Socioeconomic Benefits of 

Habitat Restoration

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-1

May 2017

Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration 

Giselle Samonte1, Peter Edwards2, Julia Royster3, Victoria Ramenzoni4, 

and Summer Morlock5

1 Contractor with Earth Resources Technology, Inc. 

NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation 

1315 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

2

 Contractor with The Baldwin Group, Inc. 

NOAA National Ocean Service, Office for Coastal Management

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

3 NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation

1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

4 Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies 

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 

6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412 

5 NOAA Budget Office, Department of Commerce

1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington D.C. 20230 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-1 

May 2017 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Benjamin Friedman, Acting NOAA Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii

Recommended citation:

Giselle Samonte, Peter Edwards, Julia Royster, Victoria Ramenzoni, and Summer 

Morlock. 2017. Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-OHC-1, 66 p. 

Copies of this report may be obtained from: 

Office of Habitat Conservation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3, 14th Floor 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at:

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/
iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Economic impact .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Characterization of habitats and restoration activities ........................................................... 4

2.3. Ecosystem services valuation ............................................................................................... 6

3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1. Economic Impact .................................................................................................................. 6

3.2. Ecological Performance...................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Socioeconomic Benefits ..................................................................................................... 17

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 22

References ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 1. Detailed Regional Impact Analyses ...................................................................... 27

Northeast ............................................................................................................................... 28

Northwest .............................................................................................................................. 34

Southeast ............................................................................................................................... 40

Southwest .............................................................................................................................. 46

Pacific Islands ........................................................................................................................ 53

Alaska .................................................................................................................................... 56

Great Lakes ............................................................................................................................ 60

Appendix 2. Restoration techniques .......................................................................................... 64
iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Restoration strategies and goals. ...................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Habitat types. ..................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3. Economic impacts of ARRA restoration investment, 2012. ............................................ 7

Table 4. Jobs supported by habitat restoration. ............................................................................. 12

Table 5. Typical species that benefit from habitat restoration....................................................... 14

Table 6. Habitat restored, stream miles opened, and debris removed resulting from ARRA 

restoration funds. ........................................................................................................................... 15

Table 7. Habitat restored, stream miles opened, and debris removed resulting from ARRA 

restoration funds by habitat type. .................................................................................................. 15

Table 8. Socioeconomic benefit studies. ....................................................................................... 21

List of Figures

Figure 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project sites. ................................................ 1

Figure 2. Linking habitat conservation strategy to socioeconomic benefits. .................................. 2

Figure 3. Employment effects of restoration. ................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Labor income effects of restoration. .............................................................................. 9

Figure 5. Value added effects of restoration.................................................................................. 10

Figure 6. Output effects of restoration. ......................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Distribution of habitat restored by type. ........................................................................ 16

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge the NOAA Restoration Center Staff for their review 

specifically Carl Alderson, Mary Andrews, Matthew Bernier, Steven Block, Daphne 

Boothe, Megan Callahan-Grant, Terry Heatlie, Polly Hicks, Megan Hilgart, Eric 

Hutchins, Lehto Jason, Marti McGuire, Lauren Senkyr, Jim Turek, Dan Van-Nostrand, 

Lani Watson. Megan for Brockway for input on the NOAA Restoration Center Database; 

Renee King and Mike Peccini for the maps.

Dr. Rita Curtis, NOAA Fisheries Science and Technology, for support on the IMPLAN 

software. 

Ms. Frances Pflieger for technical editing.
v 

Executive Summary

The ability to quantify the economic output and socioeconomic benefits of 

restoration projects is critical to better understand the short and long-term values of these 

projects to local communities. The findings in this study, and future similar studies, are 

important to increase the understanding of the role of green jobs in the economies of local 

communities, as well as the long-term ecosystem services the restoration projects 

provide, including reduction of damage to life and property. 

NOAA received $167 million dollars from the American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act (also referred to as the Recovery Act or ARRA) of 2009 to restore coastal 

areas throughout the country. The primary goals were to restore habitats and stimulate 

economic growth. We collected and analyzed data from the 125 funded projects to 

examine their impact on local economies. Federal financial and technical assistance was 

provided to ‘ready-to-go’ (shovel-ready) projects that met NOAA’s mission to restore 

marine and coastal habitats. The NOAA Restoration Center helped the communities by 

removing fish passage barriers, restoring hydrologic reconnection to tidal wetlands and 

floodplains, rebuilding native oyster populations, and controlling invasive species to 

prevent loss of coral reef habitat. The ARRA projects restored a range of critical habitat 

types, including rivers, wetlands, and shellfish and coral reefs. 

Key results:

• Restored 25,584 acres of habitat, opened 677 miles of stream for fish to reach

spawning habitat, and removed 433,397 tons of debris from coastal habitats.

• Expended $154.1 million dollars on projects to generate $260.5 million dollars

annually.

• Contributed value added of $143.7 million dollars in new or expanded economic

activity nationwide.

Recovery Act restoration activities supported thousands of jobs, specifically: 

• Restoration activities supported a total of 2,280 jobs. Examples of direct jobs

include environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers,

geologists, project managers, fishermen, biologists, and divers.

• Supported on average 15 jobs per million dollars spent. Labor-intensive

restoration—like building oyster reefs and invasive algal specie removal may

have a 30 jobs per million ratio due to the significant manual labor

component.
vi

Socioeconomic benefits of healthier rivers and coastal habitats: 

• There are additional benefits from restored ecosystem services such as; storm and

erosion protection, carbon sequestration as well as other non-market economic

benefits derived from habitat improvements. Also referred to as “co-benefits.”

Some of our ARRA project partners measured these socioeconomic benefits.

• Restored wetlands and stabilized shoreline along the south shore of Muskegon

Lake, Michigan will generate a $12 million dollar increase in property values, up

to $600,000 dollars in new tax revenue annually, and more than $1 million dollars

in new recreational spending with nearly 65,000 additional visitors annually over

15 years. The total value generated is nearly six times the initial investment.

• Sixty acres of restored freshwater tidal marsh and improved passage to 15 miles

of high-quality habitat for chum, coho, threatened Chinook salmon in

Washington’s Skagit Delta, are expected to generate an estimated $21 million

dollars in economic benefits by reducing the risk of flood damage and drainage

maintenance costs over 50 years.

• Restored urban wetlands in Huntington Beach, California generated carbon

storage and sequestration benefits of $130,000 dollars per year over 50 years. The

restoration investment also increased the extent of open water wetlands in the

region, enhancing space and aesthetics as reflected in increased residential

property values of $36.3 million dollars.

In terms of economic growth, the 2,280 jobs supported through ARRA funding

signify a valuable contribution to our nation’s restoration economy1 that may have a 

long-lasting effect in local economies. This study determined that habitat restoration 

projects supported, on average, 15 jobs per million dollars spent for restoration projects, 

and 30 jobs per million dollars invested in labor intensive restoration projects. It also 

determined that aside from immediate ecological and economic benefits, coastal 

restoration projects can provide significant long-term benefits through the rehabilitation 

and strengthening of the ecosystem services restored areas provide.

1

 The broad definition of Restoration Economy includes both the built and natural environment 

(Cunningham, 2002). Restoration economy in this report refers on economic activity relating to 

ecological or habitat restoration. 
1 

1. Introduction

In 2009, NOAA’s Restoration Center2 (RC) received $167 million3 through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to restore coastal habitats 

and help stimulate our nation’s economy by supporting thousands of jobs. As a result of a 

very competitive solicitation and selection process, the RC awarded 50 cooperative 

agreements supporting the implementation of 125 restoration projects throughout the 

United States (Figure 1). Federal financial and technical assistance was provided to 

‘ready-to-go’ (shovel-ready) projects that met NOAA’s mission to restore marine and 

coastal habitats.

Figure 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project sites.

The RC provides funding and technical assistance to restoration projects and 

supports socioeconomic research to understand the long-term benefits of restoration. 

Restoration benefits can exceed ecological outputs and have important socioeconomic 

benefits (Figure 2). In order to better understand the impact of restoration and how to 

2 The RC is the primary office within NOAA tasked with implementing on-the-ground projects to restore 

our nation’s coastal, marine, and migratory fish habitats. The RC is within the National Marine Fisheries 

Service in the Office of Habitat Conservation. 

3 http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/programs/recoveryact.html
2

gain local stakeholder support, studies exploring the socioeconomic benefits of 

restoration are important. 

In 2012, results of a peer-reviewed interim study on the job benefits of 44 of 

NOAA’s ARRA habitat restoration awards were published in Marine Policy.

4 The study 

highlighted 1,409 jobs were supported within 18 months of the projects’ start dates. This 

study determined that habitat restoration projects generate, on average, 17 jobs per 

million spent, which is similar to other conservation industries such as parks and land 

conservation. Even though projects were still underway and expenditures were not final 

when the article was published, the study successfully highlighted the value of restoration 

funds to economic growth. 

The current study provides an analysis of 47 completed ARRA awards. This study 

examines the economic impact of restoration expenditures by exploring the number and 

range of jobs that were supported across different project types. Four main types of 

activities were conducted: (1) fish passage restoration, (2) hydrological reconnection, (3) 

shellfish reef placement, and, (4) coral reef restoration. In addition to economic impacts, 

the study examines the long-term ecosystem services benefits of ARRA restoration 

activities. Examples of ecosystem services that directly benefit people include food, 

recreation, and storm protection. Other ecosystem services are less tangible, such as 

habitat’s role in absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Coastal habitats are important 

beyond harvesting fish and other coastal products. The longer-term benefits of the 

restored ecosystem services enhance the social and economic contributions of healthy 

habitat.

 

Figure 2. Linking habitat conservation strategy to socioeconomic benefits.

 4 Edwards, P.E.T., et al. 2012. Investing in nature: Restoring Coastal Habitat, Blue infrastructure, and 

Green Job Creation. Marine Policy, 38:65-71. 
3

2. Methods

2.1. Economic impact

The information presented here is based on an analysis of the data collected from 

47 ARRA financial awards covering seven geographic regions (Northeast, Northwest, 

Southeast, Southwest, Pacific Islands, Alaska and Great Lakes) in 22 states; see 

Appendix I for a full list of projects included in the study.

5

 ARRA award recipients were 

required to report project expenditures by North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) codes. The NAICS is a standardized system used by federal statistical agencies 

to classify business establishments. It allows agencies to collect, analyze, and publish 

expenditure information in a uniform way. The requirement for award recipients to report 

expenditures by NAICS codes allowed NOAA to assess economic impacts of the ARRA 

habitat restoration expenditures by conducting Input-Output analyses. 

The Input-Output analysis framework is a widely used economic method used to 

explore the interdependence between industries and an economy. It allows the RC to 

better understand the impact of new green jobs6

, and the effects throughout an economy. 

This analysis of restoration funds was completed using the Impact Analysis for Planning

(IMPLAN) economic impact model. IMPLAN is widely used and professionally 

accepted by universities and government agencies to estimate the economic impacts of 

investments. IMPLAN contains regional economic data from various sources including 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the U.S. Census 

Bureau. The 440 industry sectors used by IMPLAN are the basis of this ARRA economic 

impact study.

Data analyzed in this technical memorandum is derived from progress reports and 

NOAA’s Restoration and Conservation Database (RCDB) information, which includes 

narratives of the work completed, descriptions of how the funds were spent during the 

reporting period, expenditures by NAICS codes, and ecological performance measures. 

The expenditures used for this analysis represent the total amount of NOAA funds spent 

to complete the 47 projects included in this study. While most of these projects received 

additional funding from non-profits, private organizations, or state or local governments, 

the economic impact analyses presented include only money received from the federal 

government through the ARRA award. We identified the county (or counties) where each 

project took place from the IMPLAN database and recorded the expenditures of that 

project according to specific labor categories or sectors per the IMPLAN regional 

economic models. The expenditures used for this analysis represent a project’s 

cumulative NOAA expenditures during the NOAA award period. 

 5 ARRA projects in the U.S. Territories, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands were not included due to the unavailability of IMPLAN geographic economic data required to 

include them in the analyses.

6 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ definition of green jobs includes (1) jobs in businesses that produce 

goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources and (2) jobs in which 

workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly 

or use fewer natural resources (http://www.bls.gov/green/#definition).
4

IMPLAN output estimates are measured in dollars, while an IMPLAN 

employment estimate includes both full- and part-time workers and is measured in annual 

jobs (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2004). The analysis was conducted using 2012 dollars. 

“Jobs per million dollars spent” metrics were calculated for each project by multiplying 

the total employment estimate by $1 million then dividing by the project’s expenditures. 

This calculation allows for comparison of employment among projects with different levels of 

expenditure and is a commonly reported metric for analyses of government spending.

