical information becomes available through a
research program. If uncertainties are prevalent in a given scenario, final decisions cannot
always be delayed for conclusion of research, if no action would constitute a default decision of
greater risk.

       The third concern explicitly recognizes the need for follow-up monitoring to evaluate
effectiveness of management actions and identify new problems (National Research Council,
1990). Results from monitoring activities can provide important feed-back to improve
management approaches. Monitoring for performance analysis of management actions closes the
loop among researchers, resource managers  and regulators, and environmental monitors (Flemer
et al., 1986; O'Connor and Flemer,  1987; Wolfe et al., 1987 and Champ et al., 1993) (Figure 3).
This reason is paramount to the need for integration of risk analysis and risk management.

       The new paradigm for the risk-based framework in the WRP and adopted by the
CMWRP is to include three integrated major components (Figure 4): (1) risk assessment, (2) risk


management, and (3) performance monitoring and evaluation. All three elements include both
technical and policy input.

       Identification of wetland management goals and objectives is a necessary precursor for
establishment of research priorities.  The dynamic interplay between risk management and risk
assessment (i.e., the research and technical synthesis component) should result in an
environmental management strategy that sets management priorities from which research
priorities can be over-laid in a supportive manner. The CMWRP adopts the Risk-Based
Framework used by the WRP as a research strategy (Figure 5). Expectation is that this process
will ensure that environmental protection efforts focus on areas in which the greatest risk ^
reduction could be achieved in concert with scientifically-based information.  The intent is that
the risk-based framework identifies not only what is most important, but also what is feasible;
trade-offs typically result from this process.  For coastal wetlands, management must be
considered within a risk-based framework to ensure that the valued wetland functions are

       The risk-based framework provides a "template" for a decision process that moves from
ad hoc to integrated decision-making, and from single-purpose resource management objectives
to multiple-purpose objectives (Figure 6). One consequence is that as management objectives
are advanced, there is the need to scale up the supporting research.  For example, wetland
function can be examined for a local small-scale wetland system dominated by a single wetland
plant species and broadened to a watershed that encompasses a variety of plant and animal
species that occupy large areas, and then extended to a regional scale that includes numerous
types and sizes of wetland ecosystems (Figure 6).  An important implication of larger spatial
scale relationships and processes is that characteristic response time is lengthened (e.g., from
years to decades) unless the scale of the stressor is geographically large (e.g.,  clear-cutting of
large acreage of tropical rainforest).  Thus, response time at watershed/landscape-level scales to
stress or restoration actions may be longer than is typically appreciated by decision-makers  and
others  who argue that no increased risks are apparent from various types of development. This
stress/response relationship contains some elements of a "tyranny of small decisions" whereby
local decisions are made without regard to their cumulative effect(s).

                              • COMPILATION OF BASELINE INFORMATION
                              • DETECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
                              • ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
               CAUSE <*•
                                              PROBLEM DERNED
                                           ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
                                          HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
                                          FIELD VALIDATION OF
                                          METHODS CONCEPTS
                                          INDICATOR VARIABLES
                                          AND HYPOTHESES

                                     • EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

                                     • MODELING

                                     • PARAMETER SAMPLING

                                     • LAB AND HELD EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

                                     • STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 3.  Integration of Research, Monitoring and Resource Management (Adapted from Flemer et al., 1983).



Figure 4. Components of the Wetland Research Program (WRP) risk-based framework for
wetland protection and management. All three components require both technical and policy
input (Leibowitz et al., 1992).

                      RISK-BASED FRAMEWORK
                          MULTIPLE SCALE ISSUES
                    NO NET LOSS
                SOURCE POLLUTION


    /   WETLAND   \
    I   FUNCTION    1
    V   PROJECT   /
    V    PROJECT    I
    w            \^/
                         PRIORITY WETLAND TYPES
                       SEAGRASSES AND SAV
                       SALTWATER EMERGENT MARSHES
Figure 5. Proposed Research Strategy for the Coastal Wetlands Research Program (Adapted
from Leibowitz et al., 1992)

       CMWRP goals are similar to those of the WRP. The first goal is to re-orient coastal
wetlands research to a risk-based strategy (Figure 6). Recent environmental risk analyses suggest
that targeted problems were not always those targeted by experts.  Also, an ecosystem
perspective was often missing, and if applied, the scale of study was typically small.  This limited
meaningful integration of data across environmental media and at spatial and temporal scales too
small to be useful. In essence, the intent of the risk-based approach is to focus environmental
managements efforts on areas where the greatest risk reduction can be achieved. This implies
that decisions will weigh not only the greatest risk, but also the feasibility and importance for
environmental protection. Risk analysis will guide the review and development of this research
plan.  The second goal is to implement the national goal of "no net loss" of wetland habitat or
function (Athnos, 1993).

       Five coastal wetland types are tentatively identified for priority consideration: (1)
seagrasses and estuarine submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), (2) tidal freshwater emergent
marshes, (3) mangroves, (4) saltwater emergent marshes, and (5) pocosins.

