National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Information About Estuaries 

and Near Coastal Waters 

August 2002 - Issue 12.4

Table of Contents

● Phragmites australis: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

● Kayakers Become Ocean Steward at Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary

● Coastal Zone '03

● Are Shellfish Beds in Puget Sound Suffering from Urbanization?

● New NRC Report on Oil in the Sea

● Under the Sea

● The Coastal Bays of Maryland's Eastern Shore Catch up with Chesapeake 

Bay

● Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration 

Call for Presentations!

● Identifying the Factors that Affect Lobster Health in Long Island Sound

● Conflicting Values and Uses Draw Attention to Small Motorized Watercraft in 

New Jersey

● National Estuaries Day

● Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program: Nueces Bay Island Habitat 

Restoration Project
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Phragmites australis:

Background

Phragmites australis, or common reed, is 

currently the subject of debate and inquiry in 

the scientific and coastal management 

communities. Although the plant is known to 

have existed on this continent for at least the 

past 3,000 years, its range has expanded 

greatly in the last hundred years. It now is 

found in extensive monocultures throughout 

much of its range in the mid-Atlantic and 

New England states and in the Mississippi 

Delta region.

Current research is focusing on the genetics 

and physical features of Phragmites in order 

to find out if an aggressive strain of this 

species has been introduced to North 

America, which may be at the root of its 

dramatic expansion. Other researchers are 

assessing the ecological role played by 

Phragmites to determine whether or not the 

plant is actually degrading essential marsh 

functions, as is widely perceived.
Native or Non-Native? The Genetic Evidence

Scientists have hypothesized that the rapid spread of Phragmites australis could be 

explained by the introduction of a non-native strain to North America. However, little 

evidence other than its aggressive growth has been presented to support this idea. 

A researcher at Yale University recently used DNA from chloroplasts to conduct a 

genetic analysis of Phragmites worldwide to determine if North American 

populations differ from Phragmites in other parts of the world. Modern samples from 

across North America were also compared to herbarium specimens collected in the 

1800s and early 1900s. This information was used to evaluate the introduction of 

Phragmites to North America.

Based on this study, there appear to be 11 native types Phragmites distributed in 

North America that are genetically distinct from 16 types found elsewhere in the 

world. This suggests that Phragmites has been present in North America for a very 

long time. However, another type, called Haplotype M, that is common in Europe 

and continental Asia, is also the most common type found in North America. It 

dominates along the Atlantic coast and has spread to the southeast into areas 

where Phragmites was not found historically. It is also found in the Midwest and 

West along roadsides and waterways, although native populations persist in these 

regions as well. Another type, Haplotype I, dominates along the Gulf Coast. The 

distribution of this type has remained fairly stable over the past 100 years, but 

because it is also found in other parts of the world, it is not possible to say whether 

it is native or introduced to North America.

It appears that a Eurasian strain of 

Phragmites was accidentally introduced to 

North America, probably during the late 

1700s or early 1800s, into harbors along the 

Atlantic Coast. Today it occupies over 

2,000,000 hectares of tidal marshes in North 

America, and we can only guess at the 

acreage it occupies in inland marshes.

How Can You Tell the Difference Between 

Native and Non-Native Phragmites?

Researchers at Cornell University's Non-Indigenous Plant Species Program have 

recently discovered several morphological traits that can be used to easily 

distinguish native and introduced strains of Phragmites. 

Native populations have a lower stem density and thinner, more flexible stems with 
a reddish-purple color (fading into a light chestnut brown in the fall) not present in 

non-native populations. Ligules of native types are bright purple while ligules of 

introduced types are green or slightly yellow. Throughout the dormant season, leaf 

sheaths of native populations largely fall off and stems are smooth and shiny as if 

polished, while leaf sheaths of introduced strains do not fall off and stems are dull, 

with a rough, ribbed surface. 

Stems of introduced populations are almost perfectly straight while stems of native 

types often grow crookedly. In the fall and winter, differences in the density of 

inflorescences are also obvious; introduced types appear to have much denser and 

larger inflorescences. Observations in New York and Virginia also suggest that 

native types drop their leaves earlier than introduced types.