In the context of the ARRA projects and job creation, direct jobs refer to 

employees who use their skills to restore the damaged coastal habitats. Indirect jobs are 

those that are created in the industries that supply the materials or services, such as 

lumber or concrete, needed to complete the projects. Induced jobs are created when the 

increase in demand resulting from restoration employees spending at local businesses 

(such as restaurants or hotels) necessitates more staff at those establishments. The results 

are presented by region: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, Pacific Islands,

Alaska, and Great Lakes.

2.2 Characterization of habitats and restoration activities

Healthy habitats play an important role in our society and our economy. In 

helping communities restore coastal habitats, the NOAA Restoration Center applies four 

main types of habitat restoration activities (Table 1). This categorization was used in this 

analysis to summarize all study results. These approaches include removing fish passage 

barriers, restoring hydrologic reconnection to tidal wetlands and floodplains, rebuilding 

native oyster populations, and controlling invasive species to prevent loss of coral reef 

habitat.

Table 1. Restoration strategies and goals.

Number of projects under 

Restoration Center 

Strategies 1

Restoration Goal 

Fish Passage (39) Improving access for migratory fish species such as 

salmon, and reducing hazards.

Hydrologic Reconnection (36) Restoring the flow of water to coastal systems and 

floodplains.

Shellfish Recovery (6) Construction of reef by using shell and rock to 

stabilize the shoreline and promote oyster 

colonization. 
5

Number of projects under 

Restoration Center 

Strategies 1

Restoration Goal 

Coral Recovery (2) Removal of coral reef smothering invasive algal 

species.

Other Strategy (42) Marine debris removal.

1

Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of ARRA projects implementing corresponding restoration 

strategies across the 47 awards. Some ARRA projects implement more than one strategy.

The ARRA projects restored a range of habitat types, from riparian zones to 

oyster and coral reefs. Table 2 describes the broad categories of habitats. These habitat 

types are critical to the life cycles of many NOAA trust species or riverine and coastal 

species. Ecological performance measures monitored by each ARRA project included 

stream miles opened, habitat acres restored, and marine debris metric tonnage removed. 

Data for ecological metrics were derived from performance progress reports.

Table 2. Habitat types.

Habitat General Description

Coral reef Area strongly affected by coral colonies in shallow tropical/subtropical ocean environments.

Freshwater wetland Wetlands without salt or tidal influence including forested, scrubshrub.

Pond Un-vegetated wetland area without salt or tidal influence.

Stream Area associated with an active stream or river channel.

Water column Any habitat where the quality or quantity of services gained 

through restoration does not depend on substrate.

Tidal wetland Vegetated or sediment flats subject to tidal inundation.

Oyster reef/ shell 

bottom

Areas where habitat functions are strongly affected by presence of 

shell.

Submerged aquatic 

vegetation

Vegetated, mostly sub-tidal wetlands, commonly called sea 

grasses.
6

Habitat General Description

Riparian zone (nonwetland)Non-wetland habitats, adjacent to rivers or coastal shorelines, that 

either influence or are influenced by aquatic ecosystems.

Upland Any habitat that is not flooded during part of the year/does not 

show the characteristics of wetland habitat.

2.3. Ecosystem services valuation

Broadly defined, ecosystem services are the benefits that flow from nature to 

people such as the production of fish, water purification, and coastal protection. A subset 

of the ARRA projects, conducted by our partners that received ARRA funding, measured 

the downstream effects of restoration, such as the socioeconomic benefits of healthier 

rivers and coastal habitats. The long-term socioeconomic benefits of restoration that were 

examined included commercial and recreational harvest, ecotourism, erosion prevention, 

flood protection, water quality, carbon sequestration, nitrogen sequestration, and 

habitat/species diversity. 

3. Results

3.1. Economic Impact

The effects on the local economy are categorized by direct, indirect, and induced 

cycles of spending, and can be measured in terms of jobs, labor income, value added, and 

output. Direct employment refers to people who will use their skills to restore and 

monitor damaged wetlands, shellfish beds, and coral reefs and reopen fish passages that 

boost the health and resiliency of coastal and Great Lakes areas. Indirect jobs are 

generated in industries that supply materials or services to support restoration project 

activities, such as suppliers who provide nursery plantings, lumber, or concrete, as well 

as miscellaneous professional services including the consulting of scientific, engineering, 

or legal services conducted in addition to direct jobs. Induced jobs are the result of 

expenditures by restoration project employees and businesses. For example, when 

workers at the restoration site go out to lunch, they are supporting induced jobs in local 

restaurants. By spending money locally on goods and services, project personnel support 

a wider variety of business, which in turn may stimulate demand for more employees in a 

wider variety of industries.

The total effect is reported here in terms of jobs, labor income, value added, and 

output (Table 3). ARRA restoration activities directly and indirectly supported 2,280 fulland part-time jobs. Labor income (including wages and salaries and benefits, as well as 

proprietors’ income) from jobs directly or indirectly supported from the 125 ARRA 

projects was $115.8 million. The ARRA projects contributed $143.7 million to the U.S. 

economy in terms of value added. Counting direct, indirect, and induced impacts, the 
7

total monetary expenditures of $154.1 million resulted in $260.4 million in total output.

This represents the total value of all goods and services produced by all of the industries 

within the study region.

Table 3. Economic impacts of ARRA restoration investment, 2012.

Economic 

Impact

Employment*

(Number of jobs)

Labor 

Income**

(US$ 2012)

Value 

Added***

(US$ 2012)

Output**** 

(US$ 2012)

Direct 1,462 76,562,613 79,485,944 154,088,144

Indirect 350 18,615,945 27,908,964 48,566,484

Induced 468 20,659,728 36,349,380 57,807,524

Total 2,280 115,838,287 143,744,288 260,462,152

Source: NOAA Restoration Center calculations using the IMPLAN modeling system.

*Employment is defined as the number of payroll and self-employed jobs, including part 

time jobs.

**Labor income is defined as wages and salaries and benefits as well as proprietors' 

income.

*** This is the difference between an industry’s total output and the cost of its 

intermediate inputs. It equals gross output (sales or receipts and other operating income, 

plus inventory change) minus intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services 

purchased from other industries or imported). Value added consists of compensation of 

employees, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, and gross operating surplus. 

**** Represents the total value of all goods and services produced by all of the industries 

within the study region.
8

Figure 3 also shows the employment effects of restoration activities. The analysis 

demonstrates ARRA funding directly supported 1,462 jobs. However, when accounting

for local multipliers, 2,280 jobs were supported. 

Figure 3. Employment effects of restoration.

Figure 4 highlights the economic impact in terms of labor income, which is a 

measure of employment income including wages, benefits, and proprietor income. For 

example, the ARRA investment in the Great Lakes generated $8.5 million, $2.1 million, 

and $2.7 million in direct, indirect, and induced effects of labor income for this region, 

respectively. This means labor income of $8.5 million was generated from the ARRA 

investment in habitat restoration. Labor income of $2.1 million was generated from interindustry transactions such as supplying industries, and the induced labor income of $2.7 

million reflects changes in local spending from income changes in the directly and 

indirectly affected industry sectors.

 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400

Alaska

Pacific Islands

Great Lakes

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

Northeast

Combined

Number of Jobs Supported

Alaska Pacific

Islands

Great

Lakes Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Combined

Direct 44 135 132 211 247 325 368 1,462

Indirect 7 16 41 57 67 76 85 349

Induced 10 21 66 65 90 101 115 469
9

Figure 4. Labor income effects of restoration.

As mentioned above, the value added is the difference between an industry’s total 

output and the cost of intermediate inputs. For example, in the Northwest region, value 

was added as a result of purchasing wood and native plants, and utilizing labor services 

for floodplain dike removal and revegetation. Thus, $21 million value added represents 

the total amount of additional or new economic activity that occurred from the ARRA 

funds in the Northwest region (Figure 5).

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

Alaska

Pacific Islands

Great Lakes

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

Northeast

Combined

Labor Income (US$ mil, 2012)

Alaska Pacific

Islands

Great

Lakes Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Combined

Direct 2.2 3.9 8.5 10.3 13.7 18.5 19.4 76.6

Indirect 0.4 0.6 2.1 2.7 3.5 4.6 4.7 18.6

Induced 0.4 0.8 2.7 2.6 3.8 5.0 5.3 20.7
10

Figure 5. Value added effects of restoration.

Output refers to the total value of goods and services. For example, the ARRA 

restoration projects generated $48 million in output (sales value) in the Southeast region. 

Of this $48 million, about 60 percent ($28.6 million) was direct effects (direct spending 

from construction and engineering expenses), and the remaining 40 percent was 

generated through the direct expenditures trickling through the economy in the form of 

indirect and induced effects. The indirect effects of $8.8 million are the increased sales 

(production) of the businesses supplying goods and services. The induced effects of $10.6 

million are the increase in the output of the local businesses due to increased jobs and 

household wages (Figure 6).

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Alaska

Pacific Islands

Great Lakes

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

Northeast

Combined

Value Added (US$ mil, 2012)

Alaska Pacific

Islands

Great

Lakes Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Combined

Direct 2.1 3.0 9.0 12.1 15.1 17.7 20.5 79.5

Indirect 0.6 1.1 2.9 4.1 5.2 6.8 7.1 27.9

Induced 0.8 1.5 4.6 4.8 6.7 8.7 9.3 36.3
11

Figure 6. Output effects of restoration.

The ARRA coastal habitat restoration projects require the employment of people 

with diverse sets of skills. For example, marine debris removal requires, among other job 

types, boat operators and heavy equipment managers, while oyster and coral reef 

restoration may require divers, barge operators, fishermen, and scientists in addition to 

the aforementioned. For fish passage, restoration job types were environmental 

consultants, engineers, and construction workers. 

These habitat restoration projects supported, on average, 15 jobs per million 

dollars spent, and 30 jobs per million invested in labor intensive restoration projects

(Table 4). A preliminary estimate of 17 jobs per million spent was based on, projects that 

were still underway and expenditures were not final (Edwards, et al., 2013). 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Alaska

Pacific Islands

Great Lakes

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

Northeast

Combined

Output (US$ mil, 2012)

Alaska Pacific

Islands

Great

Lakes Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Combined

Direct 4.2 6.3 16.6 25.0 28.6 32.9 40.4 154.1

Indirect 1.1 2.3 5.1 7.5 8.8 11.6 12.0 48.6

Induced 1.3 2.5 7.7 7.8 10.6 13.6 14.4 57.8
12

Table 4. Jobs supported by habitat restoration. 

Restoration Effort Type 

(Number of ARRA Projects)

Range of Restoration Job Types Number of Jobs 

per Million US$ 

(range)

Fish Passage (39) Environmental consultants, engineers, 

construction workers, landscapers, lawyers, 

scientists, administrative positions

14 

(6-21)

Improving access for migratory 

fish species such as salmon and 

reducing hazards 

Hydrologic Reconnection (36) Geologists, engineers, landscapers, heavy 

equipment operators, construction workers, 

helicopter pilots, biotechnologist, project 

managers 

15 

Restoring the flow of water to (12-17)

coastal systems and floodplains 

Shellfish Restoration (6) Barge, tug operators and loading crews, 

fishermen, scientists, technicians, 

biologists, divers, mining and quarry 

workers, truck drivers, project managers, 

outreach specialists, administrative 

positions 

16 

Construction of reef using shell (8-23)

and rock; Stabilizes the shoreline 

and promotes oyster colonization 

Coral Recovery (2) Pilots, construction workers, feral goat 

hunters, landscapers, administrative 

positions 

30

(27-32)

Removal of coral reef smothering 

invasive algal species and control 

of sedimentation by removal of 

feral goats and re-vegetation

Other Strategies (42) Cleanup crew (laborers), small boat 

operators, administrative staff, marine 

salvors, welders, heavy equipment 

managers, lawyers, accountants.

15 

Removal of derelict fishing gear, (10-29)

reducing “ghost fishing” impacts 

Restoring the habitat function in 

the areas between land rivers and 

streams

Construction workers (including site 

foreman, surveyor, survey assistants, 

equipment operators, laborers, and dump 

truck drivers), nursery workers, project 

manager, environmental consultants, 

archeological consultant, graphic designer, 

administrative positions 

All restoration types Average jobs per million $ 15

 Updated from Edwards et al. (2013) for completed projects. 
13

3.2. Ecological Performance

On-the-ground restoration opened historic river habitat to migratory fish, removed

marine debris from our oceans and coasts, reconnected tidal wetland habitat, and restored

shellfish and coral reefs. Marine debris removal involved the collection of derelict 

fishing nets, crab traps, old ropes, and other fishing gear that ensnare marine life and 

create navigation hazards. River restoration focused on removing defunct dams, failing or 

undersized culverts, levees, and other river barriers to reconnect floodplain habitats. 

Fishway installation and vegetation plantings were installed to help fish pass barriers not 

appropriate for removal. Coral reef restoration involved the physical removal of algae 

and other invasive species, planting native vegetation, and other erosion control 

techniques to limit sediment transport within the watershed. Table 5 presents a list of 

typical species that benefit from habitat restoration. 