       The following concerns and major technical needs are related to coastal wetlands as
priority issues for the period FY 1995-1999:

6.1.  National Concerns

       •      Implementation of a comprehensive risk-based approach to coastal wetland
              protection and management that is integrated with the freshwater-focused WRP

       •      Evaluation of the national goal of "no net loss" of coastal wetland area and
              function and assessment of the ecological reality of this goal, especially with
              reference to seagrasses (e.g., Thalassia testudinium) and SAV (Neckles, 1993)

       •      Evaluation of the functional values of similar wetlands that differ in their relative
              percentage of total area  within a watershed, geometric configuration and
              juxtaposition to other habitat types

       •      Determination of criteria to assess the relative functional value of different
              wetland types within a watershed and land/seascape

                                        GLOBAL SCALE
                                  REGIONAL/LANDSCAPE SCALE
                                      WATERSHED SCALE
                                RISK ASSESSMENT^]
                              i   1   flflUiflfl
                                                            MUU1MJ MIKMf
                                                           MUUIPU OUECIIVI
                                      M8K MANAGEMENT
                                   IMKIMCNMTION IMKfMCNMnON
                                       M        IN
                                     MilENT     fUTUII
                                 LOCAL SCALE
Figure 6. Comparison of present and future use of information in resource management as it may
apply to Coastal Wetlands. Diagram shows integration  of risk assessment and risk management
over a range of habitat scales and knowledge spectrums.  Descriptive vs functional knowledge is
emphasized. Bargaining represents the process of decision-making and implementation between
government and people. All information generating activities are shifted to the right as
management and bargaining becomes increasingly more "proactive" rather than reactive.
Abbreviations: I = inventory, M == monitoring, IA = impact assessment, DA = desk analysis, EM
= experimental management, ER = experimental research, P = planing,  and ERS = expenditures,
regulations and subsidies.  (Adapted from Dorcey and Hall, 1981).

       •      Establishment of natural spatial and temporal variability of coastal wetland
              functions and values and natural patterns of succession.

6.2 Programmatic Priorities

6.2.1  Office of Water

       •      Develop water and sediment quality criteria and standards for coastal wetlands

       •      Design guidelines and performance criteria for coastal wetland restoration,
              creation, and maintenance

       •      Assess role of coastal wetlands in water quality improvement

       •      Assess role of coastal wetlands as indicators of global climate change

       •      Define role of riverine wetlands as forecasters of downstream stress to coastal

6.2.2  EPA Regions

       •      Develop biocriteria and water quality criteria and standards

       •      Identify effects of non-point source contaminants on coastal wetland functions and

       •      Define role of coastal wetlands in attenuating the effects and transport of non-
              point source contaminants from uplands and inland watersheds to open coastal

       •      Assess possible interactions between  anthropogenic stress on coastal wetlands
              which might result in a loss of one or more functions (e.g., nursery habitat,
              nutrient assimilation, toxic material sequestration) and possible increased
              vulnerability of these systems to "natural" episodic events

       •      Develop guidance for coastal wetland components of State Wetland Conservation

       •      Develop watershed management plans to optimize coastal ecosystem function

       •      Develop criteria to establish regional reference wetlands

       •      Determine effectiveness of mitigation, creation, and restoration activities in
              achieving no net loss of wetlands.


6.3 Water and Sediment Quality Criteria

       EPA is requiring that states develop and implement water quality standards for wetlands.
The present strategy includes a requirement that states define designated uses of various wetland
types and set water quality standards and biocriteria to meet those needs. Biocriteria include not
only biological endpoints, but also habitat and hydrological conditions necessary to sustain
designated aquatic uses. Development of these criteria will require a sustained research effort.

       Increased turbidity in coastal waters has been demonstrated to cause light limitation for
SAV (Kenworthy and Haunert, 1991; Morris, L. J. and D. A. Tomasko, 1993; Batiuk et al.,
1992). These references indicate that it is feasible to develop a light criterion for submerged
aquatic species. Research on this topic with a Gulf-wide perspective (South Florida—Florida
Bay, Northern Gulf of Mexico~St. Joseph Bay and Western Gulf of Mexico—Corpus Christi Bay
and mesocosm research at St. Petersburg, FL)  was initiated through a cooperative agreement
between the Environmental Research Laboratory-Gulf Breeze and the University of Virginia to
assess effects of chronic light stress on Thalassia  testudinum (turtlegrass).  However, this
research may not be directly transferable to tidal fresh and  brackish water SAV (e.g., Valisneria).

6.4 Wetland Creation and Restoration

       Wetlands are protected from certain impacts by Federal law. However, wetland creation
and restoration will likely remain an important option for compensatory mitigation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the current technology, the ability to reliably construct
functional wetland habitats  is subject to severe criticism (Zedler, 1988; Josselyn et al.,  1989).
Research is required to establish reference sites, identify and develop indicators for evaluating
success, and determine time required to achieve functional equivalency to similar, undisturbed
wetlands (Kusler and Kentula,  1990). Restoration of seagrass communities is especially difficult
(Fonseca et al., 1987; Fonseca, 1989; Fonseca, 1994).  However, Tomasko et al. (1991) reported
a site-specific example of 85% success in transplants of Thalassia testudinium at a site offshore
of Port Manatee, FL. Considerable uncertainty exists in the ecological function of created tidal
marshes (Broome, 1989).

