**Breaking Down Barriers**

*A guidance manual for tidal hydrology restoration*

*in the Southeastern United States*

Manual

![](media/image1.png){width="2.826388888888889in"
height="2.6395833333333334in"}

***Draft produced September 2008***

***NOAA Restoration Center***

***NOAA Coastal Services Center***

***National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration***

***2008***

![](media/image2.png){width="0.8666666666666667in"
height="0.8840277777777777in"}
![](media/image3.png){width="0.8347222222222223in"
height="0.8833333333333333in"}

[]{#refheading___toc211408983 .anchor}Letter to the Reader

One mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is to manage coastal resources, including fisheries and habitat.
Recognizing the opportunity to achieve ecosystem-level habitat
restoration at many locations in the Southeastern United States
(generally defined as Virginia through Texas and the Caribbean), NOAA
has compiled this guidance manual -- filled with information and tools
-- to promote and improve planning, implementation, and monitoring of
tidal hydrology restoration.

In the context of this manual, tidal hydrology restoration focuses on
"Breaking Down Barriers" to tidal flow. Such barriers are often in the
form of levees, dikes, causeways, and roads built around and through
estuarine habitat as a result of dredge and fill or impoundment
activities common in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The restriction or
complete blockage of tidal flow have resulted in the degradation of
thousands of acres of estuarine habitat in the Southeastern U.S.
However, removing these barriers and enhancing tidal flow can often
naturally restore estuarine habitats. Many of these habitats exist in
locations with elevations still appropriate to support fisheries and
crucial ecosystem services. Given the vast acreage available for
restoration, "Breaking Down Barriers" offers methods, strategies, and
suggestions for achieving effective ecosystem-level restoration.

Since numerous opportunities exist to restore coastal habitats through
tidal hydrology restoration in the Southeastern U.S., the number and
scale of such projects is increasing. In order to promote
ecosystem-based management for restoring degraded habitats and to
enhance the science surrounding tidal hydrology restoration, there needs
to be improved information sharing amongst practitioners and development
of guidance and recommendations. Lack of information sharing has
prevented development of best practices and recognized scientific
methods for achieving successful tidal hydrology restoration.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408984 .anchor}"Breaking Down Barriers"
Workshop

In the fall of 2007, NOAA recruited 13 experts associated with various
aspects of tidal hydrology restoration to help design and implement a
workshop on the topic. On January 16-17, 2008, the NOAA Restoration
Center and NOAA Coastal Services Center hosted the resulting workshop,
"Tidal Hydrology Restoration: Breaking Down Barriers," in Charleston,
SC. Approximately 75 experts, practitioners, and coastal managers from
government, non-profit, academia, and the private sector participated in
the workshop. The workshop included plenary presentations, breakout
discussions, and expert panel sessions. The breakout sessions addressed
issues surrounding design, project coordination, permitting,
construction, modeling, scientific evaluation, and community
involvement.

The goal of the workshop was to promote information exchange among
experienced and potential practitioners of tidal hydrology restoration
in the Southeastern U.S. The workshop objectives were to provide
practitioners:

-   Strategies to identify projects and partners, and then to develop
    appropriate objectives and quality project design.

-   Practical approaches for defining and implementing construction and
    maintenance objectives.

-   Strategies to navigate and optimize the permitting process.

-   Practical approaches to determine what hydrology restoration
    "success" means, including ways to address adaptive management.

-   Strategies to build community support for projects and to address
    typical community concerns.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408985 .anchor}"Breaking Down Barriers"
Guidance Manual

NOAA created this guidance manual with the goal of improving information
sharing to promote and enhance tidal hydrology restoration. The manual
is not a scientific or technical manual; instead it offers practical
guidance for practitioners, private landowners, community groups, and
municipality managers who can benefit from a user-friendly manual to
assess, design, implement, and evaluate a tidal hydrology restoration
project. It is the compilation of workshop discussions, workshop
proceedings (www.csc.noaa.gov/restoration_workshop/ ), literature
review, case studies, and consultations with experts.

Real-world applications and restoration project examples are provided
throughout the manual and synthesized to offer summary recommendations
and conclusions. A "Toolkit" -- with components relevant to all stages
of project implementation -- is also provided to enhance the application
of this information with the goal that it will be actively used during
project planning and implementation. The "Toolkit," which includes tools
such as checklists, agency contact information, example project
documents, and bulleted "to-do" lists, is meant to be easy to use and
applied in a hands-on way. The Toolkit is followed by several project
case studies which include example budgets, scopes of work, designs,
permitting information, etc.

The systematic approach to restoration outlined in other materials is
covered in this manual, but with practical considerations and
recommendations for tidal hydrology restoration. The chapters of this
manual are laid out as follows:

**Background: Overview of the importance of hydrology to estuarine
habitats, the history of tidal modification in the Southeaster United
States and some brief examples of projects that have completed tidal
hydrology restoration projects.**

**Project Identification, Feasibility and Planning**: Methods and tips
for identifying project sites/opportunities and identifying structural
issues to be addressed in the future design and construction phases.

**Goals and Objectives:** Extensive discussion on setting goals and
objectives to direct project construction and evaluation.

**Project Design:** Guidance on determining design parameters, the uses
of hydrological modeling, and the impacts of sea level rise.

**Permitting Considerations:** Introduction to the permitting process,
with suggestions for making contact with agency officials and navigating
a sometimes complicated process.

**Construction and Maintenance:** Covers pre-construction planning to
post-construction management, as well as budgeting, scheduling, and
selecting contractors and volunteers for project implementation.

**Evaluation and Monitoring:** Guidance on scientific monitoring and
evaluation including suggestions for core monitoring parameters,
duration and frequency.

**Community Involvement:** Addresses the ins-and-outs of project
coordination and community engagement including tips for building public
advocacy for tidal hydrology restoration projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408986 .anchor}Table of Contents

[Letter to the Reader 1](#refheading___toc211408983)

["Breaking Down Barriers" Workshop 2](#__RefHeading___Toc211408984)

["Breaking Down Barriers" Guidance Manual
3](#__RefHeading___Toc211408985)

[Table of Contents 5](#__RefHeading___Toc211408986)

[Chapter 1: Background 7](#__RefHeading___Toc211408987)

[Impacts of Tidal Hydrology Modifications on Specific Habitats
7](#__RefHeading___Toc211408988)

[Typical Hydrologic Modifications in the Southeast
8](#__RefHeading___Toc211408989)

[Benefits of "Breaking Down Barriers" 9](#__RefHeading___Toc211408990)

[Chapter 2: Project Identification, Feasibility and Planning
12](#__RefHeading___Toc211408991)

[Identifying Sites for Tidal Hydrology Restoration
13](#__RefHeading___Toc211408992)

[Tools for Identifying Potential Sites 14](#__RefHeading___Toc211408993)

[Project Feasibility and Planning 14](#__RefHeading___Toc211408994)

[Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives 20](#__RefHeading___Toc211408995)

[Additional tools can be found in the manual Toolkit.
20](#__RefHeading___Toc211408996)

[Importance of Goals and Objectives 20](#__RefHeading___Toc211408997)

[Defining Project Goal(s) 21](#__RefHeading___Toc211408998)

[Identifying Project Objectives 21](#__RefHeading___Toc211408999)

[Chapter 4: Project Design 24](#__RefHeading___Toc211409000)

[Ecological Design Parameters 24](#__RefHeading___Toc211409001)

[Design Feasibility Considerations 25](#__RefHeading___Toc211409002)

[Active and Passive Design Strategies 26](#__RefHeading___Toc211409003)

[Chapter 5: Permitting 34](#__RefHeading___Toc211409004)

[An Introduction to Federal Authorization
34](#__RefHeading___Toc211409005)

[Coordination between State and Federal Agencies
35](#__RefHeading___Toc211409006)

[Recommendations 38](#__RefHeading___Toc211409007)

[Chapter 6: Construction and Maintenance
40](#__RefHeading___Toc211409008)

[Pre-Construction Preparation 40](#__RefHeading___Toc211409009)

[Construction Implementation 45](#__RefHeading___Toc211409010)

[Post-Construction Management 48](#__RefHeading___Toc211409011)

[Chapter 7: Scientific Evaluation and Monitoring
50](#__RefHeading___Toc211409012)

[Background and Reasons for Monitoring 50](#__RefHeading___Toc211409013)

[What and How to Monitor 51](#__RefHeading___Toc211409014)

[Principal Monitoring Periods 55](#__RefHeading___Toc211409015)

[Advancing the Science 57](#__RefHeading___Toc211409016)

[Chapter 8: Community Involvement 60](#__RefHeading___Toc211409017)

[Building Programmatic Support for Restoration
60](#__RefHeading___Toc211409018)

[Building Project-Level Support 61](#__RefHeading___Toc211409019)

[Working with Volunteers 62](#__RefHeading___Toc211409020)

[Volunteers and Monitoring 63](#__RefHeading___Toc211409021)

[Bibliography 66](#__RefHeading___Toc211409022)

Tools and Other Resources

**List of Tables**

[Table 1a. Example tidal hydrology restoration projects.
8](#__RefHeading___Toc210617627)

[Table 2a. Long-term indicators of ecological change.
12](#__RefHeading___Toc210617628)

[Table 3a. Common objectives for tidal hydrology restoration.
20](#__RefHeading___Toc210617629)

[Table 4a. Ecological and physical site parameters critical to project
design 23](#__RefHeading___Toc210617630)

[Table 4b. Key feasibility considerations for project design
25](#__RefHeading___Toc210617631)

[Table 4c. Design strategies, application, pros and cons
26](#__RefHeading___Toc210617632)

[Table 6a. Construction Scheduling Considerations
42](#__RefHeading___Toc210617633)

[Table 6b. Design Strategy Considerations
44](#__RefHeading___Toc210617634)

[Table 7a. Core parameters with recommendations for monitoring specific
characteristics. 50](#__RefHeading___Toc210617635)

**List of figures**

**Highlight Projects**

[Identification and Planning Highlight Project: St. Vincent Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Florida 17](#__RefHeading___Toc208460387)

Goals and Objectives Highlight Project: Hopedale, Barnard Parish, LA 22

Design Highlight Project: Bahia Grande, Cameron County, TX 31

Construction Highlight Project: Sandpiper Pond, Murrells Inlet, SC 47

Scientific Evaluation Highlight Project: Fort DeSoto, Pinellas County,
FL 58

Community Involvement Highlight Project: Clam Bayou, Sanibel Island
Florida 63

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408987 .anchor}Chapter 1: Background

Restricted tidal flow or complete blockage of tidal influence, from
levees, dikes, causeways, etc. has resulted in the degradation of
thousands of acres of estuarine habitat in the Southeastern U.S. On the
east coast of Florida alone, nearly 40,000 acres of coastal marsh is
impounded (USFWS website?), more than 91,000 acres of state and
federally owned land in Louisiana is impounded (Day et al 1990) and
14-16% of South Carolina tidal marshes are impounded (Citation). Some
hydrologic modifications have been in place for so long that there is
little recognition that certain locations once functioned as estuarine
habitat. For instance along the Atlantic coast, tidal marsh impoundment
activities began as early as the 1930's for the purposes of creating
agricultural land, migratory bird (i.e., duck) habitat, and mosquito
control. Along the Gulf coast, it is common to drive from the mainland
to barrier islands along earthen causeways built through marshes from
1940s through 1960s. For example, in South Florida a causeway was
constructed in the 1950s to provide access from the mainland to Sanibel
and Captiva Islands, blocking all tidal flow through Dinkins Bayou into
Clam Bayou. Clam Bayou became completely impounded, resulting in the
loss of 150 acres of mangroves, 120 acres of seagrass, and 20 acres of
oyster reef habitat. Whether resulting in complete blockage or partial
restriction of tidal flow, these modifications can result in the
degradation of estuarine habitat and sometimes conversion to
predominately freshwater habitat, potentially changing the dynamics of
the whole ecosystem.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408988 .anchor}Impacts of Tidal Hydrology
Modifications on Specific Habitats

Estuarine ecosystems are created from the natural influx of seawater
interacting with freshwater. The location, salinity, volume, exchange,
temperature, and velocity of water, as well as flooding frequency, all
influence coastal habitats types and ecological functions. For example,
a high marsh is flooded with seawater much less frequently than a low
marsh. High marsh salinities are often higher due to dried salts on the
sediment surface. Fisheries utilization is much less frequent than in
low marsh. Seagrass beds, on the other hand, are almost always inundated
with water. They are typically located in coastal areas with good water
quality, low turbidity, and good tidal exchange. If the amount or type
of water (i.e., marine or fresh) is altered as the result of a barrier,
a shift in the habitat type found at that location will likely follow.
Some habitat types are more sensitive to altered hydrology and changes
will occur rapidly, often resulting in dramatic faunal and vegetation
community composition changes. Other habitat types will shift more
slowly -- and perhaps will look the same (e.g., the same species still
occur) but may not function the same (e.g., not provide the same
ecosystem services).

The following coastal habitats have been impacted in the Southeastern
U.S. due to tidal hydrology modification:

*Open water/ Soft bottom.* When water bodies that were once open to the
ocean and tidal regimes are blocked from that influence, these water
bodies degrade in functionality and become what is commonly called a
lagoon. The resulting lagoon is characterized by low salinity (less than
10 parts per million or ppt) and contains less than one-third seawater.
The lagoon is thus less able to sustain species that thrive under more
saline conditions of the typical tidal marsh. Oxygen concentrations are
also reduced under less saline conditions, and channel sediments are
often fine and highly organic, allowing for vigorous growth of algae and
other microorganisms that further deplete oxygen and make the water
anoxic (oxygen-poor). This can be damaging to many fish and plant
species. Water bodies with open inlets to the sea are less likely to
turn anaerobic and less likely to experience environmental extremes that
can degrade quality.

*Tidal marshes.* Tidal wetlands that are under the influence of tidal
ebb and flow maintain water quality; support biodiversity, fisheries,
and high biological productivity for smaller organisms; sustain wildlife
habitat for birds and waterfowl; provide protection from storm surge and
flooding; control erosion; and attract people for recreation and private
enjoyment. However, wetlands, particularly tidal marshes, are on the
decline and the functions they serve are being lost. Not only are
wetlands degraded by pollutants, urban runoff, invasive species, and
dredging for shipping or recreation, wetlands are also lost when they
are drained for agricultural and urban development, diked for flood
control, or other purposes. With the absence of tidal influence, the
wetland or tidal marsh eventually gives way to a different habitat type.
In fact, more than half of tidal marshes in the U.S. have been destroyed
by humans through draining, diking, dredging, and filling wetlands.

*Seagrass.* Seagrasses typically grow in shallow coastal waters,
including protected bays and inlets. In the Southeast U.S., marine
seagrasses are found from the Gulf of Mexico to the Florida east coast,
and along the North Carolina coast. Seagrasses are not present along the
Georgia or South Carolina coasts, likely due to the influx of fresh
water, high turbidity, and wide tidal range. Seagrasses provide
structured habitat on shallow marine and estuarine soft bottoms,
offering refuge for many commercially and recreationally important fish
and invertebrates. Different species grow at different depths, but most
seagrasses live in anoxic sediments and generally require more light for
survival and growth than other marine plants (so water depth and clarity
are very important). Seagrass habitat is often fragmented into patches
from natural processes, such as waves and currents, but also from human
activities including boating, dredging, and coastal development (e.g.,
docks and piers). In addition, when water diversions, dams, impervious
surfaces and other human activities alter natural hydrologic drainage
patterns, water levels, salinity regimes, erosion/sedimentation rates,
temperature, and water quality, the distribution and quality of seagrass
habitat can be adversely affected.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408989 .anchor}Typical Hydrologic Modifications
in the Southeast

While not in common practice today, the results of tidal hydrology
modification during the early to mid-twentieth century have important
impacts on present day coastal ecosystems. Tidal hydrology was
historically modified in the Southeast coastal areas for a number of
purposes:

-   *Agriculture*. Impoundments of tidal marsh resulted from the
    creation of berms or levees to block tidal flow into the wetland.
    Marsh areas were drained of tidal waters and used as fields for crop
    plants. Rice impoundments are one example.

-   *Livestock Grazing*. Impoundments of tidal marsh resulted from
    creation of berms or levees to block tidal flow into the wetland.
    The area would then be used to graze cattle and other livestock.

-   *Road construction*. Elevation of a road bank was increased to allow
    for more direct access through tidal systems. This was often
    accomplished by borrowing sediments from the adjacent area to create
    a roadbed. It is not atypical to see ditches along the length of a
    roadbed through a coastal system as a result of the moved material.
    Typically, only to relieve flooding concerns, small culverts were
    intermittently placed under the road.

-   *Causeway construction*. Dredge material was used to create an
    elevated roadbed from the mainland to barrier islands, and to travel
    between islands. The dredge material was often borrowed from nearby
    habitat and tidal flow might be completely inhibited or restricted
    to narrow bridges or culverts.

-   *Duck habitat*. Impoundments of tidal marsh resulted from creation
    of berms or levees to block tidal flow into the wetland. The area
    was then often used as a hunting destination.

-   *Mosquito control (impoundments)*. Impoundments of tidal marsh
    resulted from creation of berms or levees to block tidal flow into
    the wetland. Water levels in the area were managed to most
    effectively minimize mosquito populations. Often these areas
    included water control devices with the primary goal of controlling
    mosquito populations and coastal flooding .

-   *Mosquito control (ditching)*. Checkerboard patterns of ditches were
    dug through mangrove and marsh systems to facilitate drainage and
    deplete mosquito populations. This altered sheet flow through the
    system by creating routes for rapid flooding and drying.

-   *Dredge spoil disposal*. Dredge spoil mounds were created in some
    locations, thereby restricting tidal flow into or through the
    estuarine habitat. This resulted in elevations that did not support
    the historic ecosystem functions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408990 .anchor}Benefits of "Breaking Down
Barriers"

Relatively small physical barriers to tidal flow can negatively impact
large spans of habitat. As a result, tidal hydrology restoration
projects that remove barriers allow for restoration on an ecosystem
level. For example, rehabilitation of more than 1,000 acres of seagrass
habitat in the Pinellas County Florida Aquatic Preserve near Fort DeSoto
was achieved by removing a section of dredge-and-fill causeway and
replacing it with a 40-foot span bridge. Habitat on either side of the
barrier remained at elevations appropriate to support estuarine habitat
functions and removal of the barrier restored estuarine habitat
naturally (of course, some cases are not so simple). Engineering is
often involved to restore or improve hydrologic regimes, either through
installation, enhancement, removal, or creation of new structures. This
can be expensive, but a large footprint of restored or enhanced habitat
can result from a relatively small footprint of work; such projects can
be cost-effective per acre or stream mile restored. Below is a table
listing some example tidal hydrology restoration projects throughout the
Southeastern U.S. with associated acreage, habitat type impacted, and
cost per acre restored.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617627 .anchor}Table 1a. Example tidal
hydrology restoration projects.