The ecological performance measures for these restoration efforts are presented 

by region and habitat type in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. These projects restored a 

total of 25,584 acres of habitat, opened 677 miles of stream for fish passage, and removed 

433,397 tons of debris. Uplands, tidal wetlands, and in-stream/pond projects returned the 

largest restored acreage (Figure 7). Uplands included 11,750 acres that benefitted corals 

restored by managing sediment.
14

Table 5. Typical species that benefit from habitat restoration.

Region Species

(In bold font, to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Source: RCDB, 2015.)

Alaska Coho, king, pink and sockeye salmon Cutthroat trout 

Great 

Lakes

Largemouth and smallmouth bass 

Bluegill 

Muskellunge

Northern pike

Black crappie 

Lake sturgeon

Walleye

Northeast Largemouth and striped bass 

White perch 

Brook trout 

Atlantic salmon 

Rainbow smelt 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon

River and blueback herring alewife 

American, hickory and skipjack shad

Marshhay and smooth cordgrass

Sea lamprey 

White flounder

Bluefish

Eastern oyster

Blue crab

Bay scallop

Mummichog

Eelgrass 

American eel 

Northwest Oregon chub 

Starry flounder 

Pacific lamprey 

Quillback rockfish 

Chum, pink, chinook, coho salmon 

Bull, cutthroat, steelhead trout

Eulachon

Dungeness crab 

Harbor porpoise

Western pond turtle

Steller sea lion

Gray and humpback whale

Southeast Bay anchovy 

Hardhead and sailfin catfish Atlantic croaker 

Black and red drum 

Southern kingfish

Sheepshead minnow 

Striped mullet

Pinfish

Spotted seatrout

Seashore saltgrass 

Smooth and marsh hay cordgrass

Blue and stone crab 

Black mangrove

Gulf menhaden 

Black needlerush

Eastern oyster 

Pickleweed

Saltwort

Bull shark 

Shoalgrass

Grass shrimp 

Snook

Oyster toadfish 

Southwest Northern anchovy 

Tidewater goby 

California halibut 

Pacific lamprey 

Shiner perch 

Coho, Chinook salmon

White and green sturgeon 

Cutthroat and steelhead trout

Green sea turtle

Red legged frog 

Sea Otter

Brown pelican 

Western snowy plover

Light-footed clapper rail 

California clapper rail

English sole 

Savannah sparrow 

California least tern

Pacific 

Islands

Snapper

Sea bass

Seamount groundfish

Skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tuna

Corals

Crustaceans

Green sea turtle
15

Table 6. Habitat restored, stream miles opened, and debris removed resulting from 

ARRA restoration funds.

Region Habitat Restored 

(acres) 

Stream Opened 

(miles) 

Debris Removed 

(tons) 

Northeast 2,376.3 161.4 250,000.0 

Northwest 1,121.2 318.2 145.0 

Southeast 3,146.4 - - 

Southwest 7,112.8 7.7 - 

Pacific Islands 11,776.7 - - 

Alaska 18.1 13.8 390.0 

Great Lakes 32.9 176.3 182,862.0 

Total 25,584.4 677.4 433,397.0 

Source: NOAA Restoration and Conservation Database, 2015.

Table 7. Habitat restored, stream miles opened, and debris removed resulting from 

ARRA restoration funds by habitat type.

Habitat Type

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres)

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Coral reef 60.0 

Freshwater wetland 163.1 15 182,862.0 

Stream/pond 2,929.4 659.87

Water column 232.2 

Tidal wetland 9,475.9 535.0 

Oyster reef 513.0 

Submerged aquatic vegetation 5.0 

Riparian zone (non-wetland) 446.7 2.5

Upland 11,759.2 250,000.0 

Total 25,584.4 677.4 433,397.0 

Source: NOAA Restoration and Conservation Database, 2015.
16

Figure 7. Distribution of habitat restored by type.

Submerged aquatic 

vegetation, 0.02%

Coral reef, 0.23% Freshwater 

wetland, 0.64%

Water column, 

0.91%

Riparian zone (nonwetland), 1.75%

Oyster reef, 2.01%

Stream/pond, 

11.45%

Tidal wetland, 

37.04%

Upland, 45.96%
17

3.3. Socioeconomic Benefits

A subset of the ARRA projects measured the downstream effects of restoration 

such as the socioeconomic benefits of healthier rivers and coastal habitats. These projects 

were not conducted by NOAA and are a subset of projects conducted by our partners 

related to the projects that received ARRA funding. These socioeconomic benefits 

include the economic value of outdoor recreation (e.g., diving, angling) and ecosystem 

services such as flood control and clean water. These long-term benefits represent a 

significant expansion on the economic return on investment to the economic impacts. The 

methods applied in these studies ranged from economic benefit analyses to investigating 

coastal community perceptions about habitat restoration (Table 8). These estimates refer 

to the contribution of the habitat restoration activities. The projects highlighted in the 

report are as follows:

(1) Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Socioeconomic Assessment (Michigan)

7,8

This project was awarded $10 million to restore wetlands and stabilize shoreline 

along the south shore of the lake. The Great Lakes Commission restored 33 acres of 

wetland and stabilized shoreline at 10 separate locations in the Muskegon Lake Area of 

Concern (AOC). The project was designed to address 40 percent of the loss of fish and 

wildlife habitat beneficial use impairment target for the Muskegon Lake AOC. 

A detailed economic study was conducted using a hedonic, travel cost and 

contingent valuation to estimate the economic benefits that resulted from the project. The 

study found that the restoration will generate a $12 million increase in property values, 

up to $600,000 in new tax revenue annually, and more than $1 million in new 

recreational spending with nearly 65,000 additional visitors annually over 15 years. The 

total value generated is nearly six times the initial investment.

(2) Fisher Slough Socioeconomic Study (Washington)

9

This project restored 60 acres of freshwater tidal marsh and improved passage to 

15 miles of high-quality habitat for chum, coho, threatened Chinook salmon, and other 

important species. Activities included replacing antiquated floodgates with self-regulating 

gates; conducting tidal wetland restoration; relocating a drainage ditch; and setting back 

 7 Braun, H. (Great Lakes Commission). 2013. Final Narrative Report American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, Muskegon Lake Great Lakes Area of Concern, Habitat Restoration 

Project. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(17 p).

8 Isley, P., E. S. Isley and C. Hause. 2011. Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Habitat Restoration 

Project: Socioeconomic Assessment. Final Project Report. Grand Valley State University (26 p).

9 EconNorthwest. 2012. Economic Benefits of the Fisher Slough Restoration Project. Report 

prepared for The Nature Conservancy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (33 pp).
18

levees. The Skagit River supports a regionally significant abundance and diversity of 

Pacific salmon and is one of the only rivers in the lower 48 states that supports all eight 

species of anadromous salmonids. However, the area has lost more than 70 percent of its 

historic tidal wetlands. 

This project benefits the local agricultural community by reducing the risk of 

flood damage and drainage maintenance costs. The study estimated $21 million in 

economic benefits over 50 years are expected from the restoration activities around 

Fisher Slough in Washington’s Skagit Delta.

(3) Maunalua Bay Reef Restoration Project (Hawaii)10

The Maunalua Bay Coral Reef Restoration project is a large-scale restoration in 

Hawaii that restored coral reefs through manual removal of invasive alien algae. 

Restoring coral reefs through manual removal of invasive alien algae restored hard 

substrate and sand bottom habitat enabling coral recruitment and seagrass expansion. 

Local perspectives on ecological conditions in Maunalua Bay were examined 

using a network-based sampling approach, extensive observation in the study area, and 

in-depth interview surveys. A semi-structured survey instrument was used to guide a total 

of 131 interviews. More than 94 percent of interviewees indicated that the project had 

stimulated greater understanding of local history, and more than 89 percent indicated 

enhanced ecological understanding. More than 82 percent asserted that the project had 

resulted in a feeling of heightened personal ownership of the bay and its resources, and 

more than 84 percent believed that the project resulted in an enhanced sense of 

community-level stewardship. Further, almost 80 percent of interviewees reported the 

invasive algae removal project was benefiting local businesses, and more than 95 percent 

agreed that the project had generated interest in future habitat restoration and 

conservation projects in the region.

(4) Perceived Value and Effectiveness of Management for Oyster Reefs 

(Alabama)11, 12

Breakwater reefs created along two stretches of shoreline protect almost 30 acres 

of habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation and create almost 3 acres of oyster reef. The 

submerged reefs will protect more than a mile of coastal habitat by reflecting erosive 

wave energy away from the shoreline. 

 10 Petterson, J. S., and E. Glazier. 2011. Social and Economic Benefits of the Maunalua Bay Reef 

Restoration Project. Final Report prepared by Impact Assessment, Inc. for The Nature 

Conservancy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (58 p).

11 DeQuattro, J. 2012. Coastal Alabama Economic Recovery and Ecological Restoration Project. 

Final Report from The Nature Conservancy to NOAA Restoration Center, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (35 p). 

12 Scyphers, S.B., J.S. Picou, S.P. Powers. 2012. Perceived Status, Value and Effectiveness of 

Management Initiatives for Oyster Reefs in Coastal Alabama. A Final Socioeconomic Report 

from the University of South Alabama to The Nature Conservancy (23 p).
19

A socioeconomic survey was developed to determine how Alabama coastal 

residents perceive oyster reefs, their role in nearshore waters, and their management. 

Specifically, the survey focused on the current status, ecological importance, 

management effectiveness, and support for initiatives relating to the oyster fishery.

Results show that oysters were recognized for their overall ecological importance, 

providing a regulating service by filtering bay water (70 percent of respondents), and for 

protecting shoreline marsh habitats (80 percent of respondents). The strongest support 

was for stricter fines for sewage spills (73 percent of respondents). Residents strongly 

support oyster reef restoration and protection, and a majority would pay additional taxes 

to protect oyster reefs.

(5) Assessing the Long-term Economic Value and Costs of Oyster Reefs (North 

Carolina)

13

A total of 46 acres of oyster reefs were created at Crab Hole and Clam Shoal 

sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound, the second largest estuarine system in the United States.

This project provided valuable substrate for high levels of oyster recruitment, habitat use 

by estuarine reef fish, and fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen. 

Cost-benefit analysis was used to assess the long-term value that would be 

derived from restored oyster reefs. Using a benefit transfer14 approach, the Crab Hole and 

Clam Shoal oyster reef sanctuaries collectively provide ecosystem services totaling more 

than $11,000 per acre annually. The annual value of ecosystem services provided by the 

18.60 acres of oyster reef habitat at the Crab Hole Sanctuary was estimated at $206,218, 

whereas those of the 26.96 acres of reef at the Clam Shoal Sanctuary annually were worth 

$166,376.

(6) Huntington Beach Wetlands Enhanced Ecosystem Service Values (California)15

This project provided tidal circulation and restored 41 acres of urban wetlands in 

Huntington Beach by breaching a levee, creating channels and planting native vegetation. 

The Magnolia project was the final phase of this restoration project, which restored 

habitat for birds, shellfish, and coastal marine fish—such as anchovy, mullet, corvina, 

 13 Grabowski, J. H., M. F. Piehler, and C. H. Peterson. 2011. Assessing the long‐term economic 

value and costs of the Crab Hole and Clam Shoal oyster reef sanctuaries in North Carolina. 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences Study Final Report (28 

p).

14 Benefit transfer is defined as the use of research results from pre-existing primary studies to 

predict estimates such as willingness to pay (WTP) or related information for other, typically 

unstudied sites or policy contexts. Benefit transfers are most often used when time, funding, data 

availability or other constraints preclude original research, so that preexisting estimates must be 

used instead (Johnston, et al., 2015).

15 IEC (Industrial Economics, Inc.). 2012. Enhance Ecosystem Services and Associated Values: 

Restoration of the Huntington Beach. Report prepared for Office of Response and Restoration, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (53 p).
20

and halibut—and improved connectivity of coastal marsh habitats along the south coast 

of California. 

The analysis is based on the expected change in carbon stored and the change in 

property values associated with the restoration activity. Carbon sequestration rates postrestoration and market values of the affected properties were estimated. To estimate the 

present value of this benefit, a discount rate of 3 percent was used. Carbon storage and 

sequestration benefits of $130,000 over 50 years can be generated from increased

vegetation and salt marsh soils, which remove carbon from the atmosphere where it 

would otherwise contribute to climate change associated damages. In addition, the 

restoration investment increases the extent of open water wetland in the region,

enhancing space and aesthetics as reflected in increased residential property values of 

$36.3 million.

(7) Economic Benefits of South San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration (California) 16

This project provided tidal circulation to previous salt ponds, and restored 4,700 

acres of wetlands in southern San Francisco Bay by breaching levees, regrading interior 

areas, and supporting natural revegetation. This project contributes to the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species such as steelhead trout; increased habitat for 

migratory birds and marine mammals; and improved productivity of the Bay’s ecosystem.