6.5 Research and Technical Support Required for Program Information

6.5.1 Research Objectives

       •     Develop and refine the risk-based framework as an analytical tool to ensure an
              increased congruence between wetland problem identification, ranking, and the
              supporting science that addresses program technical questions

       •     Quantify effects of environmental  stressors  and watershed/landscape factors on
              wetland function

Assess effects individually and totally of wetlands on water/sediment quality,
habitat and hydrologic functions in the landscape, and evaluate the role of wetland
features on landscape functions

Describe and compare the functional status of populations of reference wetlands
with restored and created wetlands in different landscape settings

Evaluate the functional status of created and restored wetlands against ecological
design criteria and reference wetlands

Assist the Program Office in development of water and sediment criteria and
biocriteria for protection, creation, restoration, and maintenance of wetlands

Test the risk-based approach on at least one major wetland type.

                         7. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
7.1.  Background

       An evaluation of wetland function must relate the scale of the question to the scale of the
wetland system.  Questions should be posed in one of five spatial scales:  (1) local, (2) water-
shed, (3) regional/landscape, (4) continental, and (5) global.  The National scale is an arbitrary
subset of the continental scale.  A fundamental challenge is to develop methods that allow
extrapolation across scales. This is a research-modeling activity of the U.S. EPA Global Climate
Change Program.

       Four elements constitute the research focus of the CMWRP:

       •      Wetland Function Project: This project focuses on small spatial scales
              involving individual wetlands or small groups of wetlands along environmental
              and/or stress gradients. Wetland function, stress/response relationships, and
              wetland assimilative capacity for various contaminants and physical habitat
              disturbances are quantified in this project.

       •      Characterization and Restoration Project:  This project involves an
              intermediate level of scale. Methods are developed to compare structure and
              functions and characteristics of individual classes of wetlands (e.g., emergent
              Juncus marshes) and to develop guidelines and performance criteria for wetland
              restoration and creation at the watershed and landscape scales.

       •      Landscape Function Project:  This project evaluates wetland issues at the
              watershed/landscape level where combined wetland attributes are compared
              across landscape features. How landscape features affect wetland functions and
              how wetlands affect landscape functions are then assessed.

       •      Risk Reduction Project: This project integrates information from the above
              three projects to provide an assessment of complex issues, such as "no net loss" of
              wetlands across major landscape features, and to demonstrate applicability of a
              risk-based framework for protection of wetlands.

7.2.  Program Management

       Work on the above technical program elements  will require the participation of multiple
ORD laboratories.  Over-all management of the program will be the responsibility of ERL/Gulf


Breeze. Coordination of research and monitoring activities with other agencies is essential for
cost-effectiveness, completeness, and application of a broader expertise.  This will be
accomplished through memoranda of understanding, workshops, interagency agreements and use
of electronic bulletin boards.

7.3.  Program Quality Assurance

       A quality assurance (QA) plan will define responsibilities and types of individual QA
plans required for various classes of research.  Each intramural and extramural research proposal
will be required to provide an acceptable QA plan before funding is awarded (U.S. EPA).

7.4.  Coordination with Other Federal Agencies

       A number of research issues interface with the CWRP (e.g., Aquatic Ecocriteria,
Nonpoint Sources, Groundwater, Habitat/Biodiversity, Risk Assessment Methods, and EMAP-
Wetlands Issues). Within EPA, the CWRP will be coordinated with the National Estuary
Program, Near Coastal Waters Initiative, Gulf of Mexico Program, Chesapeake Bay Program,
and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The CWRP requires
strong coordination  with other Federal agencies, e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Survey of Department of the Interior, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Highway Administration, Soil Conservation  Service,
Forest Service, and the Interagency Global Climate Change Program. Specific research  plans
will require coordination with appropriate state agencies and academic groups through
opportunities for review and comment on research plans.

7.5.  Project Area 1:  Wetland Function

7.5.1. Purpose and Goal

       The purpose of this research strategy is to improve understanding of coastal wetland
structural and functional relationships, ecosystem dynamics,  and effects of external stressors.
Projects conducted in this Project Area include those tasks and information needs that are best
provided through relatively detailed studies of processes and responses in individual wetlands
within a watershed.  Objectives are:

       1.  to determine the habitat and hydrologic functions of wetlands.

       2.  to determine effects of contaminants resulting in water/sediment quality degradation
and interactions of contaminant stress with basic wetland ecological processes, especially effects
of non-point sources of contaminants.

       3.  to develop techniques to enhance and protect habitat and hydrologic functions of

       4. to quantify effects of environmental stressors on wetland functions at the individual
and watershed scale.

       5. to provide scientific leadership and technical support for the development of
biocriteria for coastal wetlands.

7.5.2. Scientific Approach

       Research will focus on processes of selected wetland types at multiple spatial and
temporal scales.

       These study areas will incorporate, as appropriate, four major types of activities similar to
those given in the WRP:

       •     Perform literature syntheses and develop conceptual models

              Workshops will be conducted to refine conceptual models of wetland types and
              refine research objectives and scientific approaches (e.g., Wyllie-Echeverria et al.
              1994). Workshop participants will include resource managers and technical
              experts who will:

              -  develop ecosystem structure/function (process) linkages;
                 develop and refine conceptual ecosystem models of wetland structure and
                 identify major stressors for the particular wetland under investigation;
              -  perform sensitivity analyses on direct and indirect effects of stress;
              -  categorize wetland functions likely to be affected under various stress
              -  apply the above information to define indicators of stress (including postulated
                 ones) at various levels of ecological organization;
                 assess importance of "nonequilibriwn dynamics" to wetland function and
                 development of community  structure.