  ----------- -------------- ----------------- ----------- ----------- --------- ---------------
  **Name**    **Location**   **Modification/   **Acres**   **Habitat   **Total   **Cost/acre**
                             solution**                    type**      Cost**    

  Clam Bayou  Sanibel        Causeway/Box      290         Mangrove,   \$1M      \$3,448
              Island, FL     Culvert                       oyster,               
                                                           seagrass              

  Tarpon Bay  Naples, FL     Causeway/Box      360         Water       \$1.3M    \$3,611
                             Culverts                      column                

  Fort DeSoto Pinellas Co.,  Causeway/Bridge   1140        Mangrove,   \$1.6M    \$1,403
              FL                                           soft                  
                                                           bottom,               
                                                           seagrass              

  Sandpiper   Murrels Inlet, Sedimentation/\   35          Salt marsh  \$81K     \$2,314
  Pond        NC             Breach                                              

  Don Pedro   Charlotte Co., Road construction 32          Mangrove,   104.8K    \$3,275
  State Park  FL             & Dredge-fill/                salt marsh            
                             Culvert & Scrape                                    
                             down                                                

  Bahia       Brownsville,   Dredge & Fill/    6500        Soft        \$1.8M    \$277
  Grande      TX             Breach                        bottom,               
                                                           sand                  

  St.         St. Vincent    Road              1925        Salt marsh  \$46K     \$24
  Vincents    Island, FL     Construction/                                       
  NWR                        removal, culverts                                   

  Wildcat     St. Lucie Co.,                   100         Mangrove,   \$84K     \$840
  Cove        FL                                           upland                

  Hopedale    St. Bernard    Levee/Water       3086        Salt marsh  \$2.14M   \$693
              Parish, LA     Control structure                                   
  ----------- -------------- ----------------- ----------- ----------- --------- ---------------

Numerous objectives can be achieved by removing hydrology barriers to
restore or enhance tidal flow. Common objectives for the Southeast U.S
include (for more on this, see **Chapter 4: Project Design, and the
manual Toolkit**):

-   Improve surface water quality (dissolved oxygen, nutrient loads,
    sediment loads, contaminants, salinity, temperature)

-   Improve ground water quality

-   Create/enhance fish habitat

-   Create/enhance wildlife habitat (wading birds, migratory birds)

-   Mitigate storm surge and flood impacts

-   Allow for adaptation to or accommodation of sea level rise

-   Storm water management (reducing rate and quantity of runoff)

-   Reduce shoreline erosion

-   Improve public access and community stewardship

-   Improve habitat longevity and sustainability

-   Mimic periodicity and flushing capacity of natural tidal regime

-   Reduce/control invasive species

-   Result in appropriate natural vegetation community/cover

-   Result in sediments capable of supporting appropriate vegetation
    community/cover (i.e., pore water salinity, organic matter,
    nutrients)

Closing paragraph needed

**(Suggest something like this, but might be too strong??):** Often a
single tidal hydrology restoration project can address more than one of
these objectives and affect more than one habitat type. That's what
makes this restoration technique so attractive. Tidal hydrology
restoration is increasingly becoming implemented in the Southeast U.S.,
but still not widely practiced. Although the cost-benefits of tidal
hydrology restoration have not been formally studied, if planned and
designed correctly "breaking down barriers" *may* be more cost-effective
for restoring ecosystem-level services than other techniques and should
be more frequently considered among restoration alternatives.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408991 .anchor}Chapter 2: Project
Identification, Feasibility and Planning

Project identification is the first step in the strategic project
planning process. Before spending significant time and resources on a
project, restoration practitioners should be able to identify the
biological importance and likelihood of restoration success at potential
project sites (Battelle 2003, 10). An initial feasibility analysis
should also be performed that evaluates how the local or state political
climate, permits, funding, or community acceptance might support or
impede a project. As project planning proceeds, a team should be
assembled that is as knowledgeable as possible about the opportunities,
complexities, and potential pitfalls of the project. Finally, the
development of partnerships and consideration of funding opportunities
are also important steps in planning.

This chapter introduces the steps and tools needed to identify sites,
conduct initial feasibility analysis and project planning for tidal
hydrology restoration and includes discussion of:

-   The importance of regional-scale planning

-   Structural, physical, and ecological characteristics to look for in
    a degraded site;

-   Methods used recognize a restoration opportunity;

-   Topics to consider when evaluating project feasibility;

-   Steps in the project planning stage;

-   Considerations for securing project "buy-in"; and

-   Project Identification and Planning Highlight Project: St. Vincent
    Island National Wildlife Refuge

Additional planning tools can be found in the manual Toolkit.

**Opportunistic Action versus Regional Planning**

Identification of a project site can result from regional strategic
planning or unexpected opportunities. Unexpected restoration
opportunities may arise from external drivers like environmental crises,
such as hurricanes, or from industrial or commercial changes in a
location. For example, Cargill Corporation ceased salt production in the
South San Francisco Bay Area leaving behind degraded marshlands and an
opportunity to rehabilitate natural hydrological processes in the bay
wetlands. Other unexpected opportunities may also emerge from donations
by industry, large corporations, or private citizens. Tracts of land are
often donated for public works projects because of associated benefits
include tax breaks or improved public relations. Even smaller private
land owners are allowing for habitat restoration to occur on their land
in order to increase property values or to be environmentally friendly.

While unexpected opportunities can springboard great projects, regional
strategic planning for restoration allows regional priorities to be
considered, and offers an opportunity for widespread restoration
support. Planning at the regional level typically requires a long-term
process which is vetted through local experts, stakeholders and resource
managers with the goal of developing a strategic plan that identifies
ecosystem-based goals, needs, and priorities. This process can instill
confidence in both the local community and potential funding
organizations in regards to long term expected outcomes of a
comprehensive restoration strategy.

When planning at a regional scale:

-   *Be Flexible* -- make the project scale and timeline compatible with
    priorities for the larger community.

-   *Be Open to the Public* -- organize public forums to identify
    priorities and get buy-in from a wide range of groups.

-   *Be Strategic* -- emphasize to stakeholders the economic incentives
    for restoration on private property: increased home values and
    tourism and improved recreation (fishing off a private boat dock or
    water trails through mangroves) on private lands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408992 .anchor}Identifying Sites for Tidal
Hydrology Restoration

*IdentStructural Alterations*. Site identification begins by identifying
structural alterations that may impede tidal flow and may need removal
or engineering. Usual culprits of impeded flow include dikes, levees,
causeways, landfill, and failing or inadequate culverts. These
structures may have been installed initially to enhance aspects of the
site, whether to improve habitat quality, alter the site for development
purposes, or control flooding or urban runoff.

*Ecological Change.* Impeded hydrology catalyzes physical and ecological
shifts in the associated landscape and these shifts may be observed
before the tidal obstruction is even recognized. Whether ecological
change is identified through casual observation or specific evaluation,
characterization of the extent of ecological change is important. Shifts
in an area's ecological health may be evident through specific
biological incidents. Fish kills or sudden drops in fisheries
populations are examples of singular events. Other distinct events that
provide evidence of ecological shifts include widespread vegetation
die-offs or reoccurring algal blooms.

While unique events are relatively easy to observe and document,
negative changes over an extended period of time often indicate
ecological impairment due to loss of hydrologic function. Monitoring
over time and contrasting historical data to current conditions may
provide the best evidence that physical alterations to the environment
has resulted in ecological change. Table 2a. below identifies indicators
of ecological change over time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617628 .anchor}Table 2a. Long-term indicators
of ecological change.

  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
  **Common Long-Term       **Impacts Caused by Physical Alterations**
  Indicators**             

  Shifts from native to    Altered hydrology may weaken native species'
  non-native species       ability to compete with invasive species.

  Shifts in fish           As physical conditions change, some fish
  assemblages              species will prove to be more adapted to the
                           new environment.

  Shifts in benthic        Species dependent on specific sediment
  assemblages              characteristics, turbidity, and water
                           chemistry are impacted by altered hydrology.

  Changes in water quality Reduced tidal flow will alter an area's water
                           chemistry, including salinity, dissolved
                           oxygen, and pH.

  Reduced flood control or Previously sheltered areas may be at risk if
  shoreline protection     tidal flow is re-routed or blocked.

  Loss of habitat          Disturbed areas tend to be more homogenous.
  heterogeneity            
  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

**Reference Sites**

Comparing a potential project site to relatively undisturbed or
"healthy" reference sites nearby is an effective strategy to understand
hydrology modification impacts on many ecological indicators, including
water quality (salinity, dissolved oxygen content, or pH), vegetation
and nekton community composition. Comparisons to reference sites can
also help define desired ecosystem services, and provide targets for
post-restoration monitoring. For more about reference sites, see
**Chapter 7: Scientific Evaluation and Monitoring**.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408993 .anchor}Tools for Identifying Potential
Sites

Project teams can use a variety of low- and high-tech tools for site
identification:

*In-field Investigation*. Few tools can rival identifying a potential
restoration site in person! When possible, a project team should spend
time on-the ground locating barriers, making observations, and acquiring
local datasets including past monitoring results, species counts, and
historical documents (permits, construction plans, and species
inventories). Also consider talking with area residents or government
officials to get a broader understanding of the site.

*Geographic Information System (GIS)*. GIS is a data management tool
that provides users with a spatial understanding of locations or events
based on georeferenced data. GIS is often used to locate specific
features on a landscape or analyze relationships between features. With
GIS, the project team can identify, compare, and prioritize sites, as
well as produce maps based on team-defined criteria. Products that often
supplement GIS applications include:

-   Aerial Imagery -- Aerial imagery provides users with a comprehensive
    aerial view of an environment. Color, infrared, satellite, or
    digital imagery may all fall under this category. Comparing historic
    imagery with current sources provides evidence of landscape change
    over time.

-   Maps -- Landcover, landuse and elevation relief maps can help users
    visualize a site and its surrounding area. Historical maps
    illustrate previous site conditions while current maps show existing
    features. Free mapping tools, typically available on the Web,
    provide users with the capability to create maps specific to their
    needs.

Ideally, a project team ground-truth GIS products with in-field
observation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408994 .anchor}Project Feasibility and Planning

A tidally restricted site exhibiting signs of habitat degradation
provides strong rationale for undertaking restoration activities.
However, other factors must be considered to determine if restoration is
feasible or realistic. There are a number of issues related to land
ownership, team and partnership building, funding and, permitting that
one should consider. During an initial feasibility analysis such factors
should be given cursory consideration. After satisfactory completion of
the Feasibility analysis, the same factors should be revisited more
thoroughly during the Planning stage. In fact, multiple iterations of
evaluating the following factors will be produced throughout the project
cycle.

*Land ownership.* Ownership of the location where restoration will occur
as well as adjacent land will have direct ramifications on the
feasibility and expedience of project implementation. Publicly owned
land will likely have a management plan that may or may not restrict
project implementation. Privately owned land may require negotiations
for purchase or conservation easement. Ownership of adjacent lands
should also be considered especially in cases where infrastructure may
be impacted.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

The Clam Bayou Project near Sanibel Island Florida was both catalyzed
and burdened by adjacent private landowners. Landowners surrounding Clam
Bayou contributed financially to the project and were especially active
during the project identification phase; however, the high demand for
the project also resulted in a higher sales price for land required for
project construction. Negotiating with the landowner caused construction
delays.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

Questions to ask about Land Ownership:

-   Is the land privately or publicly owned? Determine whether land
    owners might be willing participants in the restoration, or whether
    they might be willing to sell.

-   Is adjacent land privately or publicly owned? Consider whether land
    owners will be supportive of neighboring restoration.

-   Is there nearby public or private infrastructure? Identify if
    infrastructure could be impacted by restoration, or if it might
    impede construction.

-   Will land ownership restrict access? Construction efforts often
    require large equipment. If publicly owned, research the management
    plan governing the property and whether this would limit project
    implementation.

*The Project Team*. The Project Team is the core group leading the
restoration project from feasibility analysis through implementation and
monitoring. Having an appropriate team is a key indicator of project
feasibility. In building a project team, it is best to assemble a
variety of expertise. Hydrologists, engineers, biologists and
ecologists, financial experts and accountants, project managers,
outreach coordinators, and volunteers are all valuable assets to a tidal
hydrology restoration project team. The team should include both
required partnerships (due to cost or expertise sharing) as well as
strategic partnerships that can facilitate political and community
support. The team-building process should include identifying useful
skill sets and tools that can help with project planning and
implementation. For instance, it might be useful for the team to include
a member with ready access to and understanding of GIS tools,
hydrological models, previous research, or connections to community
groups.

In order to build an effective project team, give careful consideration
of appropriate partners and the specific needs of your project (i.e.,
engineering needs, hydrologic needs, biological focus, etc.).
Tentatively gauge these partners' interests and skills. Once there is a
clearer understanding of who will participate in the project team, hold
a brainstorming meeting with these partners and discuss overarching
project ideas. Here are some useful steps to consider in the early
stages of project team development:

-   Define the known problem(s), and brainstorm potential goals and
    objectives.

-   Discuss options or designs for addressing the problem.

-   Discuss general feasibility concerns and funding scenarios.

-   Consider team roles and responsibilities. Just because someone has a
    particular area of expertise does not mean he or she will be
    available to support the project.

-   Identify gaps in knowledge, skills, and resources.

Questions to ask about the Project Team:

-   Is the team representative? Determine if the project team in place
    is interdisciplinary with appropriate representation of engineers,
    natural resource managers, scientists, accountants, and project
    managers. Ensure that the team is prepared to move forward with
    planning and implementation.

-   Is the team adaptive? An effective project team will brainstorm
    potential opportunities as well as roadblocks in order to build in
    project flexibility and ensure that the project can adapt to shifts
    in priorities or resources.

*Local Involvement*. The most efficient and effective restoration
projects are those that are supported by the local community. This
includes the support of local residents, non-profit groups, state and
federal agencies, local planning boards, politicians, academics,
contractors, and more. In order to develop this support, it is important
to meet with stakeholders early in the process, communicate your ideas
and intentions and listen to ideas and concerns. Economics are an
important element to build into the initial stages of the public
dialogue process. Discuss the economic incentives for restoration on
private property, the potential benefit to property values, impacts of
tourism and benefits of improved recreation. See **Chapter 8: Community
Involvement** to learn more about building public support for a tidal
hydrology restoration project

Questions to ask about Local Involvement:

-   Have you consulted project stakeholders? Make sure potential
    stakeholders have been consulted, including potential project
    partners, landowners, and the interested or affected public. Share
    preliminary goals and objectives with these groups.

*Partnerships.* Partnerships are those relationships that are developed
with agencies, corporations, and non-profit groups that will provide
support to the project team through all stages of project
implementation. These relationships often provide for funding, staff
support, provision of services at decreased costs, public meeting space
and project advocacy, etc. Partnering proves especially beneficial to
tidal hydrology projects where the footprint of the impacted area is
large, resulting in high visibility and the potential for direct impact
to a wide range of stakeholders. The influence and tools that partners
can bring to bear on these often complicated and highly visible projects
may provide the momentum needed to get them off the ground. One
influential potential partner in the Southeast U.S. is the Southeast
Aquatic Resources Network (SARP). SARP is participant in a national
effort to coordinate priorities in fish habitat restoration through the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP). Many agencies and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are stakeholders in SARP.

Feasibility questions to ask about Partnerships

-   What local, state and federal partners will be key to providing
    necessary technical support? What agencies may already have site
    specific data to inform decision-making and design? What private
    companies have a reputation for supporting local restoration
    efforts? What organizations may have the in-house staff or equipment
    to facilitate the project?

-   What local, state and federal partners may be able to provide
    necessary cash or in-kind services? (See Funding Requirements and
    Sources below.)

*Potential Funding Requirements and Sources**. ***Developing reasonable
costs estimates is quite difficult at the early stage of feasibility
analysis. However, it is a good idea to estimate the scale of project
funding needed. You might consider breaking funding needs into different
stages of project implementation (i.e. identification, design,
construction, etc.). You might also consider the funding required for a
few potential design scenarios (i.e., one large levee breach vs. several
small breaches with culverts). Contacting a few of the project managers
for the case studies included in this manual may be very useful for
developing rough budgets. (See Case Study Toolkit.)

Consider whether contributions of team members will be able to off-set
some of the money otherwise required. For instance, a project with fewer
partners may require hiring a consultant who handles everything from
community meetings to design and permitting. Other projects may have
team members quite capable of taking on these individual tasks.

Once some general line items are developed, start developing a budget
that identifies the potential costs and sources of funding. Consider
seeking private contributions (sometimes private organizations will have
funds set aside for community initiatives), state or local funds such as
those from legislative approval or water management districts, or
applying to for grants. Keep in mind that different agencies and
organizations that fund restoration often have different missions,
timing, and requirements. For instance, water management districts will
likely have defined geographic boundaries. Grants will have a specific
intent, whether for type of activity or location.

When developing a strategy for identifying and securing project funds,
there are many sources to consider. Below are some tips for developing a
funding strategy:

-   Accomplish as much as possible with the minimal amount of resources.

-   Consider how team member contributions will off-set cash
    requirements.

-   Seek private contributions (the most likely source is often private
    organizations or corporations rather than individuals).

-   Consider pursuing public funding (i.e., state or county
    governments).

-   Evaluate the niche areas for different grant opportunities and apply
    for multiple grants. . For instance, NOAA's Community-based
    Restoration Program gives preference to projects that put the
    majority of funding toward "on-the-ground" fisheries habitat
    restoration activities; USFWS Coastal Program is structured slightly
    differently across the regions and will support a broader array of
    project activities.

-   Approach academic groups to discuss pre- and post- restoration
    monitoring ideas and options. Undergraduate and graduate students
    can be a great source of inexpensive labor.

    Questions to ask about Funding:

-   What are the funding needs? Determine the scale of required funding.
    Consider possible sources, whether from in-house capital, grants,
    private capital, partnerships, etc.

-   What funding strategies should be considered? Determine what sources
    and strategies can be used to attain funding. (See **Chapter 8:
    Community Involvement** for more information about seeking funding
    from the local community).

*Regulation and Permitting.* Consider which agencies should be
approached in the future for required permits. Consider the most
effective time to engage regulatory agencies in the process. Based on
available information and the input of the project team, determine if it
is reasonable to believe that the permitting environment will be
favorable for implementing the project. (See **Chapter 5: Permitting**
to learn more about the permitting process for tidal hydrology
restoration).

Questions to ask about Permitting:

-   What permits may be required? Are permits attainable and what is the
    general time frame? Determine if it is reasonable to believe that
    the permitting environment will be favorable for implementing the
    project

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208460387 .anchor}**Identification and Planning
Highlight Project: St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge,
Florida**

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a 12,000 acre barrier
island located near Apalachicola Bay, Florida. The island is
characterized by upland, freshwater and estuarine habitats. Prior to
becoming a NWR, the island was subjected to major hydrology
modifications through the construction of 90 miles of road, largely put
in place for private hunting expeditions more than 40 years ago.

In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed a map report titled
"Assessment of the effect of road construction and other modifications
on surface-water flow at St. Vincent NWR, Franklin County, Florida." In
this report USGS comprehensively evaluated the effects of road
construction and **identified priority restoration options** to
accomplish surface water-hydrologic wildlife habitat improvements. Field
data collection was used to identify areas of road construction and
other modifications that may have altered surface-water flow. The sites
investigated were (1) road crossings that block creeks; (2) road
crossings or ditches that connect adjacent creeks; and (3) road
crossings that potentially block saltwater movement in the creeks near
the coast. Water flow and water conductivity measurements were collected
at these locations and were used to generate a strategic plan for
hydrology management and restoration. The goal of the NWR is to use this
report to reduce the expanse of roads on the island by 50 percent.

In 2008, the NWR and its largely volunteer workforce implemented part of
the plan. An estimated 1,925 acres of estuarine marsh is benefiting from
the scrape-down of 4.6 miles of roads historically created on berms
through the marsh, the construction of 4 low water crossing on one
remaining 4.2 mile road, and the installation of a culvert under the
road bed. (For additional information, see the Case Study Toolkit.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408995 .anchor}Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives (G&Os) are the foundation for all restoration
projects. Developing G&Os entails careful consideration of site-specific
characteristics. Often goals and objectives are shaped not only by the
ecological conditions at the site but also stakeholder interests.
Identification of G&Os allows for a more efficient and focused
restoration process. This step in the restoration process directly
informs the project design, construction, and scientific evaluation.