Using the benefit transfer method, the estimated annual benefit to local and 

regional communities ranges from $3 million to $9.5 million.

(8) Economic Benefits of Virginia Seaside Bays Restoration (Virginia) 17

This project restored native oysters, seagrass, and bay scallops to Virginia's 

seaside bays from Chincoteague inlet to the Chesapeake Bay. Twenty-two acres of native 

oyster reefs were restored at 12 different sites, 100 acres of seagrass were planted, and 

2.4 million juvenile bay scallops were re-introduced to bays where they have been extinct 

for 75 years. 

The benefits of oyster reefs were examined over a 40-year period. The estimated 

total economic values, including market values for commercial finfish production and 

non-market values for recreational fishing, ranged from $49,133 to $112,460 per year.

 16 Abt Associates, Inc. 2014. Estimating the Change in Ecosystem Service Values from Coastal 

Restoration. Final Report Prepared for Center for American Progress and Oxfam America. (116 

p).

17 Abt Associates, Inc. 2014. Estimating the Change in Ecosystem Service Values from Coastal 

Restoration. Final Report Prepared for Center for American Progress and Oxfam America. (116 

p).
21

Table 8. Socioeconomic benefit studies.

Ecosystem service 

value

ARRA Project

Muskegon Lake Area 

of Concern 

Socioeconomic

Assessment (MI)

Fisher Slough 

Socioeconomic

Study (WA)

Socioeconomic

Benefits of the 

Maunalua Bay 

Reef Restoration 

Project (HI)

Perceived Value and 

Effectiveness of 

Management for Oyster 

Reefs (AL)

Assessing the 

Long-term 

Economic Value 

and Costs of Oyster 

Reefs (NC)

Huntington Beach 

Wetlands Enhanced 

Ecosystem Service 

Values (CA)

Economic Benefits 

of South San 

Francisco Bay Salt 

Pond Restoration 

(CA)

Economic Benefits 

of Virginia Seaside 

Bays Restoration 

(VA)

Total Value $47.5 million net 

present value (NPV)

$9.1 - $20.6 

million NPV $13.4 million NPV $2.9 -$9.5 million annual

$49,133 - $112,460 

annual

Commercial 

harvest

$729,000 -

$3,646,000 NPV 

(increased crop 

value)

73.6% perceived 

improvement in 

local fisheries

$74,476 annual 

commercial value

$4,198 annual 

(halibut); $19,976 

annual (rockfish)

$34,113 annual

Recreational 

harvest 

$119,309 annual 

recreational value

$25,789 annual 

(halibut); $6,308 

annual (rockfish); 

$23,322 annual 

(striped bass)

$3,439 - $22,696 

annual

Ecotourism

$3.5 million per year 

additional 

recreational value; 

$35.6 million NPV

Aesthetic 

appreciation

$11.9 million 

additional housing 

value

94.2% perceived a 

cleaner-looking 

bay

$36.3 million

property value 

Erosion 

prevention

$367,000 -

$775,000 NPV 

(reduced dredging 

costs)

80% perceived 

protection for shoreline 

vegetation

Flood protection

$198,000 -

$4,852,000 NPV 

(reduced cost of 

flood damage)

Water quality 70% perceived 

improved water quality

Carbon 

sequestration $130,000 annual $54,303 annual $132 annual

Nitrogen 

sequestration

$298,053 

denitrification 

$11,449 - $55,519 

annual

Habitat/species 

diversity

74% perceived critical 

habitat for fish and 

crabs

$15,027 SAV 

enhancement value

20-40% increase in 

foraging birds
22

4. Conclusion

America’s coastal habitats are vital to the local and national economy. Coastal 

communities provide recreation, tourism, and commercial activities like fishing because 

of healthy habitats. Nature’s benefits—also called “ecosystem services”—are the 

contributions that support our day-to-day lives. This could include higher property 

values, lower infrastructure costs, and increased flood protection. 

The primary goals of the ARRA projects were to restore habitats and stimulate 

economic growth. The economic impacts in this study and associated with the ARRA 

restoration projects are both short-term in nature given their brief on-the-ground duration, 

as well as long-term. Awarded projects have resulted in 25,584 acres of habitats restored, 

677 stream miles opened for fish passage, and 433,397 tons of debris removed from our 

oceans. In terms of economic growth, the 2,280 jobs supported through ARRA funding 

signify a valuable contribution to our nation’s restoration economy18 that may have a 

long-lasting effect in local economies. NOAA generates 30 jobs for each million dollars 

invested in labor intensive restoration projects. This study determined that habitat 

restoration projects support, on average, 15 jobs per million dollars spent.

Aside from immediate ecological and economic benefits, coastal restoration 

projects can provide significant long-term benefits through the rehabilitation and 

strengthening of the ecosystem services restored areas provide. For example, the 

rebuilding and restoration of oyster reefs can translate into the protection of critical 

habitat and infrastructure through wave attenuation, the improvement of habitat health 

through water filtration, and countless economic, recreational, social, and cultural 

benefits related to oyster harvesting. Despite the importance of these long-term 

ecosystem service benefits to coastal managers and stakeholders, not many studies have 

attempted their quantification. These limitations can affect the local, state, and federal 

agencies’ willingness to support further restoration work and the participation of 

stakeholders in conservation initiatives.

The present analysis of the ARRA projects suggests restoration investment has 

and may result in significant ecological improvements and socioeconomic benefits to 

project participants and to the residents and communities adjacent to coastal areas. 

Results of this report contribute to the knowledge regarding economic values of different 

habitat types in different regions and at different scales. The values in this report focus 

not only on use value but also on non-use value as the latter may have more policy 

relevance (e.g., anadromous fish passage). 

An assessment of the co-benefits of restoring habitat can help policy makers 

identify and categorize societal values that are generated by NOAA’s products, that is 

improved ocean and coastal environmental quality. Combining social science and 

ecological approaches can provide NOAA with better understanding about how human 

 18 The broad definition of Restoration Economy includes both the built and natural environment 

(Cunningham, 2002). Restoration economy in this report refers on economic activity relating to 

ecological or habitat restoration.
23

behavior impacts the natural environment. Results of these initiatives will assist in 

NOAA efforts to prioritize, measure outcomes, forecast, and make better resource 

management decisions with respect to fisheries habitat conservation.

Looking forward, healthy habitats are important for sustainable fisheries and 

provide numerous other benefits to communities. Decision-makers and local 

stakeholders may use this information for policy, management, or investment decisions 

that lead to on-the-ground change. To do this, the following next steps may be 

considered: 

• Developing guidance or suggestions for award recipients about the types of 

socioeconomic outcomes and data to collect.

• Implementing restoration projects that reflect co-benefits such as potential 

recreational use and enhanced property values. 

• Engaging local citizens and partner organizations when planning restoration 

projects so that stakeholders are vested in the success of habitat restoration and 

sustainable fisheries.

• Communicating the co-benefits and improvements that the communities are 

experiencing from habitat restoration projects. 

• Understanding which of these co-benefits are important to the community, if we 

were to do another project in the area, and providing partners with a status update 

of the projects.

A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. We conserve habitat to 

sustain the nation’s fisheries—but habitat is not just valuable for the home it provides for 

fish and wildlife. It also improves water quality, provides jobs, and supports stronger 

business growth. This analysis determined that aside from immediate ecological and 

economic benefits, coastal restoration projects could provide significant long-term 

benefits through the rehabilitation and strengthening of the ecosystem services restored 

areas provide. The findings in this study are important to help better understand the role 

of green jobs in the economies of local communities, as well as the long-term ecosystem

services the projects provide, including the reduction of damage to life and property.
24

References

Abt Associates, Inc. 2014. Estimating the Change in Ecosystem Service Values from 

Coastal Restoration. Final Report Prepared for Center for American Progress and 

Oxfam America. (116 pp).

Braun, H. (Great Lakes Commission). 2013. Final Narrative Report American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Muskegon Lake Great Lakes Area of Concern, 

Habitat Restoration Project. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (17 pp). 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Measuring Green Jobs. 

http://www.bls.gov/green/home.htm#definition

Cunningham, S. (2002) The Restoration Economy: The Greatest New Growth Frontier  : 

Immediate and Emerging Opportunities for Businesses, Communities and 

Investors. Berrett--‐Koehler Publishers.

DeQuattro, J. 2012. Coastal Alabama Economic Recovery and Ecological Restoration 

Project. Final Report from The Nature Conservancy to NOAA Restoration 

Center, U.S. Department of Commerce (35 pp). 

EconNorthwest. 2012. Economic Benefits of the Fisher Slough Restoration Project. 

Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (33 pp).

Edwards, P.E.T., A.E. Sutton-Grier, G.E. Coyle. 2013. Investing in nature: Restoring 

coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation, Marine Policy, 18:65-

71.

IEC (Industrial Economics, Inc.). 2012. Enhance Ecosystem Services and Associated 

Values: Restoration of the Huntington Beach. Report prepared for Office of 

Response and Restoration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (53 pp). 

Isley, P., E. S. Isley and C. Hause. 2011. Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Habitat 

Restoration Project: Socioeconomic Assessment. Final Project Report. Grand 

Valley State University (26 pp).

Grabowski, J. H., M. F. Piehler, and C. H. Peterson. 2011. Assessing the long‐term 

economic value and costs of the Crab Hole and Clam Shoal oyster reef 

sanctuaries in North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 

Institute of Marine Sciences Study Final Report (28 pp).
25

Johnston, R.J., J. Rolfe, R.S. Rosenberger and R. Brouwer (Eds). 2015. Benefit Transfer 

of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and 

Practitioners. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. 582 pp.

Palmer, M.A. and S Filoso. 2009. Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental 

Markets. Science. 355: 575-576.

Petterson, J. S., and E. Glazier. 2011. Social and Economic Benefits of the Maunalua Bay 

Reef Restoration Project. Final Report prepared by Impact Assessment, Inc. for 

The Nature Conservancy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (58 pp).

Scyphers, S.B., J.S. Picou, S.P. Powers. 2012. Perceived Status, Value and Effectiveness 

of Management Initiatives for Oyster Reefs in Coastal Alabama. A Final 

Socioeconomic Report from the University of South Alabama to The Nature 

Conservancy (23 pp).
26
27

Appendices

Appendix 1. Detailed Regional Impact Analyses 

For each of the regions listed below, a summary of the projects completed with ARRA 

funding is provided. Each summary includes the following key components of the 

project:

• Number of acres, miles, etc. 

• Species benefitted

• Restoration technique implemented

• Key partners 

Table of Contents 

Northeast ....................................................................................28

Northwest ...................................................................................34

Southeast ....................................................................................40

Southwest ...................................................................................46

Pacific Islands............................................................................. ..53

Alaska.......................................................................................56

Great Lakes.................................................................................60
28

Northeast

Winnicut River Fish Passage Restoration (NH)

This project removed the Winnicut Dam in Greenland, New Hampshire, restoring river 

connectivity, function, and improving water quality. The dam removal and installation of a fish 

passage structure under the upstream bridge opened 0.1 mile of upstream habitat for migratory 

fish such as alewives, blueback herring, and American eel. Intertidal smelt spawning habitat was

also restored, enhancing the Winnicut River’s significant contribution to this historically 

important recreational and commercial fishery. This project was implemented by the New 

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, University of New Hampshire, New 

Hampshire Coastal Program, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, and Coastal 

Conservation Association of New Hampshire.

Salmon Habitat Restoration (ME)

This project reconditioned 53 fish passage barriers in the Machias River watershed of Maine. 

Impassable culverts at road crossings were removed and unneeded commercial roads were 

decommissioned. The project opened 63 miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and 

other commercially and recreationally important fish species, restored natural stream function, 

and reconnected the upper watershed to downstream areas. Project partners included the Maine 

Department of Marine Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Maine, and 

Project SHARE (Salmon Habitat And River Enhancement).
29

Piscataway Park Living Shoreline Restoration (MD)

A 2,800 foot vegetated “living shoreline” was constructed along the banks of the Potomac River 

creating two acres of spawning and nursery habitat for more than a dozen fish species. This 

project reduced shoreline erosion, which improves water quality and provides protection for 30 

acres of freshwater wetland and threatened Native American archeological resources. The project 

was implemented by the Alice Ferguson Foundation Inc. and the National Park Service. The 

Chesapeake Bay Trust contributed to this project.

Bride Brook and West Restoration (CT)

This project involved restoration of salt marsh habitat and migratory fish runs at Rocky Neck 

State Park in East Lyme and West River Memorial Park in New Haven. At Rocky Neck State 

Park, failing dual Bride Brook culverts were replaced with a single, large box culvert, to restore 

tidal exchange to 63 acres of salt marsh and improve alewife passage to Bride Lake, restoring 

Connecticut’s largest river herring run. Three failing West River wooden tide gates were removed 

and replaced with self-regulating structures that allow increased tidal exchange with the upriver 

marsh and provide river herring access to upriver spawning habitats. These projects opened 12 

river miles and restored tidal marshes in the park heavily used for a variety of passive and active 

recreation. Project implementers were Restore America's Estuaries, Connecticut Fund for the 

Environment, City of New Haven, and Save the Sound.