       •     Conduct field studies to characterize coastal wetland status and trends and
              management effectiveness

              -  collect information on gradients  of environmental stressors;
              -  attempt will be made to collect information "before and after" a disturbance;
                 collect data in wetlands of a given class that are under different management
                 practices to assess management effectiveness;
              -  use biogeochemical stratigraphic methods on selected wetlands to identify
                 historical changes in wetland composition and associated environmental
                 sedimentary factors.

       •      Conduct manipulative experiments in the Held and laboratory

                 experiment utilizing microcosms and mesocosms, and field plots with
                 reference areas (attention will be paid to problems of balancing ecological
                 realism, controllability, and ability to generalize—Figure 7);
                 implement mathematical modeling, a key component of the research
              -   select longterm Ecological Research Sites for each major wetland type and
                 sub-type (e.g., seagrass/SAV, emergent marsh, and mangrove system).  Since
                 relatively few sites can be funded, it is essential that clear research objectives
                 be defined for each site.  Sites will be coordinated with NSF LTER sites;
                 evaluate indicators of ecological stress will be screened for diagnostic
                 potential and predictive  value.

       •      Provide information in support of risk management

                 include topics as guides  for monitoring performance of management
                 decisions, developing water/sediment quality criteria/biocriteria, assessing
                 wetland response to land-use scenarios, and best management practices
                 develop models that address "assimilative capacity" of coastal wetland
                 ecosystems which are user-friendly.

7.5.3. Specific Research Issues

       1.  Assess effects of chronic light stress on seagrass/SAV communities including
          influence of sediments, nutrients, toxic contaminants, and light attenuation factors,
          e.g., color.

       2.  Assess the effectiveness of management practices on minimizing chronic light
          limitation at the watershed scale and possible effects of increased UVB light stress on
          wetland ecosystem processes..

       3.  Develop procedures  and assess  the usefulness of indicators of stress at various levels
          of biological/ecological organization for representative classes of all studied types of

       4.  Assess the relative role and interactions of increased nutrient supply vs predator
          control of herbivores on the expression of eutrophication of seagrass and SAV
          communities (i.e., "bottom-up"  vs "top-down" control).

       5.  Quantify effects of sediment, nutrients, and selected toxicants on tidal freshwater
          wetland function  under high, low and average freshwater flow regimes and determine
          effectiveness of freshwater wetlands in reducing the load of detrimental water quality
          factors on more seaward coastal habitat types.



                              SMALL     INTERMEDIATE    LARGE
                                HIERARCHICAL SCALE OF STUDY

                                    INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC

                                    EXTENSION BY MULTIPLE EXPERIMENTS

                                    EXTENSION BY BUILDING MODELS
Figure 7.   Relative magnitudes of realism, controllability (predictability), and generality in
research systems at various scales in a hierarchical scheme. It is generally believed that
controllability decreases with increasing scale, whereas realism and generality increase with
scale. It is tacitly accepted that generality can be extended somewhat by performing multiple
experiments and by building generic mathematical models of systems being investigated (Figure
from Kemp etal., 1980).                                .           .

       6.  Assess effects of pocosins on estuarine water quality and freshwater delivery.

       7.  Evaluate water quality improvement potential of high and low latitude mangrove
          systems and "model" these relationships under several global warming and cooling
          scenarios (note: the EPA Global Climate Change/ Mangrove cooperative agreement
          with the University of Miami and S.W. Louisiana University will address the difficult
          issue of how to extrapolate ecological information across spatial and temporal scales).

        8. Assess water quality improvement effectiveness of Gulf of Mexico Juncus and
          Spartina marshes at the  individual and watershed scale.

        9. Assess importance of natural  disturbance vs human stress as a determinant of wetland
          community structure.

       10. Assess susceptibility  and ecological consequences of invasion of alien species (e.g.,
          Spartina alterniflora and Zostera japonicd) on native plant community ecological
          structure and function as evidenced in Pacific Northwest.

Duration: To be determined (TBD)

7.6.  Project Area 2:  Wetland Characterization and Restoration

7.6.1. Purpose and Goal

       The goal of this project is to characterize the variability of structural and functional
components of natural, restored, and created coastal wetlands (e.g., the seagrasses, Thalassia
testudinium, Spartina patens) in different landscape settings. Topics include restored and created
wetlands with initial emphasis on seagrass/SAV systems in different land use/watershed settings
and climatic conditions. Objectives are:

       1.  Determine the requirements for successful restoration and creation of vegetated
          ecosystems in different landscape settings. Where feasible, reference sites will be
          characterized to provide quantitative measures of success.

       2.  Provide technical support for development of design guidelines and performance
          criteria for restoration and creation of coastal wetlands.

7.6.2. Scientific Approach

       Wetlands under a range of climatic and land use conditions will be sampled to evaluate
the range of characteristics specific to a particular wetland type.  This effort will allow a classifi-
cation of wetland types. Natural  or meaningful analogs of natural wetlands will be used to com-
pare the status and function of restored or created wetlands.  Because EMAP-Wetlands also
focuses on characterization of natural wetlands, it is imperative that these two projects work


closely together. Newly restored or created wetlands are generally not expected to provide the
full range of functions and capacity as their natural analogs. Therefore, this project will assess
the time-course of change in restored or created wetland function(s) as compared to reference
sites (Figure 5-1, WRP). As described in the WRP, performance curves and functional charact-
erization curves (i.e., frequency curves of numbers of wetlands vs indicator of wetland function)
will be used to characterize and provide a measure of success of restoration and creation.