This chapter of the manual describes:

-   the importance of well defined goals and objectives,

-   goals and objectives common to tidal hydrology restoration projects,
    and

-   Goals and Objectives Highlight Project: Hopedale Hydrologic
    Restoration, Barnard Parish, LA

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408996 .anchor}Additional tools can be found in
the manual Toolkit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408997 .anchor}Importance of Goals and
Objectives

Restoration project practitioners agree that well-defined goals and
objectives are critical to project success and prove invaluable for
development of appropriate project design. In reality, this step is
often overlooked based on the mistaken assumption that all project
partners have the same vision of project outcomes. However, given the
range of potential partners (see **Chapter 2: Project Identification,
Feasibility and Planning**), it is likely that divergent interests will
be represented on the project team. For instance, goals and objectives
of the 15,100 acre South Bay Salt Ponds Project in California have
accommodated a range of stakeholder interests. Many project partners
focus on bird habitat restoration; NOAA is primarily interested in
fisheries habitat; while other stakeholders advocate for public
accessibility. An example of how these divergent interests can be
incorporated into the goals and objectives is by creating areas with
varying water depths that can support both target bird and fish species
as well as a range of recreational activity.

Goal and objective statements should be referenced during all phases of
project implementation as they set the priorities and intended outcomes
of the project. Failure to define G&Os can result in a number of future
obstacles to project efficacy and efficiency that will resonate from
project design through construction and scientific evaluation.

*Why are G&Os important to the design phase?*

-   G&Os aid in comparison of alternative design scenarios, both in
    terms of creating an effective cost-benefit analysis and achieving
    desired project outcomes.

-   G&Os help avoid confusion and disagreement at the design stage
    amongst members of the project team.

-   G&Os allow for a more efficient design process, saving time and
    money. Communication between the project team and the design team
    (or contractor) will become more efficient.

*Why are G&Os important to the construction phase?*

-   G&Os will aid in making decisions about the most appropriate on-site
    design modifications. Delayed decisions can increase costs.
    Misguided decisions can impact project outcomes.

-   G&Os allow the contractor to participate in construction
    modifications.

-   G&Os will influence the appropriate parameters to measure during the
    "as-built" monitoring (See **Chapter 7:Scientific Evaluation and
    Monitoring**).

-   G&Os allows for adaptive management. Adaptive management may occur
    during or after the construction phase, and it allows for changes in
    the construction or management of the site to increase the
    likelihood of reaching G&Os.

*Why are G&Os important to scientific evaluation?*

-   Defined G&Os will drive evaluation of project outcomes. A scientific
    evaluation plan will flow directly from the G&O statements. Data
    collection, target values, and monitoring parameters should be
    chosen to reflect the G&Os. Reference sites should be chosen that
    best represent the specific G&Os. Since data collection should begin
    long before project construction, early development of G&Os is
    critical to implementation of a strong scientific evaluation plan
    (See **Chapter 7:** **Scientific Evaluation and Monitoring**).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408998 .anchor}Defining Project Goal(s)

The goal or vision of the project should have as its core an ecological
or biological target, and it should incorporate practical planning
considerations that make it achievable (Battelle 2003, 8). A goal
statement should be simple and clear. Below are some goals of past and
current tidal hydrology restoration projects.

-   Reestablish a tidally-influenced salt marsh - See Don Pedro

-   Increase total spatial extent of the tidal wetland - See Bahia
    Grande

-   Improve water quality of the wetland or embayment - See Clam Bayou

-   Improve tidal circulation - See Fort DeSoto

-   Removal of agricultural salinity barriers - See Rock Ponds Creek

-   Reestablish a tidal connection through a spoil levee - See Newman
    Branch

-   Reestablish hydrologic connectivity between habitat types - See
    Little River

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211408999 .anchor}Identifying Project Objectives

Project objectives should be derived from the goal statement(s),
defining more specifically and clearly the actions that will be taken to
achieve a specific target. One goal statement may generate multiple
objective statements.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617629 .anchor}Table 3a. Common objectives for
tidal hydrology restoration.

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| **Common   |                                                         |
| objectives |                                                         |
| for tidal  |                                                         |
| hydrology  |                                                         |
| res        |                                                         |
| toration** |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Reduce...  | -   epiphytic cover on sea grasses to a level similar   |
|            |     to reference seagrass meadows                       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   shoreline erosion by X%                             |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Achieve... | -   tidal flooding of the marsh at a periodicity and    |
|            |     depth comparable to nearby reference marshes        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   resident fish density and communities similar to    |
|            |     nearby reference system                             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   appropriate natural vegetation community or % cover |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   sediments capable of supporting appropriate         |
|            |     vegetation community or cover (e.g., pore water     |
|            |     salinity, organic matter, or nutrients)             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   more natural tidal regime (periodicity, extent,     |
|            |     flushing capacity)                                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Improve... | -   dissolved oxygen (DO) levels to those similar to    |
|            |     nearby reference marshes                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   groundwater quality (i.e., nutrient content)        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   surface water quality (dissolved oxygen, nutrient   |
|            |     loads, sediment loads, contaminants, salinity, and  |
|            |     temperature)                                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   public access and community stewardship             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   habitat longevity and sustainability                |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Create or  | -   fish habitat similar to reference site              |
| enhance... |                                                         |
|            | -   wildlife habitat (for wading birds, inverts, and    |
|            |     migratory birds)                                    |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Manage     | -   invasive species to X% cover                        |
| /control/\ |                                                         |
| st         | -   stormwater (i.e., reduce the rate and quantity of   |
| abilize... |     runoff)                                             |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   dredged material for marsh creation                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Mitigate   | -   storm surge                                         |
| or adapt   |                                                         |
| for...     | -   flood impacts                                       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   sea level rise                                      |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   increased human populations/demographics            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

**Tips for developing goals and objectives:**

-   Consultation with local stakeholders will aid the process of
    defining G&Os that are achievable and supported by the community.
    Scientific working groups, regional planning documents,
    universities, and community planning organizations are potential
    resources for getting input.

-   Consider a wide range of project objectives and prioritize them
    according to the needs or desired outcomes of the specific project.
    Prioritization can aid in cost-benefit analysis of design
    alternatives and in determining the best use of limited funds for
    scientific evaluation.

-   Goals and objectives should not be defined too narrowly. Narrow
    objectives may result in a project that inadvertently slights one
    ecological function over another. Blending multiple objectives may
    also result in wider constituent support.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Flooding of private property due to restricted tidal connection spurred
the initial interest in the Little River (NH) Hydrologic Restoration
Project. Stakeholders representing fisheries habitat interests were
instrumental in designing a project that met multiple objectives.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

-   Finally, recognize that project objectives may change over the
    lifetime of the project as community values or the site itself
    changes. This is not to suggest that objectives should be easily
    abandoned, but rather that project proponents should be realistic
    and flexible. Prioritizing objectives early in project planning will
    prove invaluable in helping the project team determine which project
    objectives can be more easily modified verses those that must be
    preserved.

    **Goals and Objectives Highlight Project: Hopedale, Barnard Parish,
    Louisiana**

The Hopedale Hydrologic Restoration project in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana was completed in 2004 with funding from the Coastal Wetland
Planning Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA). The total project area
is approximately 3,805 acres with approximately 719 acres of open water
and 3,086 acres of brackish and saline marsh, bottomland hardwoods and
bottomland scrub/shrub. A 1950s water control structure constructed had
become inoperable, adversely affecting wetlands in the project area. The
reduced draining capacity of the water control structure resulted in
increased depth and duration of flooding events thereby reducing marsh
plant health and accelerating marsh loss. Extreme tides occasionally
entered the project area and became impounded upstream of the structure.
The failed water control structure also blocked fisheries access to the
wetland.

The goals of this project were to re-establish tidal exchange, relieve
impoundment conditions, achieve a healthy hydro period, provide
fisheries access, and reduce wetland loss rates. Several meetings were
held with the project team to determine specific objectives that would
influence project design and operational procedures. Specific hydrology
objectives were to decrease the duration of flooding events to allow
high water to stand on the marsh for no longer than 1 week following a
flood event and to mimic the hydro-period (depth and duration) and
salinity regime of a reference marsh. In regards to wetland loss rates,
the objective was to maintain 99% of the pre-construction acres of
vegetated wetland within the project area for 20 years. (Given the rate
of wetland loss in LA, most projects set a much lower goal). In regards
to fisheries access, the objective was to maintain or improve fisheries
ingress and egress.

A monitoring plan has been established to evaluate most of these
objectives. Three continuous recorder stations are located within the
project area and two are located in reference locations. These stations
record water depth and salinity. Results indicate that salinity is less
than one half of a part per thousand lower inside the project area than
outside which does not have a likely biological significance. Water
depths have decreased in the project area as compared to depths prior to
project to construction and the duration of flooding events meets the
established objective. Comparison of the hydro-period between the
project and reference site has proven to be complicated as water depth
at reference locations have actually increased since project
construction. Results for wetland loss rates will be analyzed by
comparing aerial photography collected in 2000 to photography planned
for 2012 and 2022. No specific measures of fisheries utilization are
being collected as it is assumed that fisheries access is improved as a
result of open fish slots in the water control structure.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409000 .anchor}Chapter 4: Project Design

The design phase of the project is initiated when the project site has
been determined and the restoration values, goals, and objectives
defined. The design phase will evaluate the potential range of
restoration techniques capable of achieving the desired project
outcomes. It is likely that multiple design options will be considered,
options will be narrowed, and a full evaluation of only one or two
scenarios will be completed. Design options should be continually
weighed against the project G&Os.

This section of the manual describes multiple design considerations,
tools, and tips that can be applied to tidal hydrology restoration
including:

-   Identifying key physical and feasibility design parameters.

-   Design techniques, application, pros, and cons.

-   Design consideration in context of climate change and sea level
    rise.

-   Hydrodynamic modeling as a tool for project design.

-   Project Design Highlight Project: Bahia Grande

Additional design tools can be found in the manual Toolkit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409001 .anchor}Ecological Design Parameters

Before developing a sound design strategy, the project team should have
a complete understanding of the historic and current conditions of the
site, including ecological and physical characteristics as well as
feasibility considerations. These topics should have already received
some consideration during the early stages of **Chapter 2:** **Project
Identification, Feasibility and Planning**. However, the design phase
will continue to consider these factors and begin a more detailed
analysis of the physical and ecological site conditions that will
influence project design.

There are a number of key site-specific ecological and physical
parameters that will influence project design (Table 4a). It is
important to have some understanding of these parameters before the
potential results of any design can be evaluated, and before alternative
design options can be compared for cost-benefit analysis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617630 .anchor}Table 4a. Ecological and
physical site parameters critical to project design

  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------
  Ecological Parameter  Importance to Project Design

  Elevation,            Elevation, bathymetry, and topography within and
  topography,           around the site will impact the movement and
  bathymetry, project   location of water. They will also influence plant
  boundaries            communities/habitat types. Project design may
                        entail alteration of current elevations or it may
                        work within the confines of current elevations,
                        as appropriate, to meet goals and objectives.

  Plant communities     Current locations and types of plant communities
                        provide insight into soil characteristics and
                        typical flooding patterns. Locations of exotic
                        and native species should also be considered. It
                        may be desirable to design a project that
                        preserves native plant communities (especially
                        coastal upland, maritime forest, and high marsh
                        -- see Sea Level Rise Sidebar).

  Flow velocity         Velocity of flow will influence the options for
                        design, specifically in regards to appropriate
                        sizes for breaches, culverts, etc.

  Soil characteristics  Soil characteristics will provide insight into
                        current flooding patterns. It is also useful for
                        project to consider or research any historic soil
                        contamination. Also, historic data will identify
                        former hydric soil locations that would be the
                        best location for tidal connections or the
                        restoration of wetland communities.

  Freshwater inflows    Sources, locations, and volumes of freshwater
  (surface and ground)  inflow will influence the ultimate habitat values
                        in a restored site and must be considered during
                        the design. They will also influence water
                        retention within the site and potential flooding
                        concerns of adjacent property.

  Salinity regime       Salinity strongly influences distribution of
                        plant and animal communities as well as soil
                        characteristics. Understanding the current
                        salinity regime will aid in developing
                        appropriate targets for post-restoration salinity
                        regimes. Soil or interstitial salinities should
                        also be investigated for proper plant selections.

  Tidal prism (range in It is critical to understand the volume of water
  volume of water from  moving through the site under current conditions
  high to low tide)     as this will influence design components
                        including size and location of breaches and tidal
                        channels.

  Tidal footprint       The expanse of area currently influenced by the
                        tide will be important for any engineering or
                        modeling effort used to forecast the effects of
                        modification at the site.

  Species composition   Vegetation and faunal community composition will
  (faunal and           be a critical factor in the permitting phase of
  vegetation,           the project. It is critical to understand the
  threatened and        community composition so that an appropriate
  endangered)           design can be employed prior to permitting
                        requests.

  Landscape or regional Both land type and land ownership of adjacent
  view, and adjacent    lands are important design considerations. Land
  lands (e.g., land     type (and habitat functionality) will directly
  cover)                influence the ecological outcomes at the project
                        site. Land ownership (private or public) may lend
                        itself to a range of design considerations
                        regarding public access, future downstream and
                        upstream impacts to the project site, etc.
  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------

that will

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Tip: A site base-map that highlights habitat types, tidal streams,
adjacent land types, infrastructure (e.g. roads) and other key physical
parameters is a highly recommended tool for the design phase. It
provides the team with a birds-eye-view for quick reference and
conceptual planning. The same base-map will be useful for implementing
an effective monitoring plan.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409002 .anchor}Design Feasibility
Considerations

Feasibility considerations are critical site-specific characteristics
that most directly impact the reasonableness or practicality of
alternative design scenarios. In other words, the ecology of the site
may support the restoration design but is the design reasonable to
implement? Site characteristics such as sediment stability,
landownership, funding, and stakeholder input can all directly impact
the feasibility of a project and require adjustments to project design,
goals, and objectives (Table 4b).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617631 .anchor}Table 4b. Key feasibility
considerations for project design

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  Feasibility            Importance/ implications
  considerations         

  Accessibility for      Location of a site is critical to accessibility
  equipment              of equipment. Carefully consider sites
                         surrounded by or near highly sensitive
                         environments, on islands, surrounded by private
                         property, surrounded by or composed of very
                         soft/wet sediments. Alternatives to typical
                         heavy equipment may be useful.

  Sediment stability     Sediment stability is critical for equipment
                         accessibility as well as permitting and
                         turbidity concerns during and following project
                         implementation. Analysis of sediment samples may
                         be required.

  Private landowner and  Consider both landownership of the project site
  leaseholder issues     and surrounding land. Consider any effects of
                         the project on landowners and leaseholders, and
                         vice versa. May be important to engage real
                         estate attorney expertise on these topics.

  Cost and funding       Certain designs may be possible, but not
  availability           practical in terms of cost-benefit analysis. An
                         evaluation of potential funding opportunities
                         may help establish some achievable funding
                         ranges.

  Opportunity            The time may or may not be right to pursue a
                         specific project site. For instance, a specific
                         design may be the best and only reasonable
                         alternative for a site; however, the opportunity
                         to pursue restoration may have to wait for
                         certain issues to be resolved (i.e., permitting
                         climate, political concerns, land ownership,
                         development pressures, pending funding
                         opportunities, etc.)

  Stakeholder input and  Local residents, the larger community, and other
  concerns               stakeholders may have some specific concerns or
                         interests that must be considered in the project
                         design phase. Frequently, project design is
                         modified based on public input, while still
                         achieving the stated goals and objectives of the
                         project.
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

Once the goals and objectives for a project are determined, biophysical
parameters of the site are known, a base-map is developed, and the
feasibility considerations indicate there is a potential for successful
project implementation, the project team should begin an earnest
evaluation of the range of design strategies available for tidal
hydrology restoration projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409003 .anchor}Active and Passive Design
Strategies

Design strategies for tidal hydrology restoration projects can be
categorized as either passive or active. **Passive design strategies**
entail a one-time action resulting in a self-sustaining system with
little long-term intervention. Projects of this type typically have a
relatively small area of construction activity to reintroduce/enhance
tidal flow, allowing a larger area to restore over time. For example,
the Fort DeSoto hydrology restoration project removed a section of
causeway and replaced it with a 40-foot span bridge. This action and
small footprint of work resulted in the enhancement and rehabilitation
of [1,000]{.mark} acres of seagrass with no hands-on restoration work in
the seagrass habitat. Passive design may attempt to target development
of the early succession stage of a vegetative community instead of the
climax community, allowing for the site to slowly evolve into the climax
community over time.

**Active design strategies** entail a much larger area of construction
activity and are typically characterized by regular and scheduled
long-term maintenance . Examples include the installment of a water
control feature through a berm (See Hopedale Case Study), tidal creek
creation (See Little River Case Study), and other major land
alterations. An individual project may contain both active and passive
elements. While sometimes only active strategies are realistic and
effective for long-term success, passive strategies should be the
preferred approach when possible. Even a passive or unmanaged design may
require active management initially but it would ideally evolve to
demand little to no active involvement in perpetuity.

When evaluating each design strategy, project managers should consider
the life span of the project in relation to the life span of the design
techniques. For example, after installing a floodgate to manage the
hydrologic regime, how long will it function before needing replacement?
These considerations should be incorporated into the long-term design
and construction maintenance plan. (See Chapter 6: Construction and
Maintenance.)