Naugatuck River Restoration (CT)

This project involved the construction of a bypass channel around the Tingue Dam, which 

restored 32 miles of historic migratory fish habitat on the Naugatuck River. This habitat benefits 

American shad, blueback herring, alewife, and American eel by creating a bypass channel around 

the Tingue Dam. The project was implemented by the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection and the Town of Seymour.

Seaside Bays Restoration (VA)

This project restored 22 acres of native oysters at 12 different sites, planted 100 acres of seagrass, 

and re-introduced 2.4 million juvenile bay scallops to Virginia's seaside bays from Chincoteague 

inlet to the Chesapeake Bay where they have been extinct for 75 years. The Nature Conservancy 

worked in partnership with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Virginia Marine 

Resource Commission, and the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program throughout the 

implementation of the project.

Lincoln Park Wetland Restoration (NJ)

This project restored 42 acres of coastal habitat on a former 90 acre municipal landfill in a highly 

urbanized former industrial area of the Hackensack River basin. The project completed the full 

remediation of the former landfill and replaced it with a combination of wetland, transitional 

zone, tide pond, and tide creeks. Project partners included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Hudson County (NJ) Parks Department, and the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Stony Brook Salt Marsh and Fish Passage Restoration (MA)

The Stony Brook award consisted of a fish passage project and a salt marsh restoration project in 

Brewster, Massachusetts. The fish passage project replaced a degraded, undersized culvert that 

conveyed Stony Brook beneath a state road with larger box culverts. This restored normal tidal 
30

exchange to 20 acres of salt marsh, improved 3,000 feet of a migratory fish run, and repaired a 

fish ladder to enhance fish passage to 386 acres of ponds that provide habitat for river herring and 

American eel. The salt marsh restoration project replaced an undersized culvert that conveyed 

Paines Creek beneath a town-owned road with a larger culvert, which restored normal tidal 

exchange to 21.3 acres of salt marsh. The project was implemented by the Association to 

Preserve Cape Cod, Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration, and the Town of 

Brewster.

Patapsco River Restoration (MD)

This project is a critical component of the largest river restoration in Maryland and will establish 

a model for future dam removal efforts around the state. Removal of the Simkins and Daniels 

dams is the start of a larger effort to remove four mainstem dams on the Patapsco River aimed at 

restoring more than 65 miles of spawning habitat for blueback herring, alewife, American shad, 

and hickory shad, and more than 183 miles for American eel. It has enhanced public access and

significantly improved recreational fishing and boating opportunities throughout the Patapsco 

Valley State Park. The park is one of Maryland’s most popular and frequently used parks and is 

also part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The project partners were American Rivers, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park, Ltd.

Penobscot River Restoration (ME)

This project removed the Great Works Dam, which directly opened 2 river miles for migratory 

fish species on the Penobscot River. This project is part of a broader initiative, which restored and 

opened more than 1,000 miles of the Penobscot River and reconnected inland endangered 

Atlantic salmon habitat to the Gulf of Maine. This regionally and nationally significant project 

removed three significant barriers to migration; restored the full assemblage of 11 native 

migratory fish species to the river; provided benefits for wildlife, tribal culture, and the Gulf of 

Maine; and spurred community and economic development in New England’s second largest 

watershed. Several partners implemented the project: Maine Audubon; Natural Resources 

Council of Maine, Trout Unlimited, Penobscot River Restoration Trust, The Nature Conservancy, 

American Rivers, Atlantic Salmon Federation, and the Penobscot Indian Nation. 

Rhode Island River Ecosystem Restoration (RI)

This set of projects involved six high-priority fish passage projects—three technical fishways on 

the Ten Mile River and three passage projects on the Pawcatuck River. With the projects 

completed, river herring and American shad are able to migrate upstream to access an additional 

8 river miles and 1,502 lake and pond acres providing spawning habitat for alewife using the two 

watersheds. The upper Pawcatuck River is known for its high water quality and diversity of 

wetlands and other fish habitats. With NOAA funding, one Pawcatuck River dam was removed, a 

technical fishway was constructed at the iconic Horseshoe Falls dam, and a nature-like fishway

was constructed at the uppermost Kenyon Mill dam. The Ten Mile River is characterized as an 

urban watershed where a remnant river herring run had been sustained for decades by local 

volunteers who netted the fish at the base of the first barrier (Omega Pond Dam) and released the 

adult herring unharmed above the dam. With fishways now installed at each of the dams, shad 

and herring now have access to the upper reaches of the Ten Mile River in southeastern 

Massachusetts. Our project partners included the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management 

Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management, Ten Mile River Watershed Council, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. 
31

Environmental Protection Agency, Save the Bay (Narragansett Bay), and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers.

Annex Table 1. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in the Northeast. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Winnicut River Restoration (NH) 1.0 0.1 -

Salmon Habitat Restoration (ME) - 62.6 -

Piscataway Park Living Shoreline Restoration (MD) 32.3 - -

Bride Brook and West River Restoration (CT) 250.0 12.0 -

Naugatuck River Restoration - 32 -

Seaside Bays Marine Ecosystem Restoration (VA) 122.0 - -

Lincoln Park Wetland Restoration (NJ) 42 0.9 250,000

Stony Brook Salt Marsh Restoration (MA) 427.0 0.5 -

Patapsco River Restoration (MD) - 43.0 -

Penobscot River Restoration (ME) - 2.0 -

Rhode Island River Restoration (RI) 1,502.0 8.3 -

Total 2,376.3 161.4 250,000
32

Annex Table 2. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in the Northeast region.

Project Title Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Winnicut River Restoration (NH) 2 1 1 4 115,736 29,856 37,653 183,245

Atlantic Salmon Habitat 

Restoration (ME) 27 5 6 37 721,853 194,514 199,852 1,116,219

Piscataway Park Living Shoreline 

Restoration (MD) 9 2 3 15 624,054 118,317 130,761 873,132

Bride Brook and West River 

Restoration (CT) 25 6 8 39 1,259,883 389,931 445,219 2,095,034

Naugatuck River Restoration 

(CT) 18 5 7 31 1,270,768 408,028 436,950 2,115,746

Seaside Bays Marine Ecosystem 

Restoration (VA) 30 3 3 37 804,676 110,409 94,194 1,009,279

Lincoln Park Wetland Restoration 

(NJ) 91 24 36 151 6,900,103 1,710,717 1,978,874 10,589,694

Stony Brook Salt Marsh 

Restoration (MA) 17 4 5 27 783,352 211,270 211,486 1,206,108

Patapsco River Restoration (MD) 30 8 12 50 2,275,341 484,771 566,788 3,326,900

Penobscot River Restoration 

(ME) 83 18 22 123 2,988,170 707,419 794,513 4,490,102

Rhode Island River Restoration 

(RI) 36 9 10 55 1,656,434 397,989 405,323 2,459,746

Total 368 85 115 568 19,400,370 4,763,222 5,301,613 29,465,205
33

Annex Table 3. Value Added and output impacts of ARRA projects in the Northeast region.

Project Title Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Winnicut River 

Restoration (NH) 528,272 42,606 65,697 636,576 627,448 67,774 102,679 797,901

Atlantic Salmon Habitat 

Restoration (ME) 577,447 337,197 361,337 1,275,981 1,805,024 619,416 594,089 3,018,529

Piscataway Park Living 

Shoreline Restoration 

(MD)

599,356 170,683 248,675 1,018,713 1,150,850 295,619 387,907 1,834,377

Bride Brook and West 

River Restoration (CT) 1,123,861 585,077 743,095 2,452,033 2,230,360 897,468 1,111,683 4,239,511

Naugatuck River 

Restoration (CT) 1,430,988 563,915 722,397 2,717,300 2,634,582 879,364 1,086,147 4,600,092

Seaside Bays Marine 

Ecosystem Restoration 

(VA)

1,057,215 242,067 213,074 1,512,356 2,166,284 414,870 346,383 2,927,537

Lincoln Park Wetland 

Restoration (NJ) 7,410,616 2,436,629 3,348,746 13,195,991 13,364,275 4,128,492 5,100,912 22,593,678

Stony Brook Salt Marsh 

Restoration (MA) 748,629 345,981 394,451 1,489,061 1,645,912 553,233 602,471 2,801,616

Patapsco River 

Restoration (MD) 2,389,217 713,175 994,139 4,096,531 4,020,438 1,096,066 1,524,659 6,641,163

Penobscot River 

Restoration (ME) 2,974,233 1,107,779 1,430,845 5,512,857 7,289,543 2,090,723 2,358,797 11,739,063

Rhode Island River 

restoration (RI) 1,661,883 591,292 737,245 2,990,420 3,490,918 993,364 1,161,685 5,645,966

Total 20,501,716 7,136,401 9,259,699 36,897,817 40,425,634 12,036,390 14,377,411 66,839,434
34

Northwest

Hansen Creek Floodplain Restoration (WA)

This project restored 140 wetland acres by reconnecting the main stem of Hansen Creek, a 

tributary of the Skagit River, to its historic floodplain through the modification of levees, 

excavation, installation of woody debris habitat structures, and native revegetation. These efforts 

provided important habitat for chum, coho, threatened Chinook salmon and steelhead, and other 

important species. Downstream agricultural flooding reduction has been achieved with flood 

water detention and sediment capture within the project site. Holding capacity of the newly 

restored wetland is effectively lowering downstream flood height, duration, and frequency. The 

project was implemented by Skagit County Public Works, Upper Skagit Tribe, and the National 

Association of Counties.

Elwha River Floodplain Restoration (WA)

A series of restoration projects (including engineered log jam placement, dike removals, and revegetation activities) improved the habitat conditions of more than 80 acres within the lower 

Elwha River—the largest tributary draining into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and historically the 

largest producer of salmon in the region. The project benefits Puget Sound Chinook salmon and 

Puget Sound steelhead, both listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This project 

was successfully completed by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the National Park Service.
35

Rogue River Restoration (OR)

The project removed the Gold Ray Dam, a 38-foot-high dam that spans the main stem of the 

Rogue River. The removal restored free-flowing conditions and unimpeded migratory fish access 

to about 300 upstream miles within the watershed. The project complemented other recent dam 

removals in the watershed and removed the last fish passage barrier on the river, benefitting 

Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho salmon—

listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Various partners implemented the 

project: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, WaterWatch of Oregon, Jackson County, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, 

Ecotrust, and Rogue Valley Council of Governments.

Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration (WA)

Located in the lower Snohomish River, the Qwuloolt Estuary had been cleared, drained, and cut

off from tidal and riverine influences by an extensive network of levees. This project built an 

upgraded setback levee that protects homes and critical infrastructure for the city of Marysville, 

Washington. After the setback levee was constructed, 1,500 linear feet of the old levee system 

was removed, which restored tidal processes to more than 350 acres of highly productive 

estuarine habitat. This diverse environment provides unique habitat critical for the survival and 

recovery of five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, which is listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. The project also restored natural hydrologic connection to two 

stream systems, providing unrestricted fish access to upstream spawning and rearing habitat. The 

project was implemented by the City of Marysville, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulalip 

Tribes of Washington, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Snohomish County Public Works.

Delta Ponds Restoration (OR)

Delta Ponds is a 150-acre complex of former side-channel habitat along the main stem Willamette 

River that provided rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. This project restored and enhanced the 

side-channel and riparian habitat through earthwork, invasive species removal, and planting 

activities. Excavation between ponds opened access to more than 2 miles of side-channel habitat 

along the Willamette River. The increased hydrologic connectivity and the restoration of more 

than 30 acres of riparian and wetland habitat will benefit juvenile Chinook salmon, listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Project partners included the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of 

Eugene, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Fisher Slough Marsh Restoration (WA)

This project restored 60 acres of freshwater tidal marsh and improved passage to 15 miles of 

high-quality habitat for chum, coho, threatened Chinook salmon, and other important species. 

Activities included replacing antiquated floodgates with self-regulating gates, conducting tidal 

wetland restoration, relocating a drainage ditch, and setting back levees. The Skagit River 

supports a regionally significant abundance and diversity of Pacific salmon and is one of the only 

rivers in the lower 48 states where all eight species of anadromous salmonids are represented. 

This project benefited the local agricultural community by reducing the risk of flood damage and 

drainage maintenance costs. The project was implemented by partners from the Skagit Drainage 

and Irrigation District 17, Skagit Dike District #3, Skagit System Cooperative, Skagit County 

Public Works, The Nature Conservancy of Washington, and The Nature Conservancy.
36

Smuggler’s Slough Nooksack River Restoration (WA)

The project resulted in reconnection of 225.4 acres of freshwater tidal wetlands and salt marsh, 

and improved flow along the Smuggler's Slough and out into eelgrass habitat in Lummi Bay. An 

adjacent roadway was raised to decrease flood impacts. These restored areas benefit threatened 

Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, as well as chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon. The 

project was implemented by the Whatcom Land Trust, Nooksack Tribe, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Whatcom County River and Flood Department, Northwest Indian College, 

Lummi Youth Academy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Ecology, 

and Washington Recreation and Conservation Office.