Major tasks include:

       •  Characterization of wetland function of restored, created, and natural wetlands,
           including ecological variability within  wetland categories for specific sectors of coasts
           exposed to different land-use situations.

       •  Comparative assessment of wetland function will be emphasized, especially  ability to
           assimilate non-point sources of nutrients.

       •  Determination of attainable levels of function of restored or created wetlands for
           different land-use designations with emphasis on seagrasses and SAV.  Four
           seagrass/SAV species and associated communities and ecosystems are indicated for
           major focus in this project:  Thalassia testudinium, Halodule wrightii,  Ruppia
           maritima, and Vallisneria americana.  Mixed-species communities will also be
           investigated. Research on Thalassia will be a long-term project because of its
           dominance in sub-tropical and tropical coastal areas and the long-term and
           inconsistent response to restoration efforts.

       •  Develop restoration design guidelines based on specific performance criteria to insure
           a definable level of success.

Duration: (TBD)

7.7.  Project Area 3: Landscape Function

7.7.1. Purpose and Goal

       Wetlands will be examined within and among given types of coastal landscape units/
watersheds to assess how coastal wetlands contribute to landscape functions (e.g., water quality,
hydrology, regional biodiversity, buffering from coastal storms, modification of local climate)
and how landscape processes, including upstream riverine processes affect coastal wetlands.  The
project will:

       1.  Develop methods to assess the impact  of classes of wetlands in the landscape on
           water quality changes, habitat, and hydrology at the watershed and regional scale,
           including riverine influence on coastal wetlands. A nominal effort will be devoted to
           determining influence of wetland features on coastal landscape functions.


       2.  Quantify effects of environmental stressors and coastal land/seascape factors on
          wetland functions over a range of ecological organization levels and spatial and
          temporal scales.

7.7.2. Scientific Approach

       This project will initially focus on an analysis of cumulative impact(s) from anthropo-
genic activities of all wetlands within a landscape. Effects will be interpreted against natural
variability of different wetland types within a landscape. Wetland losses are permitted under
Section 404 of the CWA only after measures have been taken to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for significant impacts to ecosystems (Appendix A, WRP FY 92-96). Local, small-
scale impacts in toto may cause important environmental effects at larger geographic scales.
Cumulative riverine sources of environmental stress on  downstream coastal wetlands, in addition
to cumulative  stress within coastal non-tidal watersheds, have the potential to cause substantial
impacts on coastal wetland ecosystems.  Major tasks are:

          -   Coordinate characterization work with U.S. EPA/EMAP, U.S. FWS Wetlands
              Inventory, NOAA/NMFS Strategic Assessments, and with various state surveys.
              Conduct historical assessment of changes in distribution and abundance of various
              coastal wetlands based on literature and other archival information, e.g.,
              photographs, and attempt to relate to changes in land uses within a landscape.
          -   Develop criteria for site selection and setting of priorities for wetland restoration.

       The Landscape Function will rely on both manipulative field and mesocosm-level
research and information obtained by analyzing and compiling existing data bases including
maps, EMAP-Wetlands data and projections, and Wetland Function and Characterization data
bases. This project will focus on hydrological effects on the function of coastal emergent
marshes, seagrass/SAV communities, and mangroves. Specific tasks for each region/landscape
studied will:

       •  Develop "rules" for extrapolation of processes operating at different spatial and
          temporal  scales across functional boundaries. This "bottleneck" to accurately ascribe
          effect(s) to cause(s)  is especially apparent at the scale of watersheds/landscapes (Allen
          andHoekstra, 1992).

       •  Develop conceptual models and use expert opinion to  define questions regarding the
          influence of landscape functions on coastal wetlands.  Wetland problems in Florida
          Bay are a good example of the need for such research (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Lear,
           1993).  A generic model of landscape processes was developed as part of the original
          WRP and will be evaluated for its applicability to coastal landscape-level issues as an
          initial point of departure. The state-of-the-science is quite "soft" at landscape scale.
          Coastal wetland scientists have only recently begun to focus research at the landscape


       •  Coordinate with the WRP's effort on the application of landscape/wetland models to
          provide simulations of wetland and landscape interactions to refine issues of scale.
          For example, from a watershed perspective, it is essential that the upland/riverine/
          wetland component be coupled with the coastal component.

       •  Coordinate with the EMAP-Wetland program to improve coastal wetland/ landscape
          indicators of ecological structure-function relationships. An emphasis on the role of
          hydrology in these relationships should be given priority status.

       •  Conduct empirical landscape/coastal wetland studies to evaluate concepts, test
          hypotheses and provide data to guide simulation modeling.

       •  Use the above information to develop cost-effective assessment methods of ecological
          function with a "known" level of reliability (uncertainty).

7.8.  Project Area 4: Risk Reduction

7.8.1. Purpose and Goal

       The Risk Reduction project area will integrate results of Project Areas 1-3 and
demonstrate applicability of the risk-based framework for coastal wetland protection. Coastal
wetland communities are under increasing stress because of the continued influx of people to
coastal areas. Although much is known about individual communities, there has not been a
structured, coordinated and sustained research program that provides integration of
stress/response relationships from the level of local wetland communities to watershed, regions
and landscapes.  As stated in the introduction, riverine systems and their wetlands also play a
vital role in the well-being of their downstream counterparts as evidenced by the situation in
Chesapeake Bay, Florida Bay and numerous other coastal systems.  Goals of this project are:

       1.  Develop and evaluate a risk-based framework for coastal wetland protection.

       2.  Apply the risk-based framework to one or more wetland types in support of the
          national policy of NNL of wetland area and function.