In addition, an unidentified stem fungus attacks only native populations, with dark 

well-defined spots often clustering around internodes. Stems of native types break 

down and decompose within two years, while stems of introduced strains often 

remain standing upright for many years. Native stands look open and are easy to 

walk through, while introduced populations appear solid, with a substantial leaf litter 

layer and high stem density. 

These observations of morphological differences need to be confirmed by 

examining additional types in the field and by growing them under standardized 

conditions in a common garden. Researchers at Cornell Universityís NonIndigenous Plant Species Program welcome rhizome and stem samples from 

around North America for these purposes; instructions can be found at: 

www.invasiveplants.net. This program offers a diagnostic service using these 

morphological characteristics.

Phragmites Impacts on Salt Marsh Ecology

The effects of Phragmites expansion are largely unknown, but have generally been 

believed to be negative, at least in the United States. Monocultures of Phragmites in 

many marshes may have at least four effects on marsh function:

1) Phragmites detritus may be of poor quality and lower availability to marsh 

consumers; 

2) The normal hydroperiod of the marsh may be altered due to the density of the 

stalks; 

3) Reduced tidal exchange may allow Phragmites to extend its range into lower 

elevations and replace other plants by outcompeting them; and 

4) Expansion of Phragmites likely results in isolated ìislandsî of Spartina and other 

native species with diminished function. 
On the other hand, some researchers have shown that nutrients from Phragmites 

are reaching higher levels of the food web. Moreover, similar invertebrate 

assemblages are common to both Phragmites- and Spartina-dominated marshes. 

Predation of these invertebrate communities appears to be similar in Phragmites 

versus Spartina marshes in some studies from Connecticut and New York, although 

in others (e.g., New Jersey), Phragmites appears to degrade habitat quality for early 

life history stages of resident swimming animals. 

The causes of recent expansions of Phragmites populations are poorly understood. 

Aggressive strains, disturbance of wetland soils and plant communities, 

sedimentation, nutrient pollution, and altered hydrology have all been cited as 

potential causes. The natural functions of this native species are also poorly 

understood, owing to the logistical difficulties of research in the tall, dense 

monoculture. There is an urgent need for new scientific information on Phragmites 

genetic diversity, ecology, role in ecosystems as a native species, and the causes 

and effects of its recent population expansion, particularly in estuaries.

Where Do We Go From Here? 

One problem with setting national priorities for control or prevention of aquatic 

nuisance species is that we often don't know the true extent of the problem. The 

extent to which Phragmites australis affects habitat quality for fish and wildlife, 

alters the marsh landscape and its function, reduces ecological redundancy and 

contributes nutrients to the food web in coastal marshes, are key areas for future 

research. Because so much effort is being placed on methods to eradicate this 

species, including the use of herbicides and prescribed burns on a large scale, the 

question of Phragmites invasion is both timely and critical to future management 

decisions. Simply stated, is this plant the "villain" that many believe it to be, or does 

it have redeeming features worth an adaptive management approach, rather than 

an all out assault to eliminate it? Are efforts to control this native species, or its 

introduced relative, justified, and are the causes of expansion being considered? 

Whether a native species gone awry or if the real culprit is its alien cousin, 

Phragmites australis certainly qualifies as a plant in need of considerable attention 

and management planning.

For more information on the ecology of Phragmites, contact Michael Weinstein, 

Ph.D., Director of the New Jersey Sea Grant College Program, New Jersey Marine 

Sciences Consortium, Sandy Hook Field Station, Building # 22, Fort Hancock, NJ 

07732; Phone: (732) 872-1300 ext. 21; Fax: (732) 872-9573; E-mail: 

mweinstein@njmsc.org.
For more information on the morphological differences between native and 

introduced Phragmites, contact Bernard Blossey, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and 

Director, Biological Control of Non-Indigenous Plant Species Program, Department 

of Natural Resources, 122E Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 

14853; Phone: (607) 255-5314; Fax: (607) 255-0349; Email: bb22@cornell.edu; or 

go to the website at http://www.invasiveplants.net.
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Kayakers Become Ocean Stewards at 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Like the Serengeti Plain in Africa, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary on 

the central California coast offers some of the best wildlife viewing in the world. 