Social issues may also be a factor in determining the extent to which
you pursue an active design strategy. Many areas on the east coast of
Florida were impounded for mosquito control in the [1950s]{.mark} and
1960s. The need for mosquito management is still relevant today and
restoration of these impoundments must take this into account and often
incorporates water control devices and time-of-year operating plans.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617632 .anchor}Table 4c. Design strategies,
application, pros and cons

+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Design    | **Application**  | **Pros**         | **Cons**         |
| strategy**  |                  |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Culvert   | Useful in        | Typically less   | May clog with    |
| Placement** | situations where | expensive than a | organic debris;  |
|             | water flow has   | bridge for       | may clog with    |
|             | been restricted  | locations where  | oysters or       |
|             | but passage over | passage over the | fouling          |
|             | the flow point   | flow point is    | organisms;       |
|             | is still         | required; often  | undersized       |
|             | required (i.e.,  | an inexpensive   | culverts may     |
|             | roads, walking   | and highly       | restrict         |
|             | paths). Multiple | effective way to | adequate flow;   |
|             | culverts can be  | introduce or     | velocities of    |
|             | place            | enhance flow;    | flow through the |
|             | strategically    | easily           | restriction      |
|             | around the site  | installed; Some  | point may be     |
|             | or grouped       | municipalities   | detractant for   |
|             | together. For    | would have the   | fish passage;    |
|             | sites with       | in-house         | sometimes        |
|             | shallower water  | capability to    | fail/break if    |
|             | depths with the  | construct and    | exposed to heavy |
|             | goal of          | maintain this    | loads;           |
|             | re-establishing  | work without     | inevitable       |
|             | sheet flow,      | contracting.     | replacement with |
|             | multiple smaller |                  | associated costs |
|             | pipes are        |                  |                  |
|             | sometimes        |                  |                  |
|             | superior because |                  |                  |
|             | they better      |                  |                  |
|             | mimic sheet flow |                  |                  |
|             | characteristics. |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Culvert   | Typical in       | Same as above    | Same as above -- |
| R           | situations where |                  | if failure       |
| eplacement/ | earlier culvert  |                  | occurred         |
| repair**    | placement failed |                  | previously,      |
|             | due to breakage  |                  | carefully        |
|             | or inadequate    |                  | consider whether |
|             | size             |                  | this method is   |
|             |                  |                  | truly            |
|             |                  |                  | appropriate for  |
|             |                  |                  | the site         |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Bridge    | Useful in        | Typically        | Bridges capable  |
| placement** | situations where | designed to      | of relaying      |
|             | water flow has   | allow for higher | vehicles and     |
|             | been restricted  | volume of flow   | equipment are    |
|             | but passage over | through a given  | typically        |
|             | the flow point   | point since they | expensive,       |
|             | is still         | have less tidal  | requiring        |
|             | required (i.e.,  | height           | careful          |
|             | roads, walking   | restriction than | engineering and  |
|             | paths);          | a culvert. The   | construction     |
|             | Typically this   | water flow may   | techniques.      |
|             | method is used   | be less          | Bridge           |
|             | for only small   | restricted       | construction     |
|             | scale foot       | through a given  | would be         |
|             | bridges          | point, allowing  | infeasible for   |
|             | (inexpensive and | for lower        | most             |
|             | easily           | velocities and   | municipality     |
|             | engineered)-- or | increased        | in-house         |
|             | large scale      | fisheries        | capabilities;    |
|             | bridges. Medium  | access. Allow    | Long-term        |
|             | scale would      | for tidal        | maintenance      |
|             | likely use a     | exchange between | and/or           |
|             | culvert(s) --    | areas where a    | replacement      |
|             | since they are   | culvert or       | depending on     |
|             | less expensive   | multiple         | lifespan of      |
|             | and easier to    | culverts would   | materials.       |
|             | engineer than    | not be adequate. |                  |
|             | bridges.         |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Barrier   | Appropriate for  | Size of the      | Breach size must |
| Breach      | impounded areas  | breech can be    | be of adequate   |
| (i.e.,      | where foot or    | variable and not | size to prevent  |
| holes in    | vehicle passage  | likely driven by | scour. Design    |
| the         | is not required  | cost or material | should           |
| levee)**    | across the       | availability     | accommodate for  |
|             | impoundment edge | (such as         | potential scour  |
|             | (but might be    | culverts etc.);  | and              |
|             | required in some | long-term        | sedimentation    |
|             | locations around | maintenance is   | that would       |
|             | the site).       | much lower than  | affect the       |
|             | Multiple         | culverts or      | planned invert   |
|             | breaches may be  | bridges where    | of the breach.   |
|             | placed           | replacement      |                  |
|             | strategically    | would eventually |                  |
|             | around the       | be required.     |                  |
|             | impoundment.     |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Barrier   | Appropriate for  | No long-term     | More expensive   |
| removal     | impounded areas  | maintenance of   | than individual  |
| (           | where foot or    | the wall         | breeches of the  |
| degradation | vehicle passage  | required. Site   | wall due to      |
| of the      | is not required  | experiences      | handling of soil |
| entire      | around the site. | fully restored   | materials.       |
| levee       | Especially       | tidal flow.      | Equipment access |
| wall)**     | appropriate in   | Elevation in     | impacts may be   |
|             | locations where  | borrow areas is  | too excessive to |
|             | an earthen       | restored (or     | justify complete |
|             | impoundment was  | material can be  | removal.         |
|             | created using    | used to create   |                  |
|             | borrowed         | some             |                  |
|             | materials from   | transitional     |                  |
|             | the interior     | high             |                  |
|             | site. Refilling  | marsh/mosaic     |                  |
|             | those interior   | habitats)        |                  |
|             | borrow areas     |                  |                  |
|             | with the         |                  |                  |
|             | degraded levee   |                  |                  |
|             | wall will assist |                  |                  |
|             | in achieving     |                  |                  |
|             | elevation        |                  |                  |
|             | targets.         |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Water     | Included at      | Allows for tidal | Active           |
| control     | project sites    | flow and         | management plan  |
| structures  | where stricter   | fisheries access | is required that |
| (i.e., tide | management of    | during times of  | describes how    |
| gates and   | water levels is  | year when other  | and when the     |
| weirs)**    | required (i.e.,  | issues are not   | water control    |
|             | mosquito         | of concern.      | feature will be  |
|             | management,      | Something is     | operated and who |
|             | flood control,   | better than      | will be in       |
|             | migratory fowl   | nothing?         | charge of        |
|             | habitat) or      |                  | operation and    |
|             | seasonal impacts |                  | maintenance.     |
|             | require the      |                  | Water control    |
|             | complete control |                  | structures have  |
|             | of water regimes |                  | a shorter        |
|             | for salinity     |                  | lifespan (due to |
|             | water level,     |                  | the number of    |
|             | timing (seasonal |                  | moving parts and |
|             | objectives), or  |                  | sometimes the    |
|             | biological       |                  | automated        |
|             | controls are     |                  | features) than   |
|             | essential.       |                  | other options.   |
|             |                  |                  | Depending on the |
|             |                  |                  | management plan, |
|             |                  |                  | succession of    |
|             |                  |                  | biota within the |
|             |                  |                  | site may not     |
|             |                  |                  | closely mimic    |
|             |                  |                  | natural          |
|             |                  |                  | conditions and   |
|             |                  |                  | value as         |
|             |                  |                  | fisheries        |
|             |                  |                  | habitat may be   |
|             |                  |                  | compromised. Is  |
|             |                  |                  | size of the      |
|             |                  |                  | water control    |
|             |                  |                  | structures ever  |
|             |                  |                  | a problem in     |
|             |                  |                  | regards to       |
|             |                  |                  | fisheries        |
|             |                  |                  | access?          |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Tidal     | Used to          | Facilitates      | If not properly  |
| Creek       | facilitate water | fisheries access | designed, they   |
| Creation**  | flow to          | into the wetland | can fill in with |
|             | different points | site. Fish like  | sediment or      |
| **Tip: Use  | throughout the   | habitat edge!    | organic debris.  |
| the fewest  | site. Typically  | Facilitates      | Sheet flow       |
| necessary   | applicable to    | flood and ebb    | through a        |
| to          | tidal wetlands.  | flow into the    | wetland is also  |
| accomplish  | Size (width and  | site. Provides   | important so too |
| project     | depth) will      | avifaunal        | many tidal       |
| goals.**    | depend on the    | habitat as well. | creeks may       |
|             | overall size of  |                  | rapidly drain    |
|             | the site, the    |                  | the site.        |
|             | amount of water  |                  | Targeted         |
|             | being conveyed,  |                  | elevation and    |
|             | the tidal range  |                  | topography is    |
|             | at the location. |                  | critical to      |
|             |                  |                  | success.         |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Mosaic    | Typically        | Provides an      | Can complicate   |
| habitat     | applicable to    | ecosystem        | the design       |
| creation**  | larger tidal     | approach that    | process;         |
|             | wetlands sites   | allows for some  | Requires more    |
|             | where it would   | "natural         | careful          |
|             | be possible to   | adaptations" and | consideration of |
|             | create multiple  | potential        | short-term       |
|             | micro-habitats,  | adjustments in   | management to    |
|             | transition zones | relation to sea  | ensure that      |
|             | etc.             | level rise.      | invasive         |
|             |                  |                  | vegetation does  |
|             |                  |                  | not exploit some |
|             |                  |                  | areas.           |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Sediment  | Grading may be   | Sediment grading | Adding sediment  |
| grading     | required in      | is typically     | can be expensive |
| and/or      | sites where      | inexpensive. Can | due to handling  |
| elevation   | excess sediments | use an           | costs of         |
| al          | have been        | over-burden to   | materials and    |
| terations** | deposited        | create some      | quality soil may |
|             | leaving them at  | transitional     | not be easily    |
|             | elevations       | high marsh and   | identified.      |
|             | inappropriate    | upland areas.    | Also, the        |
|             | for wetland      |                  | organic content, |
|             | function; In     |                  | salinity of the  |
|             | impounded areas, |                  | source material  |
|             | it might         |                  | must be closely  |
|             | actually be      |                  | monitored to     |
|             | necessary to     |                  | ensure site      |
|             | supply           |                  | objectives.      |
|             | additional       |                  | Determining      |
|             | sediments given  |                  | elevations       |
|             | the fact that it |                  | appropriate to   |
|             | has been         |                  | support          |
|             | sediment starved |                  | objectives is    |
|             | for so long and  |                  | critical to      |
|             | now below the    |                  | project success. |
|             | elevation        |                  |                  |
|             | required to      |                  |                  |
|             | support wetland  |                  |                  |
|             | vegetation.      |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Ditch     | Used to          | Extremely cost   | Must closely     |
| filling or  | improve/enhance  | effective means  | model the        |
| plugging**  | wetland          | to rehydrate     | impounded areas  |
|             | hydrology in     | large areas.     | to ensure that   |
|             | areas that have  |                  | there will not   |
|             | been channelized |                  | be off-site      |
|             | to facilitate    |                  | impacts of       |
|             | drainage         |                  | standing/flood   |
|             | (typically for   |                  | waters to the    |
|             | agriculture and  |                  | adjacent         |
|             | mosquito         |                  | property owners  |
|             | control)         |                  | both directly    |
|             |                  |                  | and indirectly   |
|             |                  |                  | (creating        |
|             |                  |                  | wetland          |
|             |                  |                  | communities      |
|             |                  |                  | adjacent to      |
|             |                  |                  | property owners  |
|             |                  |                  | is also a        |
|             |                  |                  | concern).        |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

[\[Highlight Box\]]{.mark}

**Sea Level Rise (SLR)**

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that
SLR is occurring at the rate of \~3 mm/year (Citation). SLR will affect
the entire coast of the southeastern U.S., but impacts will be unique to
individual locations depending on factors such as topography and
sedimentation. Predicting relative sea level rise at any given location
is a complicated process requiring expert knowledge of sediment budgets,
elevation, bathymetry, land cover, and more. Some experts would argue,
and some agencies are requiring, that predictions about sea level rise
at individual locations play a role in conservation planning efforts.
While it may not be realistic to expect that all potential tidal
hydrology restoration projects will have data, models, and resources to
make such predictions, there are some effects of SLR that should be
anticipated for the majority of locations and incorporated into tidal
hydrology restoration design.

-   SLR will have secondary effects on the tidal ebb and flood cycles --
    higher highs and lower lows. Consider incorporating extreme edge
    elevations that are slightly higher and slightly lower than would be
    the appropriate target for today.

-   SLR of 3 mm/yr does not result in a linear (1:1) increase in the
    height of storm surge flooding (which is expected to be more
    frequent during warming conditions). Instead, there is an
    exponential increase in the height of storm surge floods with an
    increase in sea level. Projects should be considerate of the
    potential for more frequent and severe storm surge flooding --
    especially when private property and infrastructure lies adjacent to
    the project site. Private parties may increasingly resist tidal
    hydrology restoration if concerns about property protection are not
    incorporated into project design.

-   Relative SLR at a given location could exceed 3 mm/yr -- or the rate
    of SLR could increase in the future. When possible, especially for
    larger sites, incorporate a mosaic of habitats to allow for on-site
    habitat migration as a hedge against SLR. Incorporation of
    freshwater, upland, high marsh, and transition zones might allow the
    site to be more adaptable to changing conditions. This means you
    also need to be aware of surrounding land use conditions, such as
    expanses of impervious surfaces, that may inhibit habitat migration.

-   Given uncertainties regarding the relative rate of SLR at a given
    location, incorporate gradual slopes that will allow for shifts in
    the habitat mosaic.

-   Be cognizant of the fact that tidal hydrology restoration projects
    may not be prudent for every location. Breaking down coastal
    structural barriers inherently enhances tidal connectivity and
    potentially saltwater intrusion. This can pose a threat to coastal
    freshwater systems.

[\[Highlight box end\]]{.mark}

{Likely highlight box)

**Hydrology Models**

Hydrology modeling is a well-developed science and can add great insight
into the likely implications of alternative design strategies. Models
can assist in the evaluation of potential improvements in water quality
(i.e., DO, salinity) and habitat types associated with restoration
alternatives. However, it can be a complex process involving data
acquisition and numerical computer methods that require significant
scientific expertise.

*When is a model needed?* There are a number of reasons why the Project
Team may require a model to evaluate restoration design implications.

-   The higher the risk of project failure, the greater the need for a
    model. For instance if there is a significant risk that private
    property might flood with a flawed design -- and the evaluation of
    alternative design scenarios would decrease that potential -- then
    the need for a model increases. Relative risk of project failure may
    also be a cost consideration. Inexpensive projects that could be
    easily modified might not require the accurate predictions of a
    model while it might be prudent to rely on some accurate models for
    projects with high construction costs.

-   The more complex the tidal flow, the greater the need for a model to
    inform project design. Models facilitate sensitivity analysis
    related to basin morphology and forecasting related to flushing and
    tidal influence (Battelle 2003).

-   Permitting agencies often request modeling results in order to
    increase confidence in the likely outcomes and impacts associated
    with the project. Similarly, funding agencies may have more
    confidence in projects that provide modeled outputs.

*What are the likely data inputs needed to develop a model?*

-   The timescale of water pulsing events at your site. These might
    involve river switching (thousands of years); major river flooding
    (50-100 years); major storms (5-10 years); average river floods
    (annual); normal storm events (weekly), tidal periodicity (daily)

-   Bathymetry and topography

-   Typical rainfall, evaporation, runoff

-   Predicted or relative sea level rise -- accounting for sea level
    rise and subsidence, and whether older levees will need replacing.

*What types of models are most appropriate to your needs?* The type of
hydrological model to be developed will depend on the project scale,
size, and complexity. Before engaging modelers and expending precious
resources, be sure to know what answers you want from the model. In
other words, the project team should approach a modeler with the
specific answers that are needed and the modeler should be able to
determine the appropriate model. For instance, the team may need to know
the exact footprint of the area to be flooded, the depth of flooding,
and the resultant salinity regime. A project team that can describe the
outputs needed from the model will enable the modeler to develop the
tool most appropriate for the project. (You might find that a group
discussion is just as effective as a model.)

Though there are benefits to hydrological modeling -- for small or
simple projects, modeling activities might inflate costs associated with
design, funds that might be better applied to construction or
monitoring. The team should weigh these costs versus other uses of
limited resources. If modeling is a requirement for securing funding,
the team may want to discuss this issue with funding agency
representatives and explain how these types of requests can limit funds
available for other more important activities.

If a model is pursued, use the simplest, smallest scale model that is
appropriate and needed for the job. One-dimensional (1-D) and two
dimensional (2-D) models are likely adequate for most hydrology
restoration project types. One-dimensional models are least expensive,
easiest to use, and are best for small project areas. They incorporate
information such as the output of tidal boundary and elevation and the
input of the tide. However they often miss cross-stream conditions.
Two-dimensional models are good for lateral and over-marsh flow (inputs
of tide, freshwater flow, rainwater input, and evaporation). Information
on salt wedge/saltwater intrusion often necessitates the use of a 3D
model and requires a significant increase in data requirements to run.

Below are some points of consideration.

-   Use the simplest, smallest scale model that is appropriate and
    needed for the job.

-   Modeling may help the project team decide between alternative
    project designs.

-   Sometimes a group discussion may be just as useful as a model.

-   Project risk -- or a high cost of failure -- may dictate the use of
    modeling.

-   Expensive models may be precise, but they may not necessarily be
    accurate or useful.

-   Expensive models may be useful in a legal defense to show that all
    available resources were employed in the planning and design
    process.

-   Models can be invaluable in getting a project more easily through
    the permitting process, particularly running models for the 100-year
    floodplain.

-   At a minimum, the model must address all forcing functions. A
    literature review may help to inform the nature of forcing functions
    in your particular area.

-   A manager and the modeler must have good bathymetric and topographic
    data, otherwise the end product likely will not be useful.

-   Bulldozers don\'t always obey model outputs or design.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Though 1-D modeling has definite drawbacks, a 2-D model is more
expensive and difficult to produce, so the project manager should seek
several opinions before settling on an approach. The initial phase of
hydrodynamic modeling often will utilize a one-dimensional, transient
numerical model to evaluate changes in tidal exchange and water levels.
Further modeling efforts can be undertaken that will evaluate tidal
exchange, water levels, and water quality benefits associated with
primary restoration alternatives.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**[Design Highlight Project: Bahia Grande]{.underline}**

The Bahia Grande is an 11,000 acre complex of three estuarine basins
between Brownsville and Port Isabel in Cameron County, TX. Once a highly
productive shallow water system, in the 1930's it began a conversion
into a salty sand flat after tidal flow was cut off by massive spoil
banks left over from the dredging of the Brownsville ship channel. The
interruption of the natural hydrological connection caused a decline in
biological productivity of the tidal flats and loss of wildlife
dependent on this productivity. The Bahia Grande dried up and its
drifting sands were the source of numerous health and industrial
problems for nearby communities. After several decades, a partnership
was formed to re-flood the Bahia Grande and restore the health of its
ecological systems and its surrounding residents.

The project design process started by gathering information to
characterize the area. A wealth of baseline biological data was
collected to help facilitate the design and evaluation processes. With
known Native American settlement in the area, archaeologic studies were
conducted that had an eventual effect on project location. Perhaps most
relevant, a topographic survey was carried out that indicated most of
the Bahia Grande basin lies below mean sea level and could be inundated
with seawater during low tides. During high tides, storm surges or
periods of high rainfall, additional acreage would also receive tidal
flow.

With this information in hand, the project team adopted a passive
restoration strategy that involved creating a series of channels through
several barriers within the system, designed to take advantage of the
normal tidal regime in the area. The small construction footprint
provided a great impact to an extensive area for a relatively
inexpensive cost. To help create the most efficient design, a hydrologic
modeling study was conducted that examined the effects of channel design
and wind effects on water flow, circulation, and the mixing needed to
achieve biological productivity goals. Individual and multiple breaches
and channels at different locations were analyzed. An environmental
assessment was used to translate the outcomes of different design
scenarios determined by the hydrologic modeling.

The final design involved the construction of a 2400'-long main channel
that connects Bahia Grande to the source of tidal waters. Originally
constructed as a pilot channel at 60' wide and 9' below MSL, it will
eventually be widened to 210'. This channel was also designed so that
prevailing winds from the southeast can facilitate maximum inundation of
the basin by pushing tidal waters. In addition to this main channel,
additional channels were created to connect Bahia Grande to two adjacent
tidal basins; Laguna Larga (1,669 acres) and Little Laguna Madre (1,411
acres). These two smaller areas were also connected by a 5000' channel
to enhance circulation between the two basins. Other channels have been
proposed, but due to budgetary limitations and uncertainty surrounding
impacts, they have not been constructed to date.

Prior to construction of these channels, native plant nurseries were
established at multiple locations to provide plants that were utilized
by teams of volunteers to re-vegetate the project area. In XXXX, tidal
flow was restored to Bahia Grande, beginning the restoration of over
11,000 acres of estuarine habitat; one of the largest wetland
restoration projects in United States history.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409004 .anchor}Chapter 5: Permitting

Prior to construction, projects that have the potential to impact
existing physical and ecological conditions in the surrounding landscape
are often subject to regulatory review by Federal, state and local
agencies. Even beneficial barrier removal projects that increase tidal
circulation are required to undergo this process. Project teams should
consider cost and time for permitting when planning and implementing
tidal hydrology restoration projects. This chapter provides background
information and recommendations to help navigate this process. Specific
topics include:

-   General introduction to Federal legislation affecting tidal
    hydrologic restoration including the Clean Water Act, the Coastal
    Zone Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
    Endangered Species Act;

-   Coordination between state and federal agencies by issue; and

-   Considerations for successfully navigating the permitting process.