Puget Sound Derelict Fishing Gear Removal (WA)

This project eliminated derelict fishing nets as a major source of marine species mortality and 

habitat damage in the Puget Sound by removing 90 percent of legacy derelict fishing nets. The 

project removed approximately 3,000 nets to benefit the threatened Southern Resident Orca 

whale, Chinook salmon, and chum salmon. Removal teams included members of the Nisqually, 

Puyallup, and Squaxin tribes, as well as other commercially trained divers. Various project 

partners included the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources 

Consultants, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Northwest Straits Commission, and Northwest Straits 

Marine Conservation Foundation.

Oregon Fishing Industry Restoration Partnership (OR)

This project employed crab fishermen to help remove derelict Dungeness crab pots and other 

fishing gear along the Oregon Coast. The project removed a total of 145 metric tons of debris, 

including nearly 3,000 derelict crab pots, from the marine environment. The project also engaged 

32 members of the crabbing industry in 378 hours of volunteer gear recovery. These activities 

benefit the Dungeness crab population as well as marine mammals, including gray whales, 

threatened Steller sea lions, and endangered humpback whales. The project was implemented by 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission, Oregon State 

Police, and various fish processing companies. 
37

Annex Table 4. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in the Northwest region. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Hansen Creek Floodplain Restoration (WA) 140.0 - -

Elwha River Floodplain Restoration (WA) 82.0 - -

Rogue River Restoration (OR) - 285.0 -

Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration (WA) 350.0 16.0 -

Delta Ponds Habitat Restoration (OR) 31.0 2.2 -

Fisher Slough Marsh Restoration (WA) 60.0 15.0 -

Smuggler's Slough Nooksack River Restoration 

(WA) 225.4 - -

Puget Sound Derelict Fishing Gear Removal (WA) 232.2 - -

Oregon Fishing Industry Restoration Partnership 

(OR) 0.6 - 145.0

Total 1121.2 318.2 145.0
38

Annex Table 5. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in the Northwest region.

Project Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Hansen Creek Floodplain Restoration 

(WA) 12 2 2 16 406,965 79,523 78,792 565,280

Elwha River Floodplain Restoration 

(WA) 19 4 4 27 781,006 156,821 137,582 1,075,408

Rogue River Restoration (OR) 53 14 16 83 2,320,335 495,372 542,330 3,358,037

Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration (WA) 13 4 5 22 872,069 286,794 267,074 1,425,937

Delta Ponds Habitat Restoration (OR) 15 3 4 23 522,204 128,895 135,582 786,680

Fisher Slough Marsh Restoration 

(WA) 55 12 14 81 2,671,674 528,725 518,385 3,718,785

Smuggler's Slough Nooksack River 

Restoration (WA) 13 4 4 21 677,732 173,827 151,933 1,003,491

Puget Sound Derelict Fishing Gear 

Removal (WA) 21 12 14 47 1,703,306 795,226 684,454 3,182,987

Oregon Fishing Industry Restoration 

Partnership (OR) 10 1 2 13 368,447 42,858 80,013 491,318

Total 211 57 65 333 10,323,738 2,688,041 2,596,145 15,607,924
39

Annex Table 6. Value Added and output impacts of ARRA projects in the Northwest region.

Project Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Hansen Creek 

Floodplain Restoration 

(WA)

533,971 127,192 154,032 815,195 1,013,915 320,250 250,516 1,584,681

Elwha River Floodplain 

Restoration (WA) 998,789 247,654 283,247 1,529,690 2,003,653 464,230 455,692 2,923,574

Rogue River 

Restoration (OR) 2,453,028 779,308 1,012,137 4,244,473 5,507,450 1,469,590 1,665,712 8,642,752

Qwuloolt Estuary 

Restoration (WA) 1,088,635 397,505 449,128 1,935,267 2,000,000 709,329 702,065 3,411,394

Delta Ponds Habitat 

Restoration (OR) 749,667 209,056 250,589 1,209,312 1,642,302 365,721 408,763 2,416,786

Fisher Slough Marsh 

Restoration (WA) 3,027,855 830,532 1,013,402 4,871,789 5,766,100 1,662,735 1,648,191 9,077,026

Smuggler's Slough 

Nooksack River 

Restoration (WA)

906,149 265,154 302,957 1,474,260 1,733,803 576,973 505,756 2,816,532

Puget Sound Derelict 

Fishing Gear Removal 

(WA)

1,912,349 1,150,681 1,174,647 4,237,677 4,595,369 1,831,448 1,890,673 8,317,490

Oregon Fishing 

Industry Restoration 

Partnership (OR)

407,480 67,948 148,490 623,917 733,312 123,589 241,132 1,098,033

Total 12,077,921 4,075,029 4,788,628 20,941,579 24,995,904 7,523,866 7,768,500 40,288,269
40

Southeast

Mississippi River Tidal Marsh Restoration (LA)

Sediment was hydraulically dredged from the Mississippi River to create intertidal marsh 

elevations. The 63-acre restored marsh increased the area’s habitat value to estuarine-dependent 

fishes and reduced storm surge impacts to existing infrastructure. The project was implemented 

by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and Office of Coastal Protection and 

Restoration.

Coastal Wetland Restoration (FL)

Intertidal coastal wetlands in northeastern Florida support a variety of commercially and 

recreationally important fish species. This habitat restoration project was implemented at two 

sites with both ecological and recreational importance: North Peninsula State Park and Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. By removing dredge spoil and impoundment dikes across 186 

acres of historic wetland habitat, natural tidal flow was restored to more than 1,900 acres of 

emergent salt marsh and mangrove habitats. This comprehensive effort greatly exceeded its 

proposed restoration goals of 12 miles of dike restoration and 30 acres of wetland restoration, and 

allowed the St. Johns River Water Management District to advance their restoration plans for the 

area by at least 5 years. The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and the St. Johns River 

Water Management District implemented the project.
41

Louisiana Coast Shoreline Stabilization (LA)

This project protected at least 7 miles of vulnerable shorelines along Grand Isle and St. Bernard 

Marsh. By building more than 5 acres of bioengineered oyster reef, 287 acres of emergent marsh 

were protected and more than 100 marine species associated with oyster reefs in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico benefitted. Local communities also profited, as skilled laborers were hired and 

welding students were trained to create the reef structures. Project implementers were the The 

Nature Conservancy of Louisiana, Louisiana State Agricultural Center, and The Nature 

Conservancy.

Coastal Alabama Restoration (AL)

A submerged breakwater reef was created along two stretches of shoreline, protecting almost 30 

acres of habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation and creating almost 3 acres of oyster reef. 

Several reef types were studied to determine their relative benefits to stabilizing shoreline and 

creating habitat. Unlike traditional erosion protection structures that contribute to habitat loss, the 

submerged reefs protect more than a mile of coastal habitat by reflecting erosive wave energy 

away from the shoreline. The project was implemented by the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, The 

Nature Conservancy of Alabama, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

and The Nature Conservancy.

Oyster Habitat Restoration (NC)

This project created supplemental employment for oystermen and other water-related industries 

to rebuild 46 acres of oyster reefs across coastal North Carolina. The project moved oyster 

restoration plans in North Carolina ahead by several years, speeding the recovery of the species 

and providing the multitude of services derived from oyster reefs. The project documented the 

synergistic benefits to other fisheries in the areas around created reefs. Project partners included 

the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina State University, North Carolina 

Coastal Federation, and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

West Galveston Bay Estuary Restoration (TX)

The project placed hydraulically dredged material from a 100-acre nearby borrow site to create 

gradual sloping perimeter and interior intertidal marsh mounds planted with Spartina alterniflora 

in two areas of West Galveston Bay—Carancahua Cove and Jumbile Cove. The mosaic of 

mounds protected and enhanced 136.1 acres of existing intertidal marsh and salt flat/marsh. It 

also restored approximately 328 acres of intertidal marsh complex (salt flat marsh/salt flat, 

intertidal marsh, and protected shallow open water), which serves as highly productive nursery 

grounds for recreational and commercial fish species in the Gulf of Mexico. The project provides 

ecological services, such as a buffer to mitigate flood and storm damage, trap sediments to reduce 

erosion and stabilize shorelines, and filter pollutants to minimize their accumulation in fish and 

wildlife or the human food chain. The project was implemented by the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department and the Texas General Land Office.
42

St. Lucie/Loxahatchee Rivers and Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration (FL)

This project restored 26 acres of oyster reef habitat within the St. Lucie Estuary and the 

Loxahatchee River systems. More than 30 million pounds of limestone and oyster shell cultch 

were deployed to construct a series of small patch oyster reefs. Oyster reefs provide much 

needed substrate for oyster spat recruitment. In addition, these restoration efforts will help 

improve water quality in both rivers, enabling expanded growth of seagrass and supporting both 

estuarine and marine fish nurseries. These reefs provide habitat structure for other species (e.g., 

shrimp, clams, crabs, and snails) and a variety of fish, including many economically important 

species such as gag grouper, gray snapper, sheepshead, and red drum. Enhancing oyster 

populations in this area also contributed to the goals of the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. Project partners included the South Florida Water Management District, Martin 

County Board of County Commissioners, and the Loxahatchee River District.

Shoreline and Oyster Habitat Restoration (SC)

Charleston, South Carolina, is an example of a coastal urban area where impacts from historic 

development activities have led to the degradation of shoreline and estuarine habitats. 

Fortunately, many of these areas, important for commercial and recreational fish species and 

aesthetic and recreational value, can be restored to provide their former benefits. These 

restoration projects stabilized eroding shorelines, revitalized a degraded salt marsh, and increased

fisheries habitat by up to 200 acres—all in recreational areas with high value to the public. The 

project was implemented by the South Florida Water Management District, Martin County Board 

of County Commissioners, and the Loxahatchee River District.

Lost River Preserve Restoration (FL)

The Lost River Preserve project restored 70 acres of coastal habitat through the removal of exotic 

Brazilian pepper and Australian pine by regrading the disturbed portions of the site into an 

estuarine marsh and planting marsh vegetation. Daily tidal exchange increased with the 

installation of a large box culvert under the adjacent county road. Channels constructed to convey 

tidal waters into the estuarine areas allows for the natural recruitment of mangroves and 

restoration of overall estuarine function. The restoration and enhancement of this site provides 

essential fish habitat for species such as snook, redfish, and spotted sea trout along the coastline 

of Tampa Bay. The project was implemented by the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, Hillsborough 

County Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program, 

Ecosphere Restoration Institute, Southwest Florida Water Management District-S.W.I.M. 

Program, and Preserving the Environment through Ecological Research (PEER).
43

Annex Table 7. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in the Southeast region. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Mississippi River Restoration (LA) 63.0 - -

Coastal Wetland Restoration (FL) 2,094.9 - -

Louisiana Coast Shoreline Stabilization (LA) 287.7 - -

Coastal Alabama Ecological Restoration (AL) 31.4 - -

Oyster Habitat Restoration (NC) 45.5 - -

Galveston Bay Estuarine Habitat Restoration 

(TX)

328.0 - -

St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers Oyster Reef 

Habitat Restoration (FL)

25.6 - -

South Carolina Shoreline and Oyster Habitat 

Restoration (SC)

200.4 - -

Lost River Preserve Fisheries Habitat 

Restoration (FL)

70.0 - -

Total 3,146.4 - -
44

Annex Table 8. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in the Southeast region.

Project Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Mississippi River Restoration 

(LA) 23 7 10 40 1,497,975 445,591 450,157 2,393,723

Coastal Wetland Restoration 

(FL) 25 8 11 44 1,115,326 444,441 439,598 1,999,365

Louisiana Coast Shoreline 

Stabilization (LA) 44 11 20 75 3,072,155 490,633 881,420 4,444,208

Coastal Alabama Ecological 

Restoration (AL) 54 7 7 68 932,671 244,325 236,398 1,413,394

Oyster Habitat Restoration 

(NC) 24 11 8 43 1,266,911 445,924 254,362 1,967,197

Galveston Bay Estuarine 

Habitat Restoration (TX) 33 10 14 57 2,803,663 786,416 730,337 4,320,416

St. Lucie and Loxahatchee 

Rivers Oyster Reef Habitat 

Restoration (FL) 32 9 13 54 2,237,704 475,822 560,672 3,274,197

South Carolina Shoreline and 

Oyster Habitat Restoration 

(SC)

7 2 3 12 395,226 96,920 118,737 610,883

Lost River Preserve Fisheries 

Habitat Restoration (FL) 7 2 3 12 362,190 116,286 149,980 628,456

Total 247 67 90 404 13,683,821 3,546,358 3,821,661 21,051,840
45

Annex Table 9. Value added and output impacts of ARRA projects in the Southeast region.