Among the amazing sights are the harbor seals lolling on mudflats, California sea 

lions perched on rocks, and sea otters bobbing in kelp beds. These charismatic 

creatures can be seen daily without even leaving land, but a short spin in an ocean 

kayak can provide an up-close nature experience. Such experiences, which lead to 

appreciation of ocean wildlife and enjoyment of the marine environment, are 

encouraged by the National Marine Sanctuaries.

The problem is, sometimes "up-close" 

becomes "too close," and the animal is 

alarmed or forced to flee. That is when 

wildlife-watching becomes wildlife 

harassment. And in an area with an 

estimated 30,000 kayak rentals and tours 

each year, concentrated in the summer 

months and at a few high-volume locations, 

there is a high potential (though less than 

from motorized watercraft) for repeated and harmful disturbance of sensitive wildlife 

species.

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), one of thirteen marine 

sanctuaries administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), is tackling this growing problem with a proactive educational approach. 

The sanctuaryís TeamOCEAN Kayaker Outreach Program puts knowledgeable 

naturalists out on the water to greet and interact with fellow day kayakers. The 

naturalists serve as stewards for the marine sanctuary, promote respectful wildlife 

viewing, and protect marine mammals from disturbance.

The TeamOCEAN Kayaker Outreach Program, now entering its second year, is 

based on the principles that most kayakers care deeply about the ocean 

environment, and most wildlife harassment is unintentional. Other kayakers are not 

clear on what an "appropriate" distance is, or that changing a marine mammal's 

behavior in any way constitutes harassment, regardless of the distance kept. When 

necessary, the team members ask boaters to back away from animals, and then 

explain the biology behind the protective regulations and how to recognize 

behaviors that precede disturbance.

TeamOCEAN staff have no enforcement authority; they do not write tickets or issue 

warnings. When they observe a potential regulatory violation, they often report it to 

the Sanctuary's enforcement officer by cell phone or radio. Their communications 

with land also allow them to report oil slicks and safety-related emergencies. They 

keep thorough records of their interactions and observations while on the water, 

collecting valuable information for the Sanctuary about the types of disturbances 

and problems occurring in some of the sanctuary's heavily used coastal areas. 

Monterey Bay's TeamOCEAN Kayaker Outreach Program falls under a national 

umbrella of TeamOCEAN outreach programs implemented by marine sanctuaries 

around the country. To make the most of a limited budget, the program has focused 

its efforts on two locations where coastal marine mammals and birds, as well as the 

kayakers that come to see them, are highly concentrated: Monterey's Cannery Row 

and Elkhorn Slough, a coastal wetland in central Monterey Bay. TeamOCEAN 

kayaking staff spend Fridays through Sundays out on the water, six hours per day, 

from summer through early fall. The program's kayaks were generously provided by 

Perception, while Kokatat donated paddling gear. While this program relies on a 

small paid staff, this year the sanctuary is considering expanding it to include 

volunteer kayakers as well.

Good team training is a critical component of 

the outreach program, and the first week of 

the season is devoted to training and teambuilding. The contract staff hired for the 

program complete an in-depth class in kayak 

paddling and rescue skills. Then, they get a 

thorough overview of MBNMS programs, 

regulations, resources, and natural history, 
with emphasis on the marine mammals and seabirds commonly seen from kayaks. 

Introductions are made to the local kayak rental shops and relevant organizations 

such as the Coast Guard, harbormaster offices, marine mammal rescue network, 

and Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Feedback from the 1,800 kayakers personally contacted by the TeamOCEAN staff 

in 2001 was resoundingly positive. The great majority of contacts were extremely 

pleasant, with many people expressing appreciation for the interesting information 

the team provided, a willingness to "do the right thing," and gratitude for being 

informed of what the "right thing" is.