       3.  Assess the role of wetlands in reducing non-point source pollution. Evaluate the
          effectiveness of integrating management decisions between an intermediate-sized
          freshwater wetland and a downstream  coastal wetland component.

7.8.2 Scientific Approach

       A provisional risk reduction framework (model approach) will be developed to guide the
over-all research program.  The framework will be applied initially to a particular "test case" that
is not overly complicated. Sensitivity of framework components to controlling parameters will
then be evaluated. The framework will be evaluated during the initial test period for workability.


Experience gained from the relatively simple test case will be applied to more difficult problems
in years 3 and 4 to validate the robustness of the framework. Several workshops are envisioned
to provide insights from resource managers, regulators and scientists.  The review process will
combine many of the steps used in "Adaptative Environmental Management" (Rolling, 1978) but
will not force the use of mathematical algorithms for essentially subjective elements of the
framework.  A literature review early in the development process will identify examples and
protocols where other risk reduction techniques have been successfully used, so that applicable
aspects can be incorporated into this project.

7.9. Anticipated Results of Projects 1 Through 4

7.9.1.  Project!

       • Document wetland changes  in function over time with quantification of important
          wetland stress/ response relationships.

       • Quantify wetland assimilative capacity to stress in terms of ecological resistance to
          perturbations and time and pattern of recovery. Identify possible dynamic thresholds
          to stress including cumulative impacts, and patterns of recovery.

       • Increase understanding of how wetlands affect water quality at different scales
          through experimental efforts and mathematical modeling of relevant processes.
          Technical guidance on the role of specific wetland types in modulation of effects of
          non-point source pollution will be assessed.

       • Provide for the application of a risk-based approach to setting water/sediment quality
          and biocriteria for wetland protection.

       • Provide technical guidance on wetland monitoring for assessment of management
          effectiveness. Also, provide guidance on application of most specific indicators of
          stress that match the source(s) of stress.

7.9.2.  Project 2

       • Provide an inventory of wetland and seagrass/SAV communities in different
          land/seascape settings, including information on variability of community functions.

       • Evaluate various indicators of function over a range of conditions, i.e., stressors and
          land use settings.

       • Evaluate effectiveness of criteria for site selection of wetland restoration.

          Develop technical guidelines to improve success of wetland restoration by
          generalizing information obtained from site-specific studies.
7.9.3. Projects

       •  Improve understanding of the role of landscape-level processes and features important
          to the ecological function of coastal wetlands.

       •  Provide methods to assess the role of coastal wetlands in maintaining the biodiversity
          and functions of the larger coastal landscape.

       •  Provide assessment methods to determine the capacity of different coastal wetlands to
          "assimilate" non-point source pollutants at the landscape level.

       •  Improve understanding of the basis and need for including watersheds at the regional
          level in land-use planning by states and local governments. This understanding will
          result in a maturing of the ecosystem concept to environmental policy and
          management with regard to coastal wetlands.

7.9.4.  Project 4

       This project will produce integrated protocols, guidelines, and checklists that are designed
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions made by coastal wetland managers and
regulators. Some examples are:

       •  A risk-based framework that has been tested under actual field condition that should
          increase the acceptance of the product.

       •  Technical support to implement the policy of "no net loss" of wetlands with special
          consideration of "no-loss" of Thalassia testudinium meadows.

       •  Guidelines for determining when to avoid or minimize functional loss of wetlands
          that have high value vs restoring or constructing wetlands where the technology has
          been demonstrated to have a high probability of success.

       •  Demonstration of the logic of an integrated watershed/regional approach to wetland
          resource management and regulation.

       •  Evaluation of protocols for an improved scientific basis for monitoring wetland
          ecosystems and evaluating the effectiveness of wetland programs.

       Without an accessible transfer mechanism that is understandable to users, research results
may languish.  A credible peer review is an essential element of the program. The anticipated
results from each component of the research program will be synthesized into one or more
scientific or technical reports for peer-reviewed publication.

       The strategy for technical information transfer used by the CMWRP will share many
elements of the WRP.  The program will involve regional and state wetland managers and
regulators in the evaluation of the research plan and individual research projects. Also, an
advisory board will be established to provide a collegial forum for information exchange with
possibility of shared funding. Active involvement of user groups is the most effective way to
inform the user audience about innovations and products of the research program.

       In addition to the above mechanisms, an  EPA Regional Coordinator will be assigned to
the program initially on a yearly-rotating basis to ensure that perspectives from all coasts are
represented. Should the program continue beyond the first five years, a permanent Regional
Liaison Officer will be required. Initially, EPA Regions will be asked to develop the scope  of
duties for the coordinator's position, including mechanisms for dissemination of information. The
Regional Coordinator will have responsibility  to inform state and other interested parties of
research products with a description of their significance. The Regional Coordinator will
organize annual workshops for users of information produced by the program.  Workshops and
symposia will be an important means of communication.  Participation of Scientific groups (e.g.,
Estuarine Research Federation, Society of Wetlands Scientists, American Society of Limnology
and Oceanography and Ecological Society of America) will be emphasized as a means to receive
scientific input and disseminate information.
8.1.  Resources

             (This section will be completed when resources become available)

                                 9.  REFERENCES
Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr.  1982. Hierarchy:  Perspectives for ecological complexity.
       University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Allen, T.F.H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992.  Toward a Unified Ecology. Columbia University Press,
       New York. 384 pp.