Project Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Mississippi River 

Restoration (LA) 1,522,296 604,527 753,910 2,880,732 3,023,303 1,060,125 1,212,923 5,296,352

Coastal Wetland 

Restoration (FL) 1,172,053 647,287 784,365 2,603,705 2,748,812 1,108,925 1,255,527 5,113,264

Louisiana Coast Shoreline 

Stabilization (LA) 2,892,868 715,252 1,480,248 5,088,369 4,156,222 1,139,504 2,396,084 7,691,811

Coastal Alabama 

Ecological Restoration 

(AL)

1,278,935 469,069 436,943 2,184,946 2,956,446 854,526 712,675 4,523,647

Oyster Habitat 

Restoration (NC) 1,935,664 738,741 546,823 3,221,228 5,030,001 1,192,216 858,305 7,080,522

Galveston Bay Estuarine 

Habitat Restoration (TX) 2,950,098 1,082,208 1,217,599 5,249,905 5,133,103 1,898,407 1,914,031 8,945,541

St. Lucie and Loxahatchee 

Rivers Oyster Reef 

Habitat Restoration (FL) 2,501,256 675,257 984,485 4,160,998 4,024,959 1,072,062 1,519,822 6,616,843

South Carolina Shoreline 

and Oyster Habitat 

Restoration (SC)

423,078 133,751 209,364 766,193 760,799 228,203 339,909 1,328,911

Lost River Preserve 

Fisheries Habitat 

Restoration (FL) 392,524 169,264 264,070 825,857 750,000 290,419 426,197 1,466,616

Total 15,068,771 5,235,355 6,677,806 26,981,933 28,583,645 8,844,389 10,635,473 48,063,507
46

Southwest

Elkhorn Slough Restoration (CA)

This project restored 450 acres within the Elkhorn Slough wetland complex. It is expected to 

boost ecosystem resilience to climate change by increasing the retention of sediment, critical to 

keeping pace with sea level rise. To dissipate tidal energy and re-establish the historic tidal range 

of the area, an adjustable water control structure was constructed at Parsons Slough, a major 

branch of the Elkhorn Slough estuary. The project was implemented by the California 

Department of Fish and Game, Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the 

Elkhorn Slough Foundation.

Big Springs Shasta River Restoration (CA)

This project will improve more than 11 miles of important salmon spawning and rearing habitat 

along the Shasta River and tributaries by supporting natural revegetation of 125 acres of the 

riparian zone and actively planting 32 riparian acres. This project also created structural 

improvements to allow for fish-friendly irrigation. These efforts will protect cold water springs, 

enhance cold water flows, and restore aquatic habitat critical for Chinook, steelhead, and 

threatened coho salmon in the Shasta River, which is the last major tributary before the mainstem 
47

Klamath River dams and crucial for salmonid restoration. The project was implemented by The 

Nature Conservancy California Chapter and the University of California Davis.

San Diego Bay Restoration (CA)

This project restored 281 acres in southern San Diego Bay by breaching levees, creating channels,

and revegetation. The restoration addressed an important need in an urban area that has seen 

significant loss of estuarine habitat from development, including a 70 percent loss of salt marsh. 

Two areas of the bay were transformed to provide habitat essential to fish and other marine life, 

birds, and native plants. These two sites are the western salt ponds of the South San Diego Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge and the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, located in the Bay to the east of 

the salt ponds. The sites provide additional habitat for at least five federally or state listed 

threatened and endangered species; a diverse array of commercial and recreational fish; and tens 

of thousands of migratory birds. Project partners included the Southwest Interpretive Association, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Diego Unified Port District, California State Coastal 

Conservancy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

San Francisco South Bay Salt Pond Restoration (CA)

This project provided tidal circulation to former salt ponds and restored 3,208 acres of wetlands 

in southern San Francisco Bay at the Eden Landing, Alviso, and Middle Bair Island sites. 

Restoration activities included breaching levees, regrading interior areas, and supporting natural 

revegetation. In addition, remaining acres (approximately 150) of invasive spartina were treated 

throughout the Bay area. San Francisco Bay lost an estimated 85 percent of its historic wetlands 

to development, and this project represents part of the largest tidal wetland restoration effort on 

the West Coast of North America (more than 15,000 acres in total). The project also contributes 

to the recovery of threatened and endangered species such as steelhead trout; increasing habitat 

for migratory birds and marine mammals; and improving the productivity of the Bay’s ecosystem.

Project partners included the California State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Clara Valley Water 

District, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Huntington/Magnolia Marsh Restoration (CA)

The project provided tidal circulation and restored 41 acres of urban wetlands in Huntington 

Beach by breaching a levee and creating channels and revegetation. The Huntington Beach 

Wetlands were once part of a large tidally influenced wetlands area encompassing 3,000 acres of 

what is now Costa Mesa. At present, only 300 acres of historic wetlands remain, most of which 

has been cut off from the ocean for decades. The Magnolia project is the final phase of this 

restoration project, not only restoring significant habitat for birds, shellfish, and coastal marine 

fish such as anchovy, mullet, corvina, and halibut, but also enhancing recreational use through 

adjacent public access improvements. This project was implemented by the Huntington Beach 

Wetlands Conservancy, California Conservation Corps, and the California State University Long 

Beach.

Lower Klamath Riparian Restoration and Tribal Nursery (CA)

This project restored 9 acres of in-stream habitat and 200 acres of riparian habitat; created two 

off-channel ponds in the lower Klamath River to benefit threatened coho salmon as well as 

Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, riparian buffers, and in-stream complexity on Lower 

Klamath tributaries; and expanded native plant nurseries. It created jobs in an area with high 
48

unemployment directly benefiting the tribal community. The project partners were the Green 

Diamond Resources, Inc., Yurok Tribe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.

American Canyon Salt Pond Restoration (CA)

The American Canyon "south unit" salt pond restoration project restored 1,164 acres of tidal 

wetlands by removing levees and contouring/excavating stream channels to re-create a natural 

tidal exchange, restore marsh, and provide flood protection. This project involved an important 

restoration expansion of the Napa-Sonoma Wildlife Area and San Pablo National Wildlife 

Refuge. The project will benefit threatened species including green sturgeon, delta and longfin 

smelt, steelhead, and Chinook salmon. The project was implemented by the California 

Department of Fish and Game and Ducks Unlimited.

Coastal Fisheries Restoration Project (CA)

This project involved the California Conservation Corps crew members in the restoration of more 

than 20 sites, restoring a total of 41 acres and opening 3 stream miles throughout coastal 

California. Restoration activities that benefited threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead

included salmonid spawning surveys (live fish, carcasses, and redd counts) within selected stream 

reaches of the Eel River, Redwood Creek, and Humboldt Bay watersheds; enhanced salmonid 

habitat in Wilson Creek; revegetation of the banks of the creek to prevent erosion and reduce 

sediment runoff into Dry Creek; and salmonid habitat monitoring. 

These projects were implemented by partners, as follows: AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards; 

Audubon Society; Big Sur Land Trust; Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board; Cachuma 

Resource Conservation District; California Coastal Conservancy; California Conservation Corps.;

California Department of Fish and Wildlife; California Department of Forestry; California 

Department of Parks and Recreation; California National Guard - Grizzly Youth Academy; 

California Polytechnic State University; California State Coastal Conservancy; California State 

Parks; Campbell Timberland Management; Cate School Corporation; Carpinteria Creek 

Watershed Coalition; Central Coast Salmon Enhancement; City of Santa Barbara; City of San 

Luis Obispo; Ducks Unlimited; Eel River Watershed Improvement Group; Greenspace-Cambria 

Land Trust; Green Diamond Resources, Inc.; Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County; 

Land Trust for Santa Barbara County; Los Padres National Forest; Mendocino Redwood 

Company; Morro Bay National Estuary Program; Mountains Restoration Trust; Mr. Jamie 

Widdoes (Landowner); Napa County Flood Control District; Natural Resources Conservation 

Service; Outside Now Academy; Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife, and Wetlands Restoration 

Association; Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; Redwood Forest Foundation; San Luis 

Obispo County; Santa Lucia Fly Fishers; Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission; Santa 

Monica Mountains Resource Conservation District; Sierra Watershed Progressive; SoperWheeler Company; South Coast Habitat Restoration / Earth Island Institute; Trout Unlimited; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Wildlife Conservation 

Board; Yolo County Resource Conservation District.
49

Salmon Creek Restoration (CA)

This project improved streamside corridor and in-stream habitat to benefit the endangered coho 

salmon and threatened steelhead. Project activities included installing rain catchment tanks to 

improve instream flow, planting native vegetation, and implementing other stream-related 

restoration activities to benefit fisheries resources. The project partners were the Bodega Water 

Company, Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District, Prunuske Chatham Inc., Salmon Creek 

Watershed Council, and Dragonfly Stream Enhancement.
50

Annex Table 10. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in California, Southwest region. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Elkhorn Slough Ecosystem Resilience 450.0 - -

Shasta River/Big Springs Creek Coho 

Recovery 157.0 - -

San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration 4,704.2 - -

San Diego Bay Restoration 257.0 - -

Huntington Beach Wetlands/Magnolia Marsh 

Restoration 40.5 - -

Lower Klamath Tributaries Riparian 

Restoration 214.5 - -

American Canyon Tidal Wetlands Restoration 1,164.4 1.5 -

Coastal Fisheries Restoration 41.0 3.0 -

Salmon Creek Habitat Restoration 84.2 3.2 -

Total 7,112.8 7.7 -
51

Annex Table 11. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in California, Southwest region.

Project Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Elkhorn Slough Ecosystem 

Resilience 42 8 10 61 2,967,581 608,815 594,263 4,170,660

Shasta River/Big Springs Creel 

Coho Recovery 29 5 4 37 765,450 148,188 130,956 1,044,593

San Diego Bay Restoration 

29 8 12 49 1,746,800 475,912 550,106 2,772,818

San Francisco Bay Salt Pond 

Restoration 62 15 22 100 4,377,650 1,047,626 1,160,035 6,585,311

Huntington Beach 

Wetlands/Magnolia Marsh 

Restoration 

32 11 16 59 1,847,860 688,131 796,159 3,332,150

Lower Klamath Tributaries 

Riparian Restoration 4 1 1 6 372,708 7,428 57,568 437,704

American Canyon Tidal 

Wetlands Restoration 74 20 25 119 4,661,733 1,116,275 1,178,925 6,956,933

Coastal Fisheries Restoration

36 5 7 48 937,997 258,093 320,267 1,516,357

Salmon Creek Habitat 

Restoration 16 4 4 24 871,916 206,157 202,922 1,280,995

Total 325 77 101 502 18,549,695 4,556,625 4,991,200 28,097,520
52

Annex Table 12. Value added and output impacts of ARRA projects in California, Southwest region.

Project Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Elkhorn Slough 

Ecosystem Resilience 2,701,829 880,407 976,031 4,558,267 4,503,614 1,320,493 1,437,355 7,261,462

Shasta River/ Big 

Springs Creel Coho 

Recovery 

505,747 280,904 277,601 1,064,252 1,645,741 541,892 453,532 2,641,165

San Diego Bay 

Restoration 1,722,399 686,940 962,465 3,371,804 3,270,636 1,128,916 1,488,154 5,887,706

San Francisco Bay Salt 

Pond Restoration 4,371,323 1,467,729 1,964,348 7,803,400 7,620,943 2,374,576 3,022,352 13,017,871

Huntington Beach 

Wetlands/ Magnolia 

Marsh Restoration 

1,810,340 1,025,192 1,372,706 4,208,238 3,532,800 1,865,758 2,217,278 7,615,836

Lower Klamath 

Tributaries Riparian 

Restoration 

538,857 12,557 120,703 672,117 592,010 24,400 197,590 814,001

American Canyon 

Tidal Wetlands 

Restoration

4,280,336 1,677,670 2,118,869 8,076,876 8,477,108 3,189,565 3,367,246 15,033,919

Coastal Fisheries 

Restoration 889,839 463,246 558,405 1,911,490 1,659,212 705,093 889,494 3,253,799

Salmon Creek Habitat 

Restoration 844,557 298,688 354,252 1,497,497 1,580,661 484,561 546,257 2,611,479

Total 17,665,228 6,793,333 8,705,381 33,163,942 32,882,725 11,635,253 13,619,259 58,137,238
53

Pacific Islands

Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration (HI)

This restoration project, conducted in the upland areas of the Kohala watershed, reduced landbased sediment inputs into coral reefs through erosion control, native revegetation, and limiting 

sediment transport. This restoration project is a comprehensive partnership of all the major 

stakeholders in the Pelekane Bay Watershed area. The Kohala Center contributed to this project.