Additional permitting resources can be found in the manual Toolkit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409005 .anchor}An Introduction to Federal
Authorization

The permitting process is framed by federal legislation, and oversight
is provided at both the state and national level. One of the
complicating factors in the permitting process is there is not a
one-to-one relationship between permitting issues and legislation. For
example, issues dealing with wetlands (restoration, protection, or
impacts to) are dealt with across multiple federal and state
authorizations, and therefore regulated by multiple agencies. In order
to efficiently navigate the permitting process, one should be familiar
with the laws that dictate the process.

*Clean Water Act (CWA)***.** The CWA affords protection to surface
waters of the United States, with intent to reduce negative impacts to
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fisheries, wildlife, or
recreational areas created by various anthropogenic sources. The CWA
provides the legislative basis for tidal hydrology restoration,
particularly over the last ten years with an increased focus on
ecosystem approaches to protect healthy water bodies and restore
impaired systems. The CWA is administered jointly by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), with
the Corps issuing permits and EPA ensuring compliance. Additionally, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) have advisory roles because of their habitat
expertise. For more information on the CWA, contact the EPA or your
local Corps office.

*Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).* The CZMA provides for the
management and protection of resources in the coastal zone.
Specifically, the CZMA provides for the management of national coastal
resources in order to, "preserve, protect, develop and, where possible,
to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." The
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) is charged
with CZMA administration and, in conjunction with federal, state, and
local stakeholders, approved state coastal zone management programs to
facilitate the development of resource management plans. Section 307 of
CZMA requires that such tidal restoration activities be in compliance
with approved state coastal zone management programs. While this is
federally authorized, the implementation of CZMA differs broadly across
the states. For more information on how the CZMA is administered in your
state, contact your state's lead agency.

*National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.)* The NEPA requires agencies
to consider environmental impacts of proposed federal actions. The
analysis must include reasonable alternatives to the action. NEPA
analysis may include the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA)
to determine whether review under an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is required. EISs are required by Federal agencies for "federal
actions" which may have a significant impact on the environment.
("Federal actions" include federal activities related to a project such
as federal permitting, federal funding or direct federal
implementation.) An EIS documents existing conditions, proposed actions
and alternatives and the impacts which may result from implementation of
alternatives, including those on natural, cultural and historic
resources. EISs must go through public review and comment.. For more
information on NEPA, contact the EPA or your local Corps office.

*Endangered Species Act.* This ESA is intended to protect those species
threatened with extinction and the critical habitat upon which these
species rely. ESA is administered by the USFWS (freshwater and
terrestrial species) and NOAA (marine species). Species that migrate
between habitats or spend portions of their life cycle in water or on
land may be jointly administered. Section 7 of the ESA states that
agencies cannot authorize, fund or otherwise enable activities that
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For more information on
ESA, contact USFWS or NMFS.

**[Sidebar]{.mark} : The Role of the Army Corps of Engineers**

Any individual, firm, or agency engaged in an activity (including
restoration) that involves jurisdictional navigable waters or wetlands
must obtain a permit from the Corps and/or state regulatory agency.
Project teams should engage with a local Corps district office early and
a pre-application consultation is recommended to identify needed
permits. Corps coordination may also align a project with local,
regional, or ecosystem-level priorities. A general recommendation is to
allow three to four months to process permits. The Corps supplies
general permits for "minor" activities, but typically a range of
individual permits are required for barrier removal as part of a tidal
hydrology restoration project.

[\[Sidebar]{.mark} End\]

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409006 .anchor}Coordination between State and
Federal Agencies

The permitting process requires coordination between state and federal
agencies, as well as interaction between agencies and the permit
applicant. The complexities of this depend both on the permitting state
and issue. For example, hydrology restoration projects must comply with
the CZMA and this is certified through a "Coastal Zone Consistency
Determination", or CD. In North Carolina, a CD is granted through its
lead state agency (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), and
is explicitly communicated directly to the permittee. However, Coastal
Zone CD in Florida is part of separate certification process through
Florida's wetland permitting agency (not their lead Coastal Zone
Management agency) and therefore differs significantly from North
Carolina's process. It is crucial for the project team to understand how
their particular state functions with regard to these permitting issues.
Table 5a summarizes some example hydrology restoration projects in the
Southeast, and the permits they acquired.

Table 5a. Example Project Permitting Summary

+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Example   | *        | **State      | **ESA, NEPA | **Notes**     |
| Project**   | *Federal | Permitting** | issues**    |               |
|             | Perm     |              |             |               |
|             | itting** |              |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| North River |          | Coastal Area | None        | An Erosion    |
| Farms       |          | Management   |             | Control Plan  |
|             |          | Act permit   |             | was required  |
| (North      |          | (through     |             | through the   |
| Carolina)   |          | NC's         |             | DENR's Land   |
|             |          | Department   |             | Quality       |
|             |          | of           |             | division      |
|             |          | Environment  |             |               |
|             |          | and Natural  |             |               |
|             |          | Resources).  |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Sandpiper   | USACE    | SC's         | Project     | Restoration   |
| Pond,       | Section  | Department   | area once   | work may      |
| (South      | 404      | of Health    | contained   | support       |
| Carolina)   |          | and          | threatened  | r             |
|             |          | E            | species     | ecolonization |
|             |          | nvironmental | (seabeach   | of threatened |
|             |          | Control      | amaranth).  | species       |
|             |          | coordinated  |             |               |
|             |          | state        |             |               |
|             |          | permits      |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Wildcat     |          | FL's         |             | The           |
| Cove        |          | Standard     |             | permitting    |
| (Florida)   |          | General      |             | process only  |
|             |          | Permit--     |             | took 90 days  |
|             |          | -coordinated |             | due to        |
|             |          | all other    |             | familiarity   |
|             |          | permitting   |             | with          |
|             |          | needs.       |             | permitting    |
|             |          |              |             | staff         |
|             |          |              |             | (compared to  |
|             |          |              |             | a typical     |
|             |          |              |             | 6-month       |
|             |          |              |             | processing    |
|             |          |              |             | time)         |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Clam Bayou  | USACE    | FL's         | Manatee     | Designed      |
|             | Na       | Standard     | habitat     | permits to    |
| (Florida)   | tionwide | General      |             | provide       |
|             | Permit   | Permit       |             | movement for  |
|             | 27       |              |             | manatees      |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Don Pedro   | USACE    | Southwest    | None        | The SWFWMD    |
|             | Na       | Florida      |             | permit was    |
| (Florida)   | tionwide | Watershed    |             | submitted     |
|             | Permit   | Management   |             | with letter   |
|             | 27       | District     |             | for NWP 27    |
|             |          | required     |             | approval and  |
|             |          | significant  |             | the permit    |
|             |          | technical    |             | was issues    |
|             |          | and          |             | within days.  |
|             |          | engineering  |             |               |
|             |          | data         |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Fort DeSoto | USACE    | FL's         | Manatee     | Permit to     |
| (Florida)   | Na       | E            | habitat     | include "Stop |
|             | tionwide | nvironmental |             | Work" order   |
|             | Permit   | Resource     |             | with manatee  |
|             | 27       | Permit (ERP) |             | sitings.      |
|             |          | process      |             |               |
|             |          | coordinates  |             |               |
|             |          | state and    |             |               |
|             |          | USACE        |             |               |
|             |          | permits;     |             |               |
|             |          |              |             |               |
|             |          | SWFWMD       |             |               |
|             |          | permit       |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Hopedale,   | USACE    | Coastal Use  | None        |               |
| Louisiana   | Section  | and          |             |               |
|             | 404      |              |             |               |
|             |          | Water        |             |               |
|             |          | Quality      |             |               |
|             |          | permits      |             |               |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| Bahia       | USACE    | Ecological   | None        | The EA was    |
| Grande      | Na       | Assessment   |             | contracted    |
|             | tionwide | required due |             | out           |
| (Texas)     | Permit   | to           |             | externally    |
|             | 27       | ar           |             | (rather than  |
|             |          | chaeological |             | agency-led),  |
|             |          | issues       |             | which is      |
|             |          |              |             | recommended   |
|             |          |              |             | in order to   |
|             |          |              |             | save time     |
+-------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------------+

In general, the five major factors for consideration during permit
review include:

-   Community development (i.e., coastal zone compliance),

-   Water quality,

-   Threatened and endangered species,

-   Fish and wildlife, and

-   Wetlands

Coastal zone compliance and water quality issues are handled primarily
by the state regulatory agency; authorization related to threatened and
endangered species is handled by the federal regulatory agencies; and
authorization related to fish, wildlife, or wetlands is handled by both
state and federal regulators (See Figure xx).

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.739583333333333in"
height="5.219444444444444in"}

*Figure xx. Interagency Permitting Process Summary.* [Community
Development:]{.underline} The lead state agency provides Coastal Zone
Consistency Determination to the permittee, as well as to the Corps.
[Water Quality:]{.underline} The EPA is responsible for water quality
issues, but regulation has been delegated to the state. The state agency
provides water quality certification to the permittee (potentially along
with other certifications), as well as to the Corps. [Threatened and
Endangered Species:]{.underline} Primarily a federal issue, though there
are some state equivalents. USFWS and NOAA Fisheries work with the
Corps, who in turn works with the permittee. [Fish and Wildlife /
Wetlands:]{.underline} These issues are always part of the federal
authorization, but can also be part of the states' authority. Federal
agencies comment to the Corps, while each state packages the permits
differently through state resource agencies.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

**What is Nationwide Permit 27?**

Certain restoration actions may qualify for Corps Nationwide Permits
(NWP). These "umbrella" permits streamline the review process and are
defined for regionally specific actions. Utilization of a NWP allows
applicants to forgo many elements of the project-specific analysis as
the analysis process has already been completed during development of
the Nationwide Permit. Specifically, Nationwide Permit 27 covers
activities which result in "net increases in aquatic resource function
and services." There are multiple conditions that must be met for a
project to meet Nationwide 27 requirements. Even if a project meets
conditions specified under a NWP, pre-construction Corps coordination is
generally required.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409007 .anchor}Recommendations

Practitioners should be familiar with regional permits and Corps staff
as the process for securing permits varies by both jurisdiction and
project type. Multiple agencies may be involved in permit review, and
interactions between project teams and regulatory agencies are typical.
Because of these complexities, time and experience are needed to master
this stage of restoration planning.

Corps and State regulatory staff duties are often assigned based on
geographic areas or applicant type. It is recommended that project teams
coordinate early with regulatory staff in order to obtain appropriate
guidance with the permitting process. Establishing a local point of
contact within the regulatory agency may help with determining
appropriate level of permit application required and the recommended
process for completing the application. For instance, many regional
offices have permit applications and examples of completed applications
available on-line.

In general, it is important to build relationships with those who issue
permits. Restoration professionals have found that developing working
relationships with individuals within the permitting agencies eases the
overall process, reduces miscommunication, and has the potential to
increase efficiencies. Once contact has been made with a specific
individual for permitting purposes, the following should be considered:

-   Provide background information including a detailed project
    description and site location prior to any formal meetings

-   Site visits and face-to-face meetings should be planned far in
    advance.

-   Prepare visual aids such as Power Point presentations or digital
    maps to help communicate project details

-   Be prepared to discuss what types of permits are needed through
    their agency, and if other supplemental information is required

-   Provide electronic files when at all possible to ease
    transferability and review

Be aware that civility and patience go a long way. The process may
appear to be daunting, but one should keep in mind that establishing and
developing long-term professional regulatory contacts will help expedite
obtaining a specific permit and in future project development and
permitting.

A Joint Agency meeting may be recommended as an option to streamline the
communication between a project proponent and the many permitting
agencies. These meetings are often held monthly, or can often be
arranged by the Corps, and allow the details of a project to be vetted
by regulators before project plans are submitted for permits.

There are other variables involved in restoration planning that can be
considered early in project design to expedite permitting:

-   Include restoration projects within a larger Water Management Plan.
    Water Management Districts often have a favorable relationship with
    the Army Corps of Engineers, and associated restoration may permit
    more quickly

-   Align projects with larger regional efforts to increase level of
    support

-   Determine if there are easements, liens, covenants, water-rights
    issues, cultural resources, or other parcel aspects that may
    restrict site availability

-   Solicit public input and support early in project design to
    encourage timely permitting

-   Participate in inter-agency meetings that involve permitting
    processes and collective reviews of local or regional permit
    requests

-   Always include permitting in the design of a project

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409008 .anchor}Chapter 6: Construction and
Maintenance

Full project implementation involves construction preparation, actual
construction, and post-construction management. During the constructin
phase, the project team will carry out, complete, and maintain the tidal
hydrology restoration project. Referring back to project goals and
objective statements is important for keeping construction focused and
on track.

The following discussion of construction considerations focuses on:

-   Pre-construction considerations, including selecting a contractor,
    budgeting and cost analyses, scheduling and final plans;

-   Construction implementation including site preparation, removal or
    installation, and contingency planning; and

-   Post-construction management including "as built" monitoring and
    maintenance.

-   Construction Highlight Project: Sandpiper Pond, Murrels Inlet, South
    Carolina

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409009 .anchor}Pre-Construction Preparation

The pre-construction stage involves developing a budget and estimating
costs, developing a scope of work, selecting a contractor, scheduling
and finalizing construction plans.

*Budgeting and Estimating Costs*. The costs and methods of coastal
restoration projects can vary widely both within and between ecosystem
types and regional economies (Spurgeon 1998; Battelle 2003, 13). Costs
are a product of project location, size, time of year or day (because of
tidal regimes), site accessibility, on-site equipment needs, site
contaminants that may need to be addressed, the amount of earth that may
need to be moved, and the amount and type of plants that may need to be
planted. Given the site-specific nature of restoration, there is no
"cookbook" for restoration costs. However, there are some general tips
that might be useful when developing a budget.

-   Work closely with contractors to estimate costs. Discussions with a
    few contractors may at least provide some rough estimates.

-   Look at example projects. It may be helpful to start pricing the
    project based on rough estimates derived from other similar
    projects.

-   Leverage resources. Pooling resources and partnering with others may
    be the most cost effective approach to any project. In-kind
    contributions and resources can help defray the amount of cash
    required. However, having more partners also elevates the need for
    coordination and communication.

-   Plan for construction monitoring and contingencies (see later
    sections).

-   Be aware that estimated costs may differ from actual project costs
    becausee of uncertainties about site condition and implementation.

Project costs can be analyzed in several ways, including on the basis of
(Battelle, 2003, 13):

-   Costs per acre or stream mile;

-   Costs for specific restoration tasks;

-   Costs for construction stage;

-   Cost for restoration phase (e.g., design, construction, monitoring);

-   Costs for input (e.g., labor, equipment, materials);

-   Costs by funding source.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark} -- or an example embedded in the text:

Restoration practitioners along the Gulf coast have had unwelcomed
first-hand experience with unforeseeable cost increases due to weather.
The active hurricane seasons over the past several years have more than
double some materials costs. In addition, projects like Don Pedro in
South Florida had difficulty attracting competitive bids to the small
project, given the high demand for contracting services on much larger
and expensive projects due to the storms.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

When developing a budget, the project team should consider the specific
project needs and incorporate realistic expectations. While most
projects would benefit from incorporating a range of expertise including
highly qualified engineers and designer, modelers, expert consultants on
the permitting process, the best available technology and techniques,
full time staff, "paid" volunteers, communication and marketing
professionals, etc. -- the limited budget of most projects does not make
this a realistic expectation.

The following table includes potential budget line items common to tidal
hydrology restoration projects. For construction, costs may be itemized
by 1.) Labor and Equipment -- where the cost of labor is separated from
the cost of the equipment for any given activity; or 2.)Construction
activity - where the cost of the labor and equipment is included in an
overall cost of the activity (i.e. Excavation). Project teams should
consider which of these is critical and realistic to incorporate into
the project.

Table . Potential Budget Line Items

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Pre-Construction**    **Active Construction** **Post-Construction**

  Baseline data           Mobilization            As-built assessment/
  collection                                      survey

  Site Surveys            Materials (i.e.         Physical and biological
                          culvert, plants)        data collection

  Phase I or II           Labor (Heavy equipment  Grant administration/
  Environmental           operators, manual       report generation
  Assessment (survey for  labor, etc.)            
  potential contaminants)                         

  Modeling                Construction Activity   Maintenance
                          (i.e. clearing and      
                          grubbing, excavation)   

  Design-Engineering      Fuel                    

  Permits                 Traffic maintenance     Permit required report
                                                  generation

  Grant proposal          Turbidity barrier       Turbidity barrier
  drafting/ Grant         deployment              maintenance and removal
  Administration                                  

  Staff time (i.e.        Staff time (i.e.        Staff time (i.e.
  project team)           project team)           project team)

  Meeting Space -- for    Road demolition and     
  team and public         repair                  
  meetings                                        

  Communications/ Public  Independent oversight   Communications/ public
  relations staff         and inspection          relations staff

                          Contingency costs (i.e. Adaptive Management --
                          budget overruns,        (difficult to budget
                          unanticipated           for but should be
                          circumstances)          considered)

  Volunteer coordination/ Volunteer Coordination/ Volunteer coordination/
  education/ outreach     education/ outreach     education/ outreach
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

*Writing a Statement of Work (SOW).* The construction contractor will
require a clear SOW to detail the work plan and expectations for project
success. This will provide the basis on which contractors submit
construction proposals and bids. Include as much detail as possible in
the SOW and avoid change orders on contracts, if possible. Rachel
Sweeney, NOAA Fisheries Project Manager for the Hopedale Hydrologic
Restoration Project in Louisiana, provided this insight, "If you don\'t
ask for it in your SOW of work you're not going to get it. If you do ask
for it, you might get it \[but\] at least you have something \[to
support your demand\]." Be realistic about the logistics of how to get
the job done, including site access, equipment costs, dirt or pollutant
removal, incidentals, and challenges of working in an estuarine/brackish
environment with fluctuating tides . Below are some tips for writing a
SOW.

-   Provide a template of the project design for the contractor to work
    from. This can save time and reduce costs.

-   Request consultations with all parties involved at each stage of the
    process to limit confusion, redundancy, and unnecessary costs in the
    long run.

-   Request all of the projected expenses to be explicitly identified.
    Consider whether to request line item cost estimates versus lump sum
    bids, and consider per hour or a lump sum for labor costs.

-   Be explicit about the need for maintaining community partners.

-   Be explicit in the tasks expected of each partner, so the contractor
    does not budget for those tasks itself.

-   Describe the project goals and objectives.

-   Be willing to consider alternative potential techniques, design
    modifications, and construction methods posed by the contractor.
    Their previous experience could save time and money.

-   Utilize and reference example projects that are comparable in size
    and scope to your project.

-   Require all parties to visit the site - before bids are submitted,
    if possible. For agencies where contracting procedures do not allow
    for this, require site visits during cost negotiations.

*Selecting a Contractor*. Here are a few tips for selecting contractors
to perform the project construction:

-   Seek qualified site designers and engineers (academic and private
    consultants are good sources of information and advice). In some
    cases construction contractors may be more knowledgeable than
    consultants about the project location or needs.

-   Consider hiring companies that have biologists and engineers that
    already work together.

-   Hold pre-construction meetings on-site with potential contractors if
    possible; viewing the site allows contractors to prepare better bids
    and it may cut down on bid addendums later on. Site visits are
    especially prudent for non-local contractors.