Ash, A.N., C.B. McDonald, E.S. Kane, C.A. Pories. 1983. Natural and modified pocosins:
       Literature synthesis and management options. Division of Biological Services, Fish and
       Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-83/04,

Athnos, D.L. 1993. Compensatory mitigation in the Gulf Coast States: Can we achieve "No Net
       Loss" of wetlands? 62 pp. Masters Thesis, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
       Biology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl.

Bartell, Steven M., R. H. Gardner and R.  O'Neill. 1992. Ecological Risk Estimation. Lewis
       Publishers, Boca Raton. 252 pp.

Batiuk, R. A., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore and others. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
       Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. U.S.
       EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program,  Annapolis, Md. 186 pp. plus Appendices A-C.

Bayley, S., V. D. Stotts, P. F. Springer, and J. Stennis.  1978. Changes in submerged macrophyte
       populations at the head of Chesapeake Bay, 1958-1975. Estuaries. 1 (3): 73-84.

Bella, David A. 1974. Fundamentals of environmental planning. Engineering Issues, Amer. Soc.
       Civil Engineers, No. 10267: 17-26.

Broome, Steven W. 1989. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United
       States, p. 37-66. In: J. A. Kusler  and M. E. Kentula (eds.). Wetland Creation and
       Restoration: The Status of the Science. Volume 1. Regional Reviews. EPA/600/3-89/038.

Brush, G. S. and W. B. Hilgartner. 1989.  Paleography of submerged macrophytes in the Upper
       Chesapeake Bay. Final Report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Brush, G. S. 1992. A Stratigraphic study  of Perdido Bay, Alabama (sic)/Florida. Department of
       Geography and Environmental Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
       Maryland. 13 pp.

Champ, M. A., D. A. Flemer, D. H. Landers, C. Ribic and T. DeLaca. 1992. The roles of
        monitoring and research in polar environments; A perspective. Marine Pollution Bull.,
        25: 220-226.

Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. G. Rentier, C. M. Blackwell, and J. J.
        McDough, ffl. 1990. 50 years of population change along the Nation's coasts, 1960-2010.
        Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and
        Marine Assessment, National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
        Administration, Rockville, Maryland. 41 pp.

Davis, S. M. and J. C. Ogden (eds.), 1994. Everglades~The  Ecosystem and its Restoration. St.
        Lucie Press, Delray Beach, 848 pp.

Dennison, W. C., R. J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. M. Bergstrom
        and R. A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation.
        BioScience, Vol. 43 (2): 86-94.

Dorcey, A.H.J. and K. J. Hall. 1981. Setting Ecological Research Priorities for Management: The
        Art of the Impossible in the Eraser Estuary. Westwater Research Center, The University
        of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 78 pp.

Duke, T. and W. L.  Kruczynski. 1992. Status and trends of emergent and submerged vegetated
        habitats, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. EPA/800-R-92-003.

Flemer, D.A., T.W. Duke and F. L. Mayer, Jr. 1986. Interaction of monitoring and research in
        coastal  waters:  Issues for  consideration from a regulatory point of view. p. 980-992. In:
        Oceans '86 Conference Record, Vol. 3, Monitoring Strategies Symposium. Marine Tech.
        Soc., Washington, D.C.

Flemer, D.A. and others. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of  Environmental Change plus
        Appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Fonseca, M. S., G.W. Thayer, and W. J. Kenworthy. 1987. The use of ecological data in the
        implementation and management of seagrass restorations, p. 175-188. In: M.S. Durako,
        R. C. Phillips, and R. R. Lewis (eds.). Proc. Symp. Subtropical-tropical seagrasses of the
        southeastern U. S., Gainesville, 40, 1985. Fl. Mar. Res. Publ. No.42.

Fonseca, M. S.  1989. Regional analysis of the creation and restoration of seagrass ecosystems, p.
        175-198. In: J.  S. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.). Wetland Creation and Restoration:
        The Status of the Science. Volume 1. Regional Reviews, EPA/600/3-89/038).

Fonseca, M. S.  1994. A Guide to Planting Seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A & M
        University Sea Grant College Program. NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce, College
        Station, Texas.


Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, Vol. 162: 1243-1248.

Hastings, A., C. L. Horn, S. Ellner, P. Turchin and H. C. J. Godfray. 1993. Chaos in ecology.
       Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 1-33.

Rolling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley,
       New York.

Josselyn, M., J. B. Zedler, and T. Greswold. 1989. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of
       the United States, p. 1-35. In: J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula. Wetland Creation and
       Restoration: The Status of the Science. Volume 1. Regional Reviews. EPA/600/3-89/038.

Kemp, W.M., M.R. Lewis, J.J. Cunningham, J.C. Stevenson and W.R. Boynton.  1980.
       Microcosms, macrophytes, and hierarchies: Environmental research in the Chesapeake
       Bay. p.  911-936. In: J.P. Giesy, Jr. Microcosms in Ecological Research. U.S. Technical
       Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Symposium Series 52 (Conf-781101).
       Washington, D.C.