Maunalua Bay Reef Restoration (HI)

This project restored 26.7 acres of coral reefs through manual removal of invasive alien algae. 

The restored sand bottom and hard substrate habitat enabled seagrass expansion and coral 

recruitment. Improvements included an increase in the abundance of certain native fish and limu 

species, better water quality, and sandier bottom conditions. Local communities experienced 

first-hand how their efforts have succeeded while engaging in stewardship of the Bay. The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawaii, local government agencies, and local residents contributed to this 

project.
54

Annex Table 13. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in Hawaii, Pacific Islands

region. 

Project Title

Habitat Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration 11,750.0 - -

Maunalua Bay Reef Restoration 26.7 - -

Total 11,776.7 - -
55

Annex Table 14. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in Hawaii, Pacific Islands region.

Project Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Pelekane Bay Watershed 

Restoration 60 8 8 76 1,842,631 270,727 290,588 2,403,947

Maunalua Bay Reef 

Restoration 75 8 13 96 2,030,717 354,106 547,079 2,931,902

Total 135 16 21 172 3,873,348 624,834 837,667 5,335,849

Annex Table 15. Value added and output impacts of ARRA projects in Hawaii, Pacific Islands region.

Project Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Pelekane Bay Watershed 

Restoration 1,501,095 542,451 549,063 2,592,609 2,905,065 904,271 888,593 4,697,929

Maunalua Bay Reef 

Restoration 1,546,783 600,984 952,488 3,100,254 3,408,848 1,406,043 1,579,811 6,394,703

Total 3,047,877 1,143,434 1,501,551 5,692,863 6,313,913 2,310,314 2,468,404 11,092,631
56

Alaska

Eyak Lake Restoration

This project addressed several key stressors in the Eyak Lake, a 2,400-acre shallow lake in Cordova, 

Alaska. Fish passage was improved by removing barriers to lake circulation, restoring the stream channel 

to a more natural configuration, and revegetation of the shoreline. Trout and pink salmon have already 

been observed using the upstream habitat. Implemented by the Copper River Watershed Project with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Prince William Sound Science Center, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, City of Cordova, Cordova District 

Fishermen United, Native Village of Eyak, Alaska Department of Transportation, Ecotrust, Prince 

William Soundkeepers, and the local communities.

Kenai Peninsula Salmon Habitat Restoration

The Kenai Watershed Forum restored a natural stream channel within Daves Creek, Stariski Creek and

removed several barriers to fish passage along the Anchor River, Lagoon Creek, and Salmon Creek. This 

will benefit Chinook, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon. Other partners included the City of Kenai, City of 

Seward, U.S. Forest Service, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kenai River Center, City of Soldotna, and the Kenai Peninsula 

Borough.
57

Southeast Alaska Salmon Habitat Restoration

This project restored estuarine hydrology within the Klawock River by constructing a culvert through a 

causeway that has blocked tidal exchange for nearly 50 years and that contributed to the decline of 

salmon in the Klawock River. The project restored access for out-migrating juvenile salmonids to 460 

acres of eelgrass habitat and provided adult salmonids with increased access to the Klawock River 

watershed. The project was completed in partnership with the Klawock Watershed Council, Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and The Nature Conservancy.

Marine Debris Removal and Restoration

The Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation (MCAF) worked within 19 locations to restore the Alaska 

shoreline from Prince of Wales Island at the southern tip to Little Diomede Island at the northern end of 

Alaska. Large-scale community cleanups included the removal of derelict fishing gear and vessels

totaling 390 tons of marine debris. The restoration benefited numerous seals, sea lions, whales, birds, and 

other species, many of which are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Annex Table 16. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in Alaska. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Eyak Lake Restoration 0.2 1.2 -

Kenai Peninsula Salmon Habitat Restoration 12.0 12.6 -

Southeast Alaska Salmon Habitat Restoration 5.0 - -

Marine Debris Removal and Restoration 1.0 - 390.0

Total 18.1 13.8 390.0
58

Annex Table 17. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in Alaska.

Project Title

Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Eyak Lake Restoration 8 1 1 10 323,706 47,477 52,072 423,254

Kenai Peninsula Salmon 

Habitat Restoration 13 3 6 21 948,370 191,877 264,071 1,404,318

Klawock River Salmon 

Passage and Habitat 

Restoration

15 2 2 19 523,080 86,711 65,782 675,573

Marine Debris Removal 

and Restoration 8 1 1 10 389,585 41,767 47,607 478,959

Total 44 7 10 61 2,184,741 367,832 429,532 2,982,105
59

Annex Table 18. Value Added and output impacts of ARRA projects in Alaska.

Project Title

Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Eyak Lake Restoration 265,441 78,863 102,342 446,646 638,473 162,781 167,611 968,865

Kenai Peninsula Salmon 

Habitat Restoration 890,630 298,409 464,572 1,653,611 1,568,272 519,510 736,466 2,824,249

Klawock River Salmon 

Passage and Habitat 

Restoration

343,575 153,602 132,898 630,075 1,018,486 272,076 209,100 1,499,662

Marine Debris Removal 

and Restoration 578,084 75,990 97,457 751,531 1,012,640 163,306 161,446 1,337,392

Total 2,077,729 606,865 797,267 3,481,862 4,237,871 1,117,673 1,274,623 6,630,167
60

Great Lakes

Dunes Creek Watershed Restoration (IN)

The State of Indiana's Department of Natural Resources daylighted 750 feet of culvert within 

Indiana Dunes State Park to reconnect 7,407 acres of the Dunes Creek watershed to Lake 

Michigan. The project improved the flood capacity and resiliency along the creek and offers 

additional flood protection for historic public facilities that serve beachgoers. Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources, and Department of 

Transportation were project implementers.

Milwaukee River and Watershed Restoration (WI)

The Ozaukee County Planning and Parks Department re-established fish access to riverine habitat 

through the removal of natural and man-made barriers within the Milwaukee River watershed 

(Village of Grafton's Lime Kiln and Newburg dams within the Milwaukee River), and the 

construction of a nature-like fishway along the Village of Thiensville's Mequon-Thiensville Dam. 

The project was implemented by the Ozaukee County Planning and Parks Department in 

coordination with the City of Mequon, Village of Thiensville, Village of Grafton, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Milwaukee Community 

Service Corps, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Riveredge Nature Center, Ulao Creek Partnership, and 

others.
61

Muskegon Lake Restoration (MI)

The Great Lakes Commission and local partner West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development 

Commission restored 32 acres of wetland and stabilized shoreline at 10 separate locations for the 

Muskegon Lake Area of Concern. Project partners were the Great Lakes Commission, West 

Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, Grand Valley State University-Annis 

Water Resources Institute, Muskegon River Watershed Assembly, Muskegon Lake Watershed 

Partnership, and landowners.

Annex Table 19. Ecological performance of ARRA projects in the Great Lakes region. 

Project Title

Habitat 

Restored 

(acres) 

Stream 

Opened 

(miles)

Debris 

Removed 

(tons)

Dunes Creek Watershed Restoration (IN) - 6.0 -

Milwaukee River and Watershed Restoration (WI) - 170.3 -

Muskegon Lake Restoration (MI) 32.9 - 182,862.0

Total 32.9 176.3 182,862.0
62

Annex Table 20. Employment and labor income impacts for projects in the Great Lakes region.

Project Title

Employment Labor Income (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Dunes Creek Watershed 

Restoration (IN) 9 2 5 16 762,893 99,151 168,843 1,030,887

Milwaukee River and 

Watershed Restoration (WI) 44 12 23 80 3,003,019 683,750 1,031,982 4,718,751

Muskegon Lake Restoration 

(MI) 79 26 38 143 4,780,988 1,286,132 1,481,085 7,548,206

Total 132 41 66 239 8,546,900 2,069,033 2,681,910 13,297,844
63

Annex Table 21. Employment and labor income impacts of ARRA projects in the Great Lakes region.

Project Title

Total Value Added (US$ 2012) Output (US$ 2012)

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Dunes Creek Watershed 

Restoration (IN) 794,681 148,050 305,451 1,248,182 1,401,602 332,882 512,772 2,247,256

Milwaukee River and 

Watershed Restoration (WI) 3,103,185 959,618 1,714,534 5,777,337 5,246,850 1,604,013 2,776,408 9,627,271

Muskegon Lake Restoration 

(MI) 5,148,837 1,810,879 2,599,063 9,558,778 10,000,000 3,161,703 4,374,675 17,536,378

Total 9,046,702 2,918,547 4,619,048 16,584,297 16,648,452 5,098,599 7,663,854 29,410,905
64

Appendix 2. Restoration techniques

The descriptions are meant to help clarify the techniques referenced in the project descriptions in

Appendix 1. 

Appendix Table 1. Restoration techniques.

Fish and Wildlife Management

Invasives removal: 

fauna

Physical removal or eradication of organisms from the habitat, which are nonnative or native but overabundant

Species 

enhancement

Addition of native animals to a restoration site.

This can be used for oyster planting (such as “spat on shell” placement), coral 

transplant, other species reintroduction, or stock enhancement. 

Hard Structural Techniques

Fishway Building or maintenance of a structure to enhance fish passage. 

This may be a concrete or metal fish ladder, or be a "nature-like" fishway made 

of rock and other natural bottom substrate. This project type may include 

modifying the dam during installation.

Berm/dike 

modification

(including 

replacement)

Modification of a man-made earthen water retention structure.

This can include partial removal, adding to an existing structure, or building a 

new structure to restrict water at a setback location.

Berm/dike removal Any project that results in permanent removal of a man-made earthen water 

retention structure.

Culvert modification

(including 

replacement)

Modification of a culvert to increase the diameter or width and height 

dimensions, decrease the longitudinal slope, or otherwise enhance the 

passability of fish through the culvert.

Culvert removal Any project that results in permanent removal of a culvert, including 

daylighting culverts.

Dam removal Any project that results in permanent removal of a dam. 

Tide gate modification

(including 

replacement)

Modification of tide gates to alter the current flow regime, or replacing the 

existing tide gate with a new gate.

Weir construction Creation of a low structure for the purpose of creating greater ease of fish 

passage, enhancing grade control or habitat enhancement such as pool creation.
65

Other Habitat Modifications

Bird habitat 

enhancement

Creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of nesting and roosting habitat for 

birds.

Contaminant removal/ 

remediation

Removal of contaminants from soil, sediment, waste, or water.

Debris removal Removal of on-shore or off-shore debris such as trash, fishing gear, vessels, or 

other man-made objects.

Fencing/netting Erection of permanent or temporary fences, nets, or strings to prevent or 

reduce herbivory, predation, or other forms of habitat degradation.

Large woody debris/

structure placement

Addition of large wood or rock structures to increase habitat diversity, 

including pool creation, for fish and wildlife within streams and other 

waterways, including their banks.

Stream channel 

reconnection/ creation

Any project that increases the length of a stream channel, but not one that 

increases the habitat quality within the channel. 

Project types include re-connecting oxbows or side channels or otherwise 

adding off-channel habitat as well as main-stem channel. 

Stream flow 

modification

Modification of stream flow through physical (not legal) measures to reduce 

water usage permanently, or provide water storage for later availability.

This includes projects that install water catchment systems and/or tanks for 

water storage, etc.

Protection

Education and 

outreach

Implementation of on-site or in-classroom educational activities, or outreach 

activities such as developing press or leading site tours.

Signage Placement of signage on-site to inform the public regarding restoration and 

ecologically appropriate activities.

This technique may include projects that develop or install 

educational/interpretive signage or signage to delineate restricted access zones, 

no-motor zones, etc.

Research/ 

recommendations

Activities NOT specifically resulting in on-the ground restoration, related to 

restoration research, involving the recommendation of future 

conservation/restoration actions.

Restoration Infrastructure

Native plant nursery Building or maintaining a structure to grow native plants. The structure may 

be wood, glass, metal, plastic, or other construction materials.

This technique also includes raising plants at the facility.
66

Sediment/Substrate Modification

Oyster reef 

construction

Placement of durable structure(s) to enhance the potential for oyster spat 

settlement.

This can include shell, rock, or man-made materials such as “Baycrete.” 

Projects that utilize shells collected from oyster gardening should also include 

the “oyster gardening” technique, and those that include supplementation 

through spat on shell should also include “species enhancement.”

Erosion control Use of soft erosion control methods, such as installing coconut fiber, rock, 

large wood, breakwaters, etc. 

This technique should be used for shorelines or banks, including living 

shoreline or bioengineering projects.

Fill removal Removal of sediment to reach the desired project elevation.

Placement of 

fill/dredge material

Placement of sediment to reach the desired project elevation.

Beach nourishment Addition of sand to sandy shorelines, regardless of whether the shoreline is inshore or open ocean (beach) shoreline

Vegetation Management

Invasives removal: 

vegetation

Removal of non-native or nuisance plant species from the restoration site. 

This can be used for any prevention methods, such as biological controls.

Planting Addition of native plants to a restoration site.

View publication stats