-   For small-scale projects, it can be better to use local contractors
    because of their local knowledge; however, there may be a smaller
    pool of qualified contractors to select from locally.

-   Allow contractors to propose their own alternatives and techniques;
    they may have some innovative and cost-effective ideas.

-   Consider using non-traditional labor resources, such as local
    prison-work programs, to keep project costs down.

-   Restoration project practitioners do not recommend using marine
    contractors who specialize in building docks and bulkheads because
    they are not usually equipped to conduct restoration projects.

*Scheduling*. Biological, physical, engineering, funding, and legal
scheduling considerations are important to take into account for
constructing tidal hydrology restoration projects. The overall project
schedule will be largely determined by the availability of funding and
the procurement of required permits. Permitting requirements can
influence project scheduling because "in-water" construction may be
prohibited during certain seasons. Compliance with the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) , National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Manguson-Stevens Act (MSA), and other regulations considered in the
permitting process can dictate the timing of construction. To help with
this process, try to involve the permitting agency or agencies at these
initial stages of pre-construction; this way all parties are working in
tandem and schedules and requirements are understood. (See Chapter 5:
Permitting.)

When scheduling construction details, biological, physical, and
engineering considerations will be very important in tidal systems. For
example, breaching of a levee may need to be timed around low-tide.
Local circumstances can also impact scheduling. For instance, given the
fact that installation of the Clam Bayou Culvert under the access road
to Sanibel Island, FL would impact traffic flow, it was scheduled to be
completed during off-peak tourist season thereby minimizing traffic
congestion to the extent possible. Table 6a describes factors to
consider when scheduling construction of tidal hydrology restoration
projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617633 .anchor}Table 6a. Construction
Scheduling Considerations

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Scheduling            **Funding and           **Installation**
  Considerations**        Permitting**            

  Biological                                      Seed germination,
                                                  invasive species
                                                  removal...

  Physical                                        Tidal regime, water
                                                  flow and velocity,
                                                  erosion, weather
                                                  conditions....

  Engineering                                     

  Funding                                         

  Legal                                           

  Weather                                         Hurricane seasons,
                                                  wet/dry seasons

  Local circumstances                             Traffic volumes, local
                                                  events
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

*Construction Plans and Final Cost Planning*. After the site, design,
costing, and financing have been identified, the project plans still
need to be finalized before construction can begin. Most projects will
require construction plans, or field protocols, that incorporate final
costs and a schedule for project implementation. Standard procedure is
for contractors to develop formal construction plans and specifications
and then provide these to the project manager. But even at this point in
the process it is helpful to be flexible about the projected costs, as
construction plans evolve and pass back and forth between the project
team and contractors.

The construction plan includes written guidelines or protocols for field
crews to follow. At a minimum field protocols will include (IWWR 2003,
30):

-   Descriptions of site preparation needed;

-   Specifications and diagrams for all installation and construction
    features;

-   Descriptions of how to install features, such as culverts, plants,
    etc.;

-   Lists, amounts, and locations of all plant species, if applicable;

-   Plan to prevent construction impacts, such as erosion;

-   Plans for site maintenance during construction; and

-   Plans for monitoring key environmental features while construction
    is underway, such as tidal flow and velocity, water depth,
    groundwater swells, etc. to determine if any adjustments in
    construction need to be made.

Field protocols can be complicated, and for tidal hydrology restoration
projects, they typically require input from hydrologists, as well as
engineers, ecologists, and community leaders. Try to make the
construction plan as specific and intelligible as possible to avoid
confusion. Study the engineering drawings and specifications provided by
the contractors; by doing so the team can visualize the project and
understand the specifications and details relating to such factors as
water flow/velocity, elevation, slope, erosion protection, substrata
composition, and schedule. Have hydrologists and ecologists review the
engineering plans to make sure the structures and related functions are
consistent with scientific goals and objectives of the project. Be aware
of special engineering considerations, and seek out soft (non-hardened)
solutions if feasible.

[\[Highlight box\]]{.mark}

**How the Southwest Florida Water Management District approaches
contracting on coastal restoration projects.** The Southwest Florida
Water Management District's Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Program is a high-profile coastal habitat and saltwater marsh
restoration program in Florida. As a general practice, the SWIM Program
gives project specifications to the contractor, but it does not dictate
how construction should be undertaken. This allows for some creativity
on the contractor's part, which can be a potential cost savings if they
are utilizing designs and/or skills they already familiar with. The SWIM
Program has also learned that sometimes it is important to permit the
project separately from engaging the construction contractor, to ensure
that legal requirements and project objectives are covered.

[\[Highlight box end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409010 .anchor}Construction Implementation

Construction is the action of restoring the site, whether the aim is
habitat restoration, habitat enhancement, or outright creation of new
habitat. The construction phase is when volunteers often get involved
and this is when the public pays most attention. Construction activities
for tidal hydrology restoration often include actual physical
alterations, such as dike/dam/levee removal; grading; culvert
installation, cleanout, or removal; channel cleaning; erosion control;
and vegetation planting (Sheffler et al. 1995) (also Table 6b below).

The following advice on site and plant preparation and
removal/installation comes primarily from the Interagency Workgroup on
Wetland Restoration. For additional discussion of these stages see IWWG
2003.

*Plant Preparation.* In general, this stage involves identifying native
seed banks, collecting seeds, and propagating plants. Not all tidal
hydrology restoration projects will necessitate planting of vegetation,
so see the IWWG 2003 report for more information on this activity.

*Site Preparation.* At this stage, the goal is to prepare the site for
construction. Site preparation may involve: installing temporary tide
controls, removing and/or bringing in dirt, plugging or removing drains,
breeching levees, staging heavy equipment, preparing/installing erosion
control devices, clearing access to the site (e.g., brush removal), and
removing invasive species.

*Construction (Removal or Installation).* This is the earth-moving
phase. This phase includes constructing essential project components
such as water control and stabilization structures, soil gradations, and
habitat structures. New soil may be laid and vegetation planted. Such
disturbance can harm the ecosystem and should be limited in duration and
scale as much as possible. Try to reduce the footprint of activities by
controlling the number of people and pieces of equipment on-site.
Annette Nielsen, Florida Department of Environmental Protection project
manager for the Don Pedro Restoration Project, is careful to control the
footprint of activity by stipulating the types of equipment that may be
used on-site -- specifically in regards to tire type. She recommends
soft track and soft tires. Otherwise, "the damage done is often times
not worth the benefit of the project."

The **Project Design** chapter offers several examples of design
strategies for restoring tidal hydrology. The following table (Table 6b)
provides construction information relevant to each design strategy.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617634 .anchor}Table 6b. Construction
considerations for different Design Strategies

+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| **Design       | **Equipment    | **       | **Considerations**      |
| Strategy**     | Needed**       | Relative |                         |
|                |                | Cost**   |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Culvert (pipe) | Corrugated     | Ine      | Must conform to design  |
| placement      | metal and      | xpensive | specifications for      |
|                | pipes,         |          | invert elevation in     |
|                | drainage       |          | order to ensure desired |
|                | products,      |          | water flow. Consult     |
|                | construction   |          | with a hydrologic       |
|                | machinery.     |          | expert                  |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Culvert (box)  | Molds for      | Mo       | See above. Velocity of  |
| placement      | pouring on     | derately | flow and scour is both  |
|                | site or heavy  | e        | an ecological and       |
|                | equipment for  | xpensive | safety consideration.   |
|                | transport and  |          |                         |
|                | placement      |          |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Culvert        | Culvert        | Mo       |                         |
| replacement or | cleaning       | derately |                         |
| repair         | tools. Mesh    | e        |                         |
|                | benders and    | xpensive |                         |
|                | mesh           |          |                         |
|                | flatteners.    |          |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Bridge         | Cranes and     | E        |                         |
| placement      | hoists,        | xpensive |                         |
|                | concrete       |          |                         |
|                | pouring        |          |                         |
|                | stations       |          |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Barrier breach | Back-hoe/      | Ine      |                         |
| (i.e., holes   | excavator,     | xpensive |                         |
| in levee)      | dump truck     |          |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Barrier        | Back-hoes,     | E        | Soil excavation and     |
| removal        | excavator/     | xpensive | grading operations      |
| (entire)       | cranes, dump   |          | often contribute to     |
|                | truck          |          | urban runoff pollution. |
|                |                |          | By loosening large      |
|                |                |          | amounts of soil and     |
|                |                |          | sediment, earth-moving  |
|                |                |          | activities can cause    |
|                |                |          | sediment to flow into   |
|                |                |          | gutters, storm drains   |
|                |                |          | and the ocean.          |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Water control  | Gates          | ??       | Use the lowest          |
| structures     |                |          | maintenance water       |
| (i.e., tide    |                |          | control structures      |
| gates and      |                |          | possible. Seek          |
| weirs)         |                |          | structures that allow   |
|                |                |          | flexibility in use and  |
|                |                |          | are able to withstand   |
|                |                |          | extreme hydrological    |
|                |                |          | and climactic events,   |
|                |                |          | such as hurricanes      |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Tidal creek    | Trailers,      | E        | If the primary water    |
| creation       | bulldozer,     | xpensive | source is tidal or      |
|                | backhoe and    |          | groundwater, very       |
|                | gardening      |          | precise grading may be  |
|                | machines,      |          | needed because          |
|                |                |          | deviations of only      |
|                | dump truck     |          | inches can alter plant  |
|                |                |          | habitats.               |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Mosaic habitat | Rock check     | ??       |                         |
| creation       | dams. Inlet    |          |                         |
|                | protection     |          |                         |
|                | devices.       |          |                         |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Sediment       | Silt fences,   | Mo       | Reinstate proper        |
| grading and/or | straw bales,   | derately | substrate to water      |
| elevation      | compost berms  | e        | level elevations. If    |
| alterations    | or filter      | xpensive | substrate elevation is  |
|                | socks, and     |          | too low, allow natural  |
|                | sediment       |          | sedimentation to build  |
|                | control        |          | up the elevation (a     |
|                | basins.        |          | passive method), or     |
|                |                |          | import appropriate      |
|                |                |          | sediments/soils (an     |
|                |                |          | active method). Soils   |
|                |                |          | may come from upland    |
|                |                |          | sites, dredged sites    |
|                |                |          | (dredged material), or  |
|                |                |          | other wetlands. If the  |
|                |                |          | substrate elevation is  |
|                |                |          | too high, excavate to   |
|                |                |          | the required level.     |
|                |                |          | Shape and contour your  |
|                |                |          | site to re-establish    |
|                |                |          | the right relationship  |
|                |                |          | between the hydrology   |
|                |                |          | of the site and its     |
|                |                |          | topography.             |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Ditch filling  | Bulldozer      | Mo       | Organic soils may have  |
| or plugging    |                | derately | decomposed so that the  |
|                | Soil/earth.... | e        | elevation at the site   |
|                |                | xpensive | is lower than it used   |
|                |                |          | to be.                  |
+----------------+----------------+----------+-------------------------+

Vegetation planting is a common construction component which typically
follow any earth-moving construction operations. Below are some tips to
keep in mind.

-   Sand is a good substrate to use for building up vegetation because
    it is easier to manipulate during construction, to plant healthy
    vegetation, and to fertilize. With correct spacing, sand usage
    should generally result in a two-year grow-out to vegetate the site
    completely.

-   Generally, restoration experts agree that planted vegetation can
    transition from bare root sprigs in intertidal areas to three-gallon
    pots (or larger) in upland areas.

-   Most practitioners agree that at least three to five years of
    maintenance is required to combat non-native vegetation on a site.
    This may or may not be part of the construction contract agreement.

*Ensure Construction Quality*. There are numerous things a project team
can do to ensure the quality of construction. Restoration experts offer
the following advice:

-   Independent oversight is a critical process to ensure quality
    construction. Hold weekly construction oversight meetings and
    specifically include input from the construction manager and design
    and planning teams. Create agendas for the project meetings, conduct
    site visits, and take notes to keep a careful record. The Hopedale
    Hydrology Restoration Project in Louisiana budgeted approximately 10
    percent of the total project costs for on-site, independent
    oversight and inspection activities.

-   Seek permits for the project separately from the contracting
    process, so as to reduce costs and ensure that project requirements
    and objectives are met.

-   Do not implement changes to the construction plan without thorough
    evaluation by the planning and design team.

-   Make use of local knowledge about the site and about hydrologic
    conditions, especially if working with non-local contractors. This
    will help to ensure that the construction is in-line with local
    customs and values, at least as much as possible.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

The Tarpon Bay Hydrology Restoration Project encountered many challenges
during the construction phase. In addition to requiring constant
oversight for safety and daily site maintenance, the contractor also
attempted to use equipment that was not nearly robust enough to
accomplish the work. In the end, a new contractor was selected to
complete the project.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

*When Construction Does Not Go as Planned. Restoration experts know that
construction does not always go as planned and offer the following
advice.*

-   Have a contingency plan, including identifying when to "cut your
    losses," and modify the contingency plan if necessary throughout the
    project.

-   Engage the design experts throughout the entire project.

-   Communicate with persistence, even when the project team members,
    contractors, or stakeholders are reticent. Try to help team members
    translate their fields of expertise to others: for example,
    biologists need to understand how construction equipment works, and
    engineers need to understand the ecology of the site. Good
    communication is critical to success!

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409011 .anchor}Post-Construction Management

Post-construction management includes maintenance and monitoring of the
construction. These are critical activities to the project's value over
time, especially for tidal hydrology restoration projects when
engineered structures are involved. Because of its importance,
post-construction management and maintenance should be budgeted from the
outset of the project, along with funds for corrective action. Projects
completed under the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA) follow this strategy. For instance, a budget of \$500K was
budgeted and set aside prior to construction for the Hopedale Hydrology
Restoration Project for all project monitoring and maintenance for a 20
year period. The following recommendations comes primarily from the
Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration (refer to IWWG 2003 for
more details).

*Construction Monitoring.* The project manager will want to monitor if
the construction is progressing as planned, ensuring that the project is
built according to the plans. The "as-built" survey is conducted
immediately following construction, including data on the physical
structure, elevation, soil type, and other relevant parameters. It
should be closely compared to the design (goal and objectives) and
construction specifications. In fact, many project managers suggest
having an independent contractor complete the post-construction
evaluation in order to ensure compliance with the design. Be realistic
about expectations, but if there are major problems with the final
results, have the contractor make corrections if it is within the
contract agreement or otherwise cost effective to include additional
work to the contract . Use the as-built assessment as a baseline for
monitoring and evaluation needs (see **Chapter 7: Scientific Evaluation
and Monitoring**).

*Construction Maintenance*. Maintenance of a tidal hydrology restoration
site involves repairing structures, replacing plants (if planting was
part of the original project), eliminating invasive species if they
appear, controling herbivores and other predators, and more. Since the
physical structure that resulted from construction should be monitored
and maintained long-term, it is likely that local entities will be the
most effective at administering long-term maintenance.

**Construction Highlight Project: Sandpiper Pond, Murrels Inlet, SC**

Sandpiper Pond at Huntington Beach State Park in Murrells Inlet, SC is a
thriving coastal wetland system that depends on tidal flushing and
circulation from a short inlet that meanders through coastal dunes and
connects to the Atlantic Ocean. In 1989, after years of increased
sedimentation along the coast caused by the construction of a nearby
jetty and the powerful storm surge associated with Hurricane Hugo, the
inlet was blocked. The lack of tidal circulation resulted in lower
salinity levels, an influx of invasive plants, and a series of major
fish kills.

In an effort to restore the health of the pond, the Friends of
Huntington Beach State Park, along with Park officials sought to breach
the newly formed dunes and reintroduce tidal flushing to the system. In
order to mimic original conditions and maintain a natural appearance to
the dune system, detailed engineering plans with specific elevations
were created that called strictly for the movement of sand only. Unlike
many tidal hydrology projects, no hard structures, culverts, or armoring
were used to convey tidal waters.

Prior to construction, volunteers removed and transplanted vegetation
from the project area. Shortly after, two rented bulldozers operated by
park employees over a one week period, helped to create a 40 ft wide
swath through the sand. Volunteers with engineering expertise closely
monitored elevations, and the final stages of earthwork was timed to
coincide with low tides. Now after several years of tidal flows into
Sandpiper Pond, salinity levels have increased and estuarine species
such as *Spartina*, sheepshead and blue crab have returned.

The tradeoff for this simple, low-impact construction technique lies in
the need for intensive on-going maintenance. With the constant accretion
of sand and the shifting dynamics of the dune system, Sandpiper Pond
requires maintenance that is now specified in Park management plans.
Annually, the Park must rent bulldozers and staff time must be allotted
for clearing the inlet. As stipulated in the project permit, this work
must be completed in April before turtle nesting season.

Through the many years of experience acquired by the inlet maintenance
staff, construction techniques have continued to become more effective
and efficient. Originally, the created inlet was a straight channel
built at a right angle. Over time, the channel has meandered, forming an
indirect route to the pond. During annual maintenance, construction
crews work with this naturally defined course. Crews have also learned
that sands excavated out of the channel must be graded at an angle less
than was previously thought. Perhaps as a benefit from the constant
attention required to maintain Sandpiper Pond, a high degree of
familiarity now exists between project proponents. Years after the
initial breach the project team recognized an opportunity to further
enhance the project by installing a culvert under a road on the opposite
side of the tidal inlet. This has allowed for even greater increases in
tidal flushing and circulation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409012 .anchor}Chapter 7: Scientific Evaluation
and Monitoring

Scientific monitoring is the systematic collection of data that provides
information on changes that can indicate problems and/or progress toward
achieving goals and objectives (NOAA Wetland Guide). Monitoring requires
the measure of certain habitat attributes or physical parameters at
regular intervals before and after restoration project implementation.
This record of habitat changes, along with comparison to a reference
condition, will indicate if objectives are being met.

Monitoring and project evaluation are important components of systematic
project management. Too often a monitoring plan is not developed in
concert with the goals and objectives of the restoration project,
becoming an exercise in data collection rather than an evaluation of
project effectiveness at achieving goals and objectives (See **Chapter
2: Project Planning** for more info on goals and objectives). This
section will provide:

-   General introduction to the issues of monitoring and scientific
    evaluation;

-   Discussion of what and how to monitor;

-   Discussion of where and when to monitor;

-   Guidelines for how to determine restoration effectiveness, including
    how to choose reference sites and how to determine the "footprint"
    of the project;

-   Possibilities for how a practitioner can contribute to furthering
    the science and understanding of restoration; and

-   Scientific Evaluation Highlight Project: Fort DeSoto, Pinellas
    County, Florida

    Additional monitoring tools can be found in the manual Toolkit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409013 .anchor}Background and Reasons for
Monitoring

Reasons for implementing scientific monitoring plans have been detailed
in numerous publications and include:

-   *Evaluation of project effectiveness*. It is important that specific
    parameters are measured to evaluate progress toward the project
    goals and objectives. Often public support and agency funding depend
    on the success of project goals and objectives.

-   *Maintenance.* Typical maintenance includes invasive species
    removal, turbidity curtain positioning, floating debris removal,
    signage, and fence maintenance.

-   *Adaptive management*. Monitoring allows the practitioner to observe
    the project evolution carefully and, when needed, to employ adaptive
    management practices. Typical mid-course corrections for tidal
    hydrology projects might include tidal creek channel modification,
    re-seeding or planting, grading, plugging ditches, or even planning
    for future construction of additional tidal exchanges.