Some people even thanked the team for being there, saying it made them feel that 

the sanctuary was being well protected. This type of comment highlights some of 

the bonuses of the program: a more tangible presence on the water, and greater 

Sanctuary visibility to the public, the kayaking community, and the media.

The benefits of the TeamOCEAN Kayaker Outreach Program have come in many 

forms, including a reduction in the number of disturbances to sensitive and 

threatened marine mammals and an enhanced public awareness and recognition of 

the Sanctuaryís active role in marine protection. Ultimately, the program has the 

power to transform casual kayakers to ocean stewards and passionate marine 

sanctuary advocates.

For further information, contact Jen Jolly, Public Outreach Specialist; Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary, Santa Cruz Office, 55-D Municipal Wharf, Santa Cruz, 

CA 95060; Phone: (831) 420-1630; E-mail: jen.jolly@noaa.gov or visit the website 

at www.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Coastal Zone '03

Coastal Zone Management Through Time

The largest conference for the world's coastal resource management community 

will be held from July 13 - 17, 2003 in Baltimore, Maryland. 

For more information, please visit www.csc.noaa.gov/cz2003/. The deadline for 

abstract submissions is September 16, 2002. 
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Are Shellfish Beds in Puget Sound 

Suffering from Urbanization?

A tragic story is repeated in coastal areas around the country--quaint watershed 

loses touch with its rural roots, grows slowly but steadily, suffers insidious and 

unexpected changes in character and eventually turns indistinctively urban, spoiling 

the very qualities and resources that once made it special. Not a pretty picture.

The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team is trying to change this scenario. 

Puget Sound consists of a beautiful and intricate network of bays and waterways 

that support some of the finest shellfish habitat in the world. The cool, clean waters 

of the Pacific Northwest have helped make Washington State the nation's leading 

producer of farmed shellfish and nurture such prized foods as the diminutive 

Olympia oyster and the geoduck (pronounced "gooey-duck"), the world's largest 

burrowing clam.

Despite the good news, shellfish harvesting 

has an uncertain future in Puget Sound. Like 

other coastal areas, Puget Sound is rapidly 

urbanizing. Since 1980, the region's 

population has grown by over 40 percent and 

much of the fastest growth is occurring in the 

Sound's rural, shellfish-rich counties. While 

many important safeguards have been 

instituted over the past 20 years to control 

pollution and manage growth, a number of 
difficult issues remain unresolved.

New Directions for Shellfish Protection

Past efforts to protect shellfish have seen their "ups" and "downs." In the 1980s 

nearly 33,000 commercial shellfish acres were downgraded and taken out of 

production. In the midst of this trend a number of new programs were instituted to 

protect and restore the Sound's shellfish growing areas. This work led to an 

upgrade of 1,400 acres in 1989 - the first encouraging sign that targeted efforts 

could make a real difference.

In the 1990s, continued downgrades of over 13,000 acres were offset by a large 

number of successful projects that restored harvesting on more than 10,000 acres. 

These gains marked a significant turning point, effectively making the case that 

pollution sources could be controlled and harvest opportunities recaptured.

But this painstaking work has also revealed many stark limits and important 

lessons. Evidence indicates that pollution problems are surfacing at more sites, are 

increasingly complex and costly to resolve, and are often exacerbated by population 

growth and urbanization. In the face of such trends it's clear that shellfish protection 

strategies anchored in reactive methods will ultimately prove futile.

Restoration efforts are essential, but they also must be complemented by more farsighted land use plans, pollution controls and behavior changes that address the 

underlying causes of the problems. This new thinking shifts emphasis away from 

symptoms and short-term fixes to more meaningful long-term pollution prevention 

and lasting protection.

Research on Urbanization

As part of this transition the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team is studying the 

relationship between urbanization and water quality in shellfish growing areas - 

attempting to correlate development and landscape changes with fecal 

contamination of shellfish beds in the Puget Sound region. While significant 

research in recent years has focused on urbanization and its effects on streams and 

other aquatic habitats, the research does not automatically translate to shellfish 

beds. With more information, elected officials, planners and others will be better 

equipped to address the potential impact of land use activities and development 

proposals on shellfish growing areas.