Kenworthy, W.  J. and D. E. Haunert. (eds.). 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses:
       proceedings of a workshop to examine the capability of water quality criteria, standards
       and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-

Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (eds.).  1990. Wetland creation and restoration: The status of the
       science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lasserre, P. and J-M. Martin. 1986. Biogeochemical processes  at the land-sea boundary. Elsevier
       Oceanography Series, 43. Elsevier, New York. 214 pp.

Lear, D. 1993. Florida Bay: A portrait of an ailing estuary. Tide, Coastal Conservation
       Association, January/February 1993: 10-15.

Lee, N. K. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.
       Island Press, 243 pp.

Leibowitz, S.G., E.M.  Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Detenbeck, C.A. Hagley, M.E. Kentula, R.K.
       Olson, W.D. Sanville, and R.R. Summer.  1992. Wetland Research Plan FY92-96: An
       Integrated Risk-Based Approach. Edited by Joan P. Baker. EPA/600/R-92/060. U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
       Oregon, 123 pp.

Levin, S.A. 1993. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73 (6): 1943-1967.

Lewis, M.R. and T. Platt. 1982. Scales of variability in estuarine ecosystems, p. 3-20. In: V.S.
        Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows and J. Randers. 1992. Beyond the Limits. Chlesea Green, Post
        Mills, Vermont.

Mitchell, J. 1990. The Evolution of Acceptable Risk. The Environmental Professional. 12:114-

Morris, L. J. and D. A. Tomasko (eds.). 1993. Proceedings and Conclusions of Workshops on:
        Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Special
        Publication SJ93-SP13. Palatka, Florida: St. Johns River Water Management District.
        244 pp. plus Appendix A.

National Research Council. 1990. Managing troubled waters: the role of marine environmental
        monitoring. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Neckles, H. A. 1993. Seagrass monitoring and research in the Gulf of Mexico.  Report of a
        workshop held at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, January 28-29, 1992.
        National Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Newell, R. I. E. 1993. Top-down control on phytoplankton populations. Paper presented to the
        National Research Council Marine Board Workshop on Coastal Eutrophication, April 14-
        16, 1993, The University at Stony Brook, New York.

Nixon, S.W. 1980.  Between coastal marshes and coastal waters—A review of twenty years of
        speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water
        chemistry,  pp. 437-525. In: P. Hamilton and K. McDonald (eds.). Estuarine and Wetland
        Processes.  Plenum. New York.

O'Connor, J.S. and  D.A. Flemer. 1987. Monitoring, research and management: Integration for
        decision making in coastal marine environments, p.70-90. In: T.P. Boyle  (ed.), New
        Approaches to Monitoring Aquatic Ecosystems, ASTM STP 980, Am. Soc. Testing and
        Materials, Philadelphia.

Odum, E. P. 1989. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
        Sunderland, Massachusetts, 283 pp.                                                   v

O'Neill, R. V., D. L. Deangelis, J. B. Waide and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A Hierarchial Concept of
        the Ecosystem. Princeton Univ. Press., Princeton, New Jersey.  252 pp.

Orth, R. J. and K. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: an unprecedented decline in submerged
        aquatic vegetation. Science 222: 51-53.

Reice, S. R. 1994. Nonequilibrium determinants of biological community structure. BioScience
        82 (5): 424-435.

Richardson, C. J. 1991. Pocosins: An Ecological Perspective. (Wetlands Special Issue), 11: 335-
        354.   -•'•

Ruckelshaus, W. D. 1983. Science, risk and public policy. Science 221: 1026-1028.

The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's wetlands: An action agenda. The final
        technical report of the National Wetlands Policy forum. The Conservation Foundation,
        Washington, D.C.

Tomasko, D. A., C. J. Dawes, and M. O. Hall. 1991. Effects of the number of short shoots and
        presence of the rhizome apical meristem on the survival and growth of transplanted
        seagrass Thalassia testudinium. Contrib. in Mar. Sci. 32: 41-48.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Interim guidelines and specifications for preparing
        quality assurance project plans. Office of Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance,
        Quality Assurance Management Staff, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. The New Generation of Environmental Protection.
        A Summary of EPA's Five-Year Strategic Plan. EPA 200-2-94-001. U.S. EPA,
        Washington, D.C.

Vernberg, F. J. Salt-marsh Processes: A Review. 1993.  Environ. Tox. and Chern. 12: 2167-2195.

Walbridge, M. R. and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Water quality of pocosins and associated wetlands
        of the Carolina Coastal Plain, pp. 414-439. In: Wetlands 11: 417-439, Special Issue.

 Wyllie-Echeverria, S., A.M. Olson and M.J. Hershman (eds).  1994. Seagrass science and policy
        in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a seminar series. (SMA 94-1). EPA 910/R-94-
        004.  63pp.

Wolfe, D.A. and others. 1987. Long-term biological data sets: Their role in research, monitoring,
        and management of estuarine and coastal marine systems. Estuaries 20 (3): 181-193.

Zedler, J. B.  1988. Salt marsh restoration: Lessons from California, p. 123-238. In: J. Cairns (ed.).
        Management for rehabilitation and enhancement of ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton,

Zedler, J. B. and M.E.  Kentula. 1986. Wetlands Research Plan. EPA/600/3-86/009, U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
        NTIS Accession No. PB86 158 656/AS.