-   *Enhancement of science and management understanding.* Data are
    needed to improve our understanding of the effects of restrictions
    and restoration. Information from specific sites and syntheses of
    hydrologic management at many sites can aid future restoration
    efforts. Practitioners learn from past projects -- both the success
    and failures.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Quote from Tom Cuba, Delta Seven, Inc.: "Monitoring is an investment in
the future on the next project - it is not a report card on the current
project."

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409014 .anchor}What and How to Monitor

A monitoring plan should be developed concurrently with the design and
construction plans. It should flow directly from the goals and
objectives of the project by identifying key measurable parameters that
will indicate whether those goals and objectives have been achieved.
There are numerous scientific parameters that can be measured to examine
the ways a tidal system might change following restoration actions.
These include:

-   **Fauna** (e.g., community composition, diversity, density,
    presence/absence, biomass, size/age frequency, secondary production,
    etc.);

-   **Water quality** (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients,
    temperature, etc.);

-   **Tidal flooding patterns** (e.g., extent, tide height, tidal prism,
    periodicity, water velocity, etc.);

-   **Soils** (e.g., redox, pore water salinity and sulfides, organic
    content, etc.);

-   **Native vegetation** (e.g., community composition, percent cover,
    stem density, underground/above ground biomass, C/N ratios, primary
    production, etc.);

-   **Invasive vegetation** (e.g., presence/absence, percent cover, \#
    seeding, stem density, ratio of native to invasive cover, etc.); and
    many more.

The goal of a scientific evaluation plan is to select the key parameters
and create a sampling strategy that will provide the most reliable and
useful data to indicate effectiveness in reaching the project
objectives.

There are four core categories of scientific monitoring parameters that
are applicable for almost all tidal hydrology restoration projects.
These include: **hydrology, vegetation, soil, and nekton**. These four
parameters are very broad in nature, and therefore more specific
components of each are needed for a particular project. The table below
includes more information on parameters and specific techniques.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210617635 .anchor}**Table 7a. Core parameters with
recommendations for monitoring specific characteristics.** (Some
information reproduced here from IWWG 2003 Appendix)

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Core      |             |             |             |             |
| Parameter:  |             |             |             |             |
| Hydrology** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Chara     | *           | **          | **Q         | **          |
| cteristic** | *As-Built** | Qualitative | uantitative | Frequency** |
|             |             | Method**    | Method**    |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Water depth | above       | record      | above       | One series  |
|             | ground: use | o           | ground: use | of neap &   |
|             | staff       | bservations | automatic   | spring      |
|             | gauge;      | of          | water level | tides       |
|             |             | highwater   | gauge;      |             |
|             | below       | marks,      |             |             |
|             | ground: use | drift       | below       |             |
|             | shallow     | lines, etc. | ground: use |             |
|             | well        |             | shallow     |             |
|             | (slotted    |             | well with   |             |
|             | PVC pipe)   |             | automatic   |             |
|             |             |             | recorder    |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flow        | direct      | direct      |             | Once,       |
| pattern     | observation | observation |             | incoming &  |
|             | to indicate | to indicate |             | outgoing    |
|             | major       | major       |             | spring tide |
|             | pathways    | pathways    |             |             |
|             | and         | and         |             |             |
|             | channels on | channels on |             |             |
|             | map         | map         |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flow rate   | measure     | estimate as | measure     | Once,       |
|             | inflow or   | high or low | inflow or   | incoming &  |
|             | outflow     | based on    | outflow     | outgoing    |
|             | with flumes | visual      | with flumes | spring tide |
|             | or weirs,   | observation | or weirs,   |             |
|             | measure     | and         | measure     |             |
|             | interior    | compared to | interior    |             |
|             | flow with   | other       | flow with   |             |
|             | current     | nearby      | current     |             |
|             | meters      | sites       | meters      |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Tidal       | GPS edge at | Walk edge & | GPS edge at | Once,       |
| flooding    | spring high | mark on map | spring high | highest     |
| extent      | tide        |             | tide        | daytime     |
|             |             |             |             | spring tide |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Tidal Prism | Combine     |             | Combine     | Every 5 yrs |
| (volume)    | site survey |             | site survey |             |
|             | and water   |             | and water   |             |
|             | height to   |             | height to   |             |
|             | calculate   |             | calculate   |             |
|             | prism       |             | prism       |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Core      |             |             |             |             |
| Parameter:  |             |             |             |             |
| Vegetation  |             |             |             |             |
| (Native and |             |             |             |             |
| No          |             |             |             |             |
| n-native)** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Community   | Map         | identify    | identify    | Anually at  |
| composition | planting    | common      | all         | peak        |
|             | areas and   | species and | species;    |             |
|             | measure     | map         | map         |             |
|             | density     | dominant    | dominant    |             |
|             |             | community   | communities |             |
|             |             | types; note |             |             |
|             |             | invasive    |             |             |
|             |             | species &   |             |             |
|             |             | vigor       |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Coverage    | estimate %  |             | collect %   | Annually at |
|             | cover       |             | cover along | peak        |
|             |             |             | permanent   |             |
|             |             |             | transects   |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| S           | Number and  | visually    | count       | Annually at |
| urvivorship | type of     | estimate %  | plants and  | peak        |
|             | vegetation  | of plants   | determine % |             |
| (when       | planted     | alive       | of plants   |             |
| native      |             |             | alive       |             |
| planting    |             |             |             |             |
| part of     |             |             |             |             |
| design)     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Height      |             | Estimate    | measure     | Annually at |
|             |             | heights of  | heights of  | peak        |
|             |             | plants      | plants      |             |
|             |             | compared to |             |             |
|             |             | last year's |             |             |
|             |             | height      |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| R           | N/A         | Estimate %  | determine % | Annually at |
| eproduction |             | of dominant | of plants   | peak        |
|             |             | plants      | flowering / |             |
|             |             | flowering / | seeding by  |             |
|             |             | seeding     | species in  |             |
|             |             |             | plots       |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Core      |             |             |             |             |
| Parameter:  |             |             |             |             |
| Soils**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Soil        |             | taste       | Hand held   | 6 times in  |
| salinity    |             |             | re          | growing     |
|             |             |             | fractometer | season: 3   |
|             |             |             | at          | spring & 3  |
|             |             |             | established | neap tides  |
|             |             |             | stations    |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Soil depth  |             | dig to      | take soil   |             |
|             |             | compacted   | core to at  |             |
|             |             | soil or at  | least 18    |             |
|             |             | least 18    | inches      |             |
|             |             | inches,     | deep;       |             |
|             |             | observe     | analyze the |             |
|             |             | changes in  | soil        |             |
|             |             | soil color  | horizons    |             |
|             |             | and         | and         |             |
|             |             | structure   | composition |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Soil color  |             |             | use Munsell |             |
|             |             |             | color chart |             |
|             |             |             | to          |             |
|             |             |             | determine   |             |
|             |             |             | color of    |             |
|             |             |             | matrix (the |             |
|             |             |             | dominant    |             |
|             |             |             | color) and  |             |
|             |             |             | any mottles |             |
|             |             |             | or streaks  |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Soil        |             | use soil    | particle    | Every 5     |
| texture     |             | texture     | size        | years       |
|             |             | triangle to | analysis of |             |
|             |             | classify    | the         |             |
|             |             | based on    | different   |             |
|             |             | feel        | soil        |             |
|             |             | (Horner and | horizons    |             |
|             |             | Raedeke,    |             |             |
|             |             | 1989)       |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Organic     | Soil        |             | Soil        | Every 5     |
| matter      | moisture &  |             | moisture &  | years       |
|             | organic     |             | organic     |             |
|             | matter in   |             | matter in   |             |
|             | top layer   |             | top layer   |             |
|             | at stations |             | at stations |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Se          |             | Establish   | survey      | Survey: 5   |
| dimentation |             | pre-marked  | topography; | years; SET: |
|             |             | elevation   | SET with    | Annually    |
|             |             | stakes at   | marker      |             |
|             |             | critical    | horizons    |             |
|             |             | points      |             |             |
|             |             | across site |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Core      |             |             |             |             |
| Parameter:  |             |             |             |             |
| Nekton**    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Species     |             | Seine       | Use purse   | Annually    |
| diversity   |             | and/or trap | seines,     | (based on   |
| and/or      |             | fish to     | combination | seasonality |
| relative    |             | determine   | seine and   | of target   |
| abundance   |             | presence/   | block nets, | species),   |
|             |             | absence and | pop nets,   | with        |
| Note:       |             | relative    | throw       | efforts     |
| relative    |             | abundance;  | traps;      | during the  |
| abundance   |             | identify    | count and   | primary     |
| can only be |             | species     | identify    | support     |
| compared    |             |             | all species | season(s)   |
| for samples |             |             |             |             |
| collected   |             |             |             |             |
| using same  |             |             |             |             |
| gear        |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Density or  |             |             | Use purse   | Annually    |
| abundance   |             |             | seines,     | (based on   |
| (#/m^2^)    |             |             | combination | seasonality |
|             |             |             | of seine    | of target   |
|             |             |             | and block   | species),   |
|             |             |             | nets, pop   | with        |
|             |             |             | nets, throw | efforts     |
|             |             |             | traps or    | during the  |
|             |             |             | other       | primary     |
|             |             |             | enclosure   | support     |
|             |             |             | gear to     | season(s)   |
|             |             |             | determine   |             |
|             |             |             | density by  |             |
|             |             |             | species     |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Species     |             |             | mark and    | Annually    |
| s           |             |             | recapture   | (based on   |
| urvivorship |             |             | study       | seasonality |
|             |             |             |             | of target   |
|             |             |             |             | species and |
|             |             |             |             | potentially |
|             |             |             |             | less        |
|             |             |             |             | frequently  |
|             |             |             |             | through     |
|             |             |             |             | time        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Growth?     |             |             | Otolith     |             |
|             |             |             | analysis,   |             |
|             |             |             | Field       |             |
|             |             |             | growth      |             |
|             |             |             | experiments |             |
|             |             |             | (e.g.,      |             |
|             |             |             | Stunz et    |             |
|             |             |             | al. 2002)   |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Secondary   |             |             | Use         |             |
| Production? |             |             | density,    |             |
|             |             |             | growth, and |             |
|             |             |             | s           |             |
|             |             |             | urvivorship |             |
|             |             |             | data with   |             |
|             |             |             | production  |             |
|             |             |             | model       |             |
|             |             |             | (e.g., Roth |             |
|             |             |             | et al.      |             |
|             |             |             | 2008)       |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Size        |             |             | Use variety |             |
|             |             |             | of          |             |
|             |             |             | q           |             |
|             |             |             | uantitative |             |
|             |             |             | gear to     |             |
|             |             |             | sample most |             |
|             |             |             | common fish |             |
|             |             |             | / measure   |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

*Setting Target Values.* Once specific parameters have been selected,
target values should be set that relate back to each project objective.
For example, a project objective might be to restore wetland vegetation
to that of an undisturbed wetland system. A specific parameter to
measure would be percent of cover of native marsh vegetation, and the
target value might be 80 percent. In most cases, a target can be derived
from monitoring of a nearby reference site (ideally an undisturbed
wetland system, for example). Keep in mind that data collected from the
reference site allows you to set pre-construction targets -- but
continuing to monitor the reference site after construction may yield
data suggesting that your targets should be adjusted.

Other methods for setting targets exist including literature review and
information collected from similar restoration projects completed in the
past. Be aware, however, that methods used previously to collect data
from earlier restoration sites may not provide appropriate comparison to
more current data collection methods. Data collection from nearby
references sites is the preferred approach.

In ecological systems, it is not always reasonable to achieve target
restoration values (based on pristine conditions) at the project site
during the monitoring period. Almost certainly, restoration to this high
threshold will not be achieved during the time allowed for monitoring
and reporting to funding agencies. Instead, it might be more reasonable
and beneficial to chart the project's trajectory toward these targets
and perhaps set some intermediate targets, also know as success criteria
or performance standards. For example, while a reference marsh might
have 80 percent cover of marsh vegetation, it might not be reasonable
for the project site to reach this high threshold in one to two years of
monitoring required for a specific funding agency. In this case, an
intermediate target of 40 percent cover after two years may be an
appropriate.

*Relying on Reference Sites.* Typically, a reference site represents the
"ideal" undisturbed habitat and has characteristics similar to the goals
and targets of the restoration project. The reference site retains
characteristics the restoration site is designed to recapitulate. For
project evaluation purposes, the restoration site is compared with the
reference site(s) with the goal of increasing similarity over time.
Reference sites provide information about the natural range of values
for the parameters used in the monitoring program and show the annual
variation in these parameters.

Tips for selecting reference sites:

-   For wetland tidal hydrology restoration projects, it might be
    appropriate to select both \"up estuary\" and \"down estuary\"
    reference sites -- aiding in better comparison of more saline down
    estuary or more freshwater up estuary conditions.

-   In addition to the undisturbed reference site, consider including a
    reference site that represents the impaired condition of the
    project. For instance, consider an adjacent impounded wetland that
    has not yet been restored to serve as somewhat of a baseline
    condition over time. This site can show how much the restored
    habitat has changed, which might be especially important if no
    pre-restoration data can be collected.

-   Reference sites should be close in time and space and have as many
    similar characteristics to the disturbed (to-be-restored) habitat as
    possible.

Note: The monitoring plan should incorporate data collection at the
reference site for as long as possible both before (minimum one year)
and after project construction (minimum five years) to understand the
variations of habitat and tidal flow.

Of course, ideal circumstances rarely occur and practitioners must seek
out suitable surrogates for pristine habitat reference conditions. To
this end, consider the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(NERRS) http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/. NERRS sites have on-going monitoring
programs (especially focused on water quality), and since NERRs sites
are relatively undisturbed these programs provide data meant to be
indicative of "pristine" conditions. These sites are in every coastal
state (including the Great Lakes), except Louisiana. The Eden Landing
Hydrology Restoration Project, part of the South Bay Salt Ponds Project,
is utilizing China Camp (a portion of the San Francisco Bay NERR) as a
reference site. Examination of the data available at NERRS (or from
other reference sites) may help a practitioner select the parameters to
include in a monitoring plan.

**Qualitative and Quantitative Data**

Time and budget constraints generally do not allow every aspect of a
project to benefit from quantitative data collection. However, visual
observation and qualitative data collection can be informative. Neither
quantitative nor qualitative data alone can provide the whole picture of
how the site conditions at a restored site are evolving to match the
target design objectives.

Suggested qualitative information includes (IWWG 2003):

-   Aerial photographs to show general hydrology, evidence of
    channelization and the extent of the site covered by plants;

-   Ground-level photographs (preferably photo stations) for
    identification of some plant species, general degree of plant
    growth, general water levels; and

-   General observations such as water clarity, floating vegetation or
    macroalgae, presence of trash, evidence of human use, bird species
    present, vegetation condition (stressed, flowering, healthy),
    presence of invasive plants, evidence of erosion, and the integrity
    of structures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409015 .anchor}Principal Monitoring Periods

There are three principal periods of effective project monitoring and
evaluation: baseline ecological conditions, the as-built assessment
following construction, and scientific monitoring of the ecosystem
response to barrier removal.

*Baseline Assessment.* The first period is often termed pre-restoration
monitoring and establishes the conditions prior to construction work. It
provides the baseline to which all future data can be compared. Ideally,
baseline data are collected under a range of conditions over a long
period of time -- at least one year of pre-construction data is critical
at both project and reference sites.

*"As-Built" Assessment.* The second period, the as-built assessment,
requires that the team survey and record the actual construction result
and then compare that result to the design and construction plans. For
tidal hydrology restoration, those plans and the as-built assessment
will likely include information on the openings for water flow (types,
numbers, size, invert elevation), velocities of flow across a tidal
range, duration and frequency of inundation, and (if constructed or
altered) the width, depth and number of tidal channels. For projects
with plantings or invasive species control, assessment would include
planting density, invasive species remaining, or other measurable
outcomes. If the as-built characteristics do not meet the expectation of
the design, then corrections may be possible early in the monitoring
phase. The project team should continue to monitor these construction
characteristics to determine if corrections are needed in the future.
For more information on construction monitoring, see **Chapter 6:
Construction and Maintenance**.

*Scientific Monitoring/ Evaluation.* The third period of monitoring
entails assessing those parameters that would indicate if a site can
sustain key ecological and biological functions. This stage generally
uses the same methods and tracks the same parameters as baseline
monitoring and as-built assessments. This period helps to answer
questions about changes in water quality, fish assemblage and biomass,
soil characteristics, sedimentation processes and vegetation composition
and coverage. In reality, the three periods of monitoring go
hand-in-hand. Ideally, the scientific monitoring stage will be carried
out for several years following construction (five years or more) and
will collect data under a range of environmental conditions. This
long-term monitoring allows for the most robust comparison to the
baseline and as-built data and also follows the evolution of the site
through time. Because budgets are often limiting, decisions must be made
carefully about which parameters to measure, the intensity of
measurements, and how long the monitoring should continue.

Considerations for developing scientific evaluation plans

Monitoring strategies will be developed for all three principal phases
of monitoring. However, developing a plan for the scientific evaluation
phase will take the most time and consideration. Below are some tips for
developing effective strategies for short-term and long-term monitoring,
frequency and duration of monitoring, and determining the "footprint",
or area of impact, of the restoration project.

*Short-term monitoring.* Monitoring for short-term indicators of
effectiveness allows the project team to employ adaptive management
based on actual changes being observed. Monitoring the hydrology of a
restored site can be especially useful in the short-term and can be used
to verify site changes caused by water velocity and the spatial extent
of tidal inundation. Vegetation is also an effective parameter to
include in a short-term monitoring strategy -- especially to ensure that
invasive vegetation is removed. Both parameters may require more
frequent data collection in the initial weeks and months after
construction than is planned for the duration of the monitoring plan. It
may be helpful to consider the short-term plan as a more intensive
monitoring period nested within the larger monitoring plan.

*Long-term monitoring*. The long-term monitoring plan will include the
full monitoring strategy -- from pre-construction data collection to
some time after construction (ideally twenty years). Long-term
monitoring will require data collection at given intervals or times of
year most appropriate for each parameter. Vegetation and faunal
community composition, as well as soil characteristics, can take several
years to begin to resemble natural site conditions, and monitoring these
characteristics may be most appropriate for a long-term strategy.

*Frequency and Duration.* Natural variability, the rate of change of the
site, and the goals of the project determine how often and how long to
monitor. Whereas some parameters might be monitored several times
throughout each year, others might be monitored once every five years.
Hydrologic parameters would ideally be monitored during maximum and
minimum flood and ebb tides, but need not be measured each year. Nekton
would be monitored each year during different seasons. If funds are
inadequate for more frequent monitoring, then most parameters should be
monitored at least once a year: vegetation during the growing season and
animals during breeding, nesting, and/or migration seasons. With regard
to hydrology, consider using a stationary data logger that can record
information over a given period of time with relatively low labor
requirements. As changes in sedimentary characteristics are often slower
to change than other parameters, it is reasonable to monitor on a less
frequent basis (every 2 to 3 years) but for a longer duration (10-20
years). Of course the less frequent the monitoring of the restored and
reference sites, the more likely it will be that natural variability
hinders the ability to identify problems or trajectories toward
functional habitat conditions.

**{This could potentially be a small highlight box}**

*Determining the Project "Footprint."* As part of the process of
monitoring and assessing the impact of a restoration project,
restoration practitioners and funding agencies often attempt to
determine the actual area "restored" by the project activities. For
projects where tidal waters are reintroduced to a previously "dry" area,
determining the "footprint" (i.e., flooded area) is not difficult.
Determining if the objectives of the project have been achieved, and
over how much area, however, can still be a challenge. For projects
where flow of tidal waters is improved rather than reintroduced, the
question of "footprint" of restored area becomes more complicated. It is
best for the project team to collect pre- and post-construction data at
multiple locations throughout the reference and project sites in order
to determine baseline and restored acreage.. Comparing the change in
baseline through the collection of post-construction data will reveal
how closely (and how quickly) the project is becoming more or less
similar to the reference site. Lacking the spatial sampling, it is not
possible to determine footprint restored. If only post-construction data
is collected at both sites, it will be difficult to know how different
the sites were originally, and how much the project site has changed
following construction. If only post-construction project site data were
compared to literature references, it will likely take even longer to
determine the impact of the project, as natural variability (annual and
site-specific) may lead to some unrealistic and invalid short-term
comparisons.

**{This might work better as a sidebar}**

Funding Monitoring: The amount of funding available for scientific
monitoring is typically a small proportion of the total funds allocated
to a restoration project. Decisions on parameters, techniques,
frequency, and duration of sample collections are often a product of
budgetary constraint, so the plan must be developed carefully to ensure
scientific validity of the evaluation process. Resources devoted to
monitoring may reduce the funds available to restore the project site;
but this challenge can be mitigated. For instance, choosing parameters
and data collection techniques that are similar to those used in other
projects may make data more comparable across sites and improve
understanding of the project effectiveness. Surrogate indicators may
provide more cost effective and feasible options for measuring project
effectiveness in the future. For example, monitoring fish populations
can be expensive, but it may be possible in the future to estimate fish
production at a restored site by plugging data for surrogate indicators
such as hydrology and vegetation growth into a simulation model. Use of
volunteers for data collection can also be quite effective (see
**Chapter 8: Community Involvement**).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409016 .anchor}Advancing the Science

It may not be practical, or even efficient, for all projects to receive
the level of scientific evaluation described above. Although all
projects should receive a basic level of monitoring to provide some
degree of confidence that the design criteria were met, practitioners
overseeing or partnering on many projects might more efficiently enhance
overall understanding of restoration ecology by intensively monitoring a
carefully selected subset of projects and evaluating their functionality
in comparison to reference sites. What constitutes basic data as opposed
to more in-depth scientific evaluation may be a product of the
intensity, frequency, and precision of data collection efforts. For
instance, the same type of data may be collected from two sites --
focusing on similar core parameters -- yet one project may only collect
data on an annual basis, using a simple, precise, technique for each
core parameter, while another site may collect data several times a
year, using multiple techniques (of differing precision and accuracy) to
describe each core parameter. These two levels of effort would both
yield informative results. One would inform you about the general site
conditions in comparison to a reference site, while the other would
yield much greater information that could aid in the advancement of
science to understand and improve habitat restoration.

If this approach is applied at a regional level, it may be possible to
uncover region-specific core parameters (more specific than the four
included in this document) that would allow for comparison among project
sites through time. The Gulf of Maine provides an example of this kind
of "core" or "pre-restoration" characterization, resulting in the Global
Programme of Action Coalition for the Gulf of Maine (GPAC) Protocol.
Core variables include:

-   Base map

-   Hydrology (including at least the two week lunar cycles, spring, and
    neap tides)

-   Marsh surface elevation data

-   Soils/sediment (pore water salinity)

-   Vegetation (percent cover by species, invasive species height and
    density)

-   Nekton (species composition and richness, abundance by species,
    length, biomass)

-   Birds (species composition and richness, abundance by species, also
    breeding behavior)

Mimicking this type of regional planning effort to establish core
parameters and data collection protocols is just one of several efforts
that could greatly enhance the science of tidal hydrology restoration.

Another opportunity to improve the science may be buried in file
cabinets and computer disks. Regulatory agencies in particular hold a
wealth of information. Many agency permits require at least five years
of monitoring at a site. While it may not be easy to unearth this
information and make it broadly available to the scientific community,
it should be feasible to request and evaluate this information on
individual projects within a region. At a minimum, this type of data may
provide yet one more source of information to consider in evaluating
restoration projects. Better yet, these data may aid in the development
of larger regional planning efforts to establish core parameters.

Other opportunities to further the Science (from IWWG 2003):

-   Provide copies of project findings to local planning and coastal
    regulatory authorities

-   Present project results to local groups and ecological societies or
    at national or international conferences of professional
    organizations

-   Publicize the work by writing an article for newspapers and for
    scholarly journals

-   Archive data and make them available to others.

Scientific Evaluation Highlight Project: Fort DeSoto

Tidal flow between bays in the Fort DeSoto Park Aquatic Habitat
Management Area in Pinellas County, Florida was severed due to
dredge-and-fill causeway construction undertaken to connect the island
chain in the late 1950s. Lack of tidal flow between the bays resulted in
extreme summer time water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high
sediment hydrogen sulfide concentrations, stress to seagrass meadows,
and low faunal habitat suitability. In order to relieve these conditions
and improve tidal circulation, a portion of the causeway was replaced in
2005 with a 40-foot span bridge. (Plans to construct a second bridge
were curtailed due to cost.)

The scientific evaluation plan incorporated both impact and reference
sites, 2 years of pre-construction data and 3 years post-construction
data (to date), and was estimated to cost \$100,000/year. Indicators of
all four core parameters were monitored including hydrology
(temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen), vegetation (community
composition, seagrass density, shoot counts, lengths and widths,
epiphytes), soil (hydrogen sulfide concentration), and fauna (macrofauna
identification, length, widths, weight). Yet, even with this extensive
plan and data set, interpretation of data in relation to project
effectiveness still poses a challenge.

Natural variability has made it very difficult to follow a signal of
change for any one parameter. In this case, four major tropical events
followed the opening of the bridge and a major red-tide bloom occurred
the next year. Comparing pre-construction data to data collected during
extreme events is quite challenging and supports the position that long
term data collection both before and after construction is the only
valid way to follow a trajectory of change.

For Fort DeSoto a few parameters, however, do seem indicate a response
to the bridge construction. The water quality conditions have improved
in terms of extreme temperatures, salinity and dissolved oxygen. Data
suggests that epiphytic growth on the seagrass is decreasing in the
impact area. It also appears that fish populations are responding
positively but the extreme natural variability of this measure make
results somewhat inconclusive. The most compelling evidence of the
bridge construction effects is not shown from any individual parameter
but arises from an examination of multiple parameters simultaneously.
Multiple data sets that are trending toward reference site conditions
provide some evidence that the project goals are being achieved. Based
on this work, project partners agree that construction of the second
bridge may be necessary to yield the most complete restoration possible
at the Park.

Interestingly, the parameter that will likely have the biggest impact on
the long-term condition and habitat suitability of the site will also
take the longest to respond. Elevated sediment hydrogen sulfide
concentrations, which directly affect infauna and seagrass condition,
are expected to respond to improved water dissolved oxygen
concentrations. However, it is expected that declines in sulfides will
be slow and may require several decades.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409017 .anchor}Chapter 8: Community Involvement

Often the general public is not highly informed about the ecological
impacts of historic tidal hydrology modifications in the Southeastern
United States. Due to a lack of public education and demand, vast areas
of tidally restricted areas with the potential to be restored to
productive estuaries remain degraded. To increase demand for
restoration, as well as gain public acceptance of individual projects,
practitioners must commit resources to develop intensive community
relations programs. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as
well as environmental nonprofit groups should adopt strategies that
nurture the development of an informed and politically active
constituency for the widespread restoration of tidal areas.

Building organizational capacity and dedicated staff in the areas of
education, advocacy, and volunteer coordination may be the most
important investments towards restoring healthy estuaries in the
Southeast Unites States. This section provides:

-   Recommendations for developing long-term community support at
    regional and project-specific levels;

-   Information on volunteerism, and the importance of establishing and
    maintaining the volunteer base; and

-   Resources for building community support .

-   Community Involvement Highlight Project: Clam Bayou, Sanibel Island,
    Florida

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Several NGOs focusing on coastal restoration along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts have extensive experience in implementing project level and
long-term community involvement strategies. These organizations serve as
models for others who share similar missions. Further information
regarding these organizations and their established strategies are
outlined in the Community Involvement section of the toolkit.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409018 .anchor}Building Programmatic Support
for Restoration

For organizations adopting a long-term, programmatic approach to
restoring tidal hydrology on a regional scale, there are a multitude of
public involvement strategies for achieving these goals. Some of these
strategies include:

-   *Secure political involvement.* Increases in restoration
    opportunities must be generated through public interaction with
    legislative bodies. These activities are often administered by
    environmental nonprofit organizations such as those identified in
    the Community Involvement section of the toolkit. Support at this
    level can mean direct funding of individual projects or programs
    rather than the piecing together of multiple grant awards.

-   *Market completed projects*. Produce videos for use on local cable
    channels to demonstrate the benefits of tidal restoration projects.
    Utilize media during construction and volunteer activities and vary
    activities over time to keep media engaged. Maintain public
    education signage so that visitors will recognize the work that was
    completed.

-   *Host public celebrations*. Invite the public to tour completed
    projects.

-   Engage the public in hands-on activities. See the \"Working with
    Volunteers\" section below.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409019 .anchor}Building Project-Level Support

When plans are developed for tidal hydrology restoration projects, it is
important to account for concerns of the affected community. Projects
that may be technically sound risk never getting off the ground if the
project team ignores or overlooks public perceptions and needs. When a
project team addresses community concerns and the project receives
widespread support, expedited planning and permitting can result,
leading to rapid project implementation.

Depending on circumstances such as land ownership, project scope, and
proximity to populated areas, a thorough strategy should be developed
regarding how and when to engage the public in the process. Given the
potential for tidal hydrology projects to alter a flooding regime in a
coastal area, it is inevitable that the surrounding populous will have
questions and concerns. Typical concerns focus on expected footprint and
depth of the new tidal flooding pattern, including projections about the
impacts of tropical weather. See **Chapter 2:** **Project
Identification, Feasibility and Planning** and **Chapter 4:** **Project
Design** for more information about identifying appropriate sites and
project feasibility considerations.

While each tidal hydrology restoration project will present unique
challenges in regard to community outreach, below are some elementary
components of a public involvement strategy to consider.

-   *Engage early*. In addition to gaining approval from the project
    land owners, consider engaging other nearby landowners and those
    most affected prior to public meetings. Having affected stakeholders
    serve as project proponents can help build public support.

-   *Hold public meetings*. Be sure to provide an opportunity for the
    public to weigh in on the project idea well before plans have been
    finalized. Further information related to conducting public meeting
    is available in the Community Involvement toolkit.

-   *Clearly translate project goals and objectives*. During public
    meetings and when developing outreach materials, keep in mind that
    topics can be confusing to the general public. Avoid complex science
    jargon -- use non-scientific language to educate your audience.
    Modeling activities can be especially challenging to describe. Give
    careful consideration to the main points that need to be translated.
    Remember that the ecological benefits of restoring tidal flow are
    not necessarily obvious to the average citizen.

-   *Tie the community to the project*. Community interests may not
    relate to the primary goals of the restoration project. What might
    be considered an ancillary benefit by one may be primary for
    another. Be sure to relate the history and characteristics of the
    project location and the goals of the project to the interests and
    concerns of the community. What might be considered an ancillary
    benefit by one, may be primary for another.

-   *Utilize success stories*. Stories enable understanding. During
    meetings and when developing outreach materials, utilize simple
    schematics and visualizations of similar projects to help the public
    understand project restoration concepts.

-   *Reexamine the project*. Be willing to re-examine the project if
    substantial and valid community opposition exists. Incorporate
    community concerns into subsequent plans, or if opposition is
    insurmountable, accept that the project may need to be terminated.

-   *Address community misinformation*. If misinformation is widespread,
    use the media to disseminate correct information that directly
    addresses community concerns.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409020 .anchor}Working with Volunteers

While there are various methods for building public support, perhaps the
most beneficial is the development of a comprehensive volunteer
strategy. Engaging volunteers has become an increasingly important
component of ecosystem restoration projects. The inclusion of volunteers
for a one-time task may be a simple undertaking, but an exponential
increase in benefits to a project will be realized by investing
resources in a sustained community involvement strategy that uses
dedicated staff to implement education, outreach, advocacy, and
volunteer management strategies. The ultimate goal of such a program
would be to educate and inspire members of the public to take ownership
of their public resources and to serve as a voice for future restoration
and protection actions and policies.

[\[Sidebar\]]{.mark}

Volunteer management is a well-documented practice that is featured in
several guidance manuals and guides. Some of these resources are
identified in the Community Involvement toolkit and can provide more
detailed guidance than what is summarized in section.

[\[Sidebar end\]]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Some specific benefits of an effective volunteer strategy include:

-   *Financial benefits*. At the project level, volunteers can be very
    useful for reducing costs while helping to meet matching funds
    requirements for grants. An hour of volunteer service is currently
    valued at \$19.51/hr (Independent Sector).

-   *Project Maintenance*. Engaging volunteers in tidal restoration
    projects may inspire them to continue stewardship of the project
    they helped construct.

-   *Expanded Capacity*. The most dedicated volunteers have also been
    known to take on more complex roles including recruitment and
    management of new volunteers as well as initiation and management of
    their own projects.

-   *Stronger Grant Proposals*. Grant proposals with volunteer,
    education, and outreach components are often ranked higher by
    funding agencies during their review process than otherwise similar
    projects that omit these components.

-   *Public Exposure*. Volunteer events readily gain the attention of
    media outlets and local politicians. When recruiting a volunteer
    core it is beneficial to give explanatory talks and attend public
    forums to answer questions. This will be a significant investment.

Volunteers will need some training and initial supervision: the more
complex the task, the more the need for training. Good advice is to have
volunteers do one or two simple but time-consuming tasks and rotate them
periodically. Despite the benefits of volunteers, other considerations
include the cost and time of training, the need for volunteer oversight,
and the potential liability of volunteers being injured helping with the
project (IWWG 2003).

Heavy equipment operation, hard hats, and sensitive design components
characteristic of tidal hydrology projects do not lend themselves easily
to the typical volunteer opportunity. Consider these possibilities for
creative incorporation of volunteers:

*Utilize professional capacity of volunteers.* The populous living in
proximity to a project site may have day jobs that could compliment
project implementation. Investigate local skill sets including:
biologists, engineers, heavy equipment owners/operators, teachers,
graphic designers, grant administrators, etc. For example, the St.
Vincent Island NWR project would not have been completed without the
skilled labor of a volunteer heavy equipment operator. The volunteer
received the required federal safety training and was then available for
work. Keep in mind that grant-match is commensurate with the value of
the service provided -- not just the typical volunteer work hour.

*Try instituting an "Adopt a Wetland" style program.* Tidal hydrology
restoration projects typically benefit from frequent observation,
especially in the first few years following implementation. A constant
set of eyes on the project will allow for more rapid addressing of
issues that may arise, such as tidal blockages from organic debris or
sedimentation, invasive vegetation, or illegal vandalism/dumping. High
frequency scientific monitoring is typically not financially feasible;
however, an "adopt a wetland" style program encourages both long-term
volunteer involvement and ensures constant qualitative assessment.
Examples of these programs used by the University of Georgia Marine
Extension and the Galveston Bay Foundation are included in the Community
Involvement toolkit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409021 .anchor}Volunteers and Monitoring

Another resourceful way of engaging volunteers over the long-term is to
involve them in scientific monitoring activities. This can provide a
great benefit, as monitoring is usually a requirement associated with
the use of grant funds and is necessary to gauge project outcomes.
Often, the burden of monitoring can be decreased by utilizing volunteers
who live in close proximity of the project.

The validity of monitoring data gathered by volunteers is sometimes
questioned by members of the public, academics, and state managers.
However, in many cases, due to costs, volunteers are the only source of
labor available to meet this task. Contrary to common perceptions,
volunteer collected data is often useful in a monitoring or research
setting. In fact, studies have shown that volunteer monitoring data is
often as accurate and valid as the data gathered by academics and
professionals *(need the citation for this- I think Amy from Battelle
was the person who brought this up)*. The key to assuring data quality
is to provide thorough training for volunteers in standard protocol.

Some points to consider when developing a volunteer monitoring program:

-   *Volunteering Capabilities*. Limit volunteer involvement with
    complicated techniques such as vegetation monitoring or fish counts.
    Mammal and megafauna monitoring are likely easier tasks.

-   *School Programs*. Involve grade schools in monitoring programs.
    Schools are helpful in amassing long-term data sets over multiple
    years. When compiling this data, be sure to throw out any outlier
    data points.

-   *Academic oversight*. Involve university researchers in the
    development of a monitoring plan and then provide these researchers
    with the best data collection volunteers. Dr. David Burdick,
    University of New Hampshire, implemented a monitoring plan that
    incorporated volunteer data collection for the Little River
    Restoration Project. He found that their contribution has been
    beneficial for long term repeated measures.

Below are some monitoring activities critical to understanding the
effectiveness of most tidal hydrology restoration projects that may more
easily apply to volunteers. More detailed information is included in the
**Chapter 7:** **Scientific Evaluation and Monitoring**.

-   *Invasive vegetation*. Consider training volunteers on one to two
    types of specific invasive plants. Provide them with the appropriate
    tools to document their presence/absence (training on quadrat
    surveys or transect) and removal, if applicable. It is generally
    advisable to steer volunteers clear of activities requiring percent
    cover estimates. This is an activity that requires a good degree of
    calibration and given the typical turnover in a volunteer workforce,
    it may lead to problems with data analysis.

-   *Hydrology*. By establishing permanent stations at the project site,
    certain tools allow for collecting data on tidal height and period
    that require only periodic visual observation and recording of
    information.

-   *Salinity*. Simple tools (e.g., refractometer and data sheets) allow
    for collection of many relevant data points.

-   *Water quality*. Many companies sell water quality kits that are
    very simple to use in the field with straightforward training
    techniques and direction manuals. Typical kits test for DO,
    salinity, ph etc.

-   *Bird counts and identification*. Bird-lovers love to watch,
    identify, and count birds.

-   *Photopoint*. Establish visual markers throughout the site (i.e.,
    numbered wooden posts). Provide volunteers a compass and a data
    sheet indicating the direction to take photos from any given post.
    It is also a good idea to provide an example photo taken from each
    photopoint to allow for a refinement of orientation. While
    completely qualitative in nature, a picture can often provide more
    information than quantitative data points.

**Community Involvement Highlight Project: Clam Bayou Hydrology
Restoration**

During the South Florida population boom of the 1950s and 1960s, area
developers used dredge and fill to create causeways connecting Sanibel
and Captiva Islands to the mainland. Unfortunately, this causeway
bisected Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, halting all natural tidal
flushing between the two mangrove-dominated systems. The impoundment of
freshwater resulted in the loss of more than 150 acres of mangroves, 20
acres of oyster reefs and 120 acres of seagrass beds. Fish kills and
algae blooms were common occurrences.

While their initial interest may have been spurred by concerns about
aesthetics and property values, the private landowners surrounding the
bay formed the Clam Bayou Preservation Association to investigate the
problems and solutions for the system. They used their own funds to hire
a consultant to study the bayou's flow and bathymetry. The Association
spurred the City of Sanibel into action with the results of this study
and partnered with the City to obtain the remaining information needed
to develop a project design. The City took the lead on the 2006
installation of 3 -- 10' X 10' box culverts under the causeway but the
citizens have remained actively engaged.

Citizens have planted more than 5,000 mangroves over the course of
multiple volunteer days to kickstart the repopulation of mangrove
islands within the Bay. While Rob Loflin, City of Sanibel project
manager, hopes that the City would have addressed the problem
eventually, he acknowledges that the local citizens "drove and sped up"
the process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc211409022 .anchor}Bibliography