The goals of the project are to (1) better understand the relationship between 

urbanization and fecal contamination in the shoreline environment, (2) raise 
awareness of the tradeoffs and consequences associated with pollution, growth and 

development in shellfish watersheds, and (3) arm decision-makers, planners and 

citizens with information and tools to more effectively safeguard shoreline waters for 

shellfish harvesting. The study includes three main components:

● Literature review of research describing the relationship between growth, 

development and water quality in the shoreline environment, specifically fecal 

contamination of shellfish beds. To be completed by summer, 2002.

● Case-study research to develop assessment methods, select the study sites, 

collect and analyze data, and if possible, quantify the relationships and 

related variables. Assess and compare present-day conditions at all study 

sites and historical conditions and trends at select study sites. To be 

completed by spring, 2003.

● Develop shellfish protection guidelines and disseminate the recommendations 

to decision-makers and other audiences for use in developing and updating 

local land use, shoreline and pollution control plans and programs. To be 

completed summer, 2003, and ongoing.

Funding for the $60,000 project is provided by US EPA. A potential follow-up project 

already on the drawing board, but not yet funded, involves developing a predictive 

model and partnering with Puget Sound communities to evaluate alternative buildout scenarios and to design locally tailored mitigation measures.

For further information, contact Stuart Glasoe, Puget Sound Water Quality Action 

Team; Phone: (360) 407-7319; E-mail: sglasoe@psat.wa.gov; or visit the Action 

Team's website at http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound.
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

New NRC Report on Oil in the Sea

The National Research Council announced its new publication: Oil in the Sea III: 

Inputs, Fates, and Effects. The report is the third in a series of comprehensive looks 

at marine oil pollution carried out by the National Academy and co-sponsored by the 

EPA. This report focuses on increasing our understanding of how releases of 

petroleum associated with petroleum extraction, transportation, and consumption 

vary in size, frequency and environmental impact. The report includes a number of 

specific recommendations to federal agencies to help estimate inputs from all 

sources, determine the fate of the petroleum released, and to ascertain the 

ecological response of the areas affected. 

The full report will also be available on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Under the Sea

Photo 1 RoxAnn Ground Master unit

It is rare for state coastal program 

managers and coastal decision-makers 

to have maps of the seabed resources 

located off their shores. The Delaware 

Coastal Program is currently trying to 

remedy this situation by mapping its 

seabed resources, which comprise 

approximately 20% of the State of 

Delaware. To do this, the Delaware 

Coastal Program is using a RoxAnnTM 

Seabed Classification System.

The data collected by this system offers 

information on a wide variety of coastal 

management issues from habitat 

suitability modeling and dredging impacts 

to mapping submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV), macroalgae and 

potentially horseshoe crab distributions. 

The RoxAnnTM Seabed Classification 

System (Photo 1) is a remote sensing 

hydro-acoustic sensor that has the ability 

to classify seabed bottom type by 

extracting data on bottom roughness and 

bottom hardness using echoes measured 
Photo 2 Sample of RoxMap software in 

the field. When connected to the RoxAnn 

Ground Master unit, the depth box 

reports depth in meters and seabed type 

(as created by the user) in real-time on a 

NOAA Nautical Chart.

on a standard transducer. The system 

interfaces with a Global Position System 

(GPS) to provide locations of acoustic 

signals and a shipboard computer to 

enable real-time data classification and 

mapping of the seabed and associated 

biological communities. Data on time, 

position, depth, and classification parameters are logged at one-second intervals to 

a computer file, which can be exported to a geographic information system (GIS) for 

further spatial analysis. GIS analysis can be used to determine the benthic habitat 

boundaries and bathymetry, and display differences between successive surveys. 

Such spatial and time-series analysis is necessary for long-term monitoring and 

management needs.

Photo 3 Towed underwater camera for 

field verifications.

Benthic Habitat Characterization of 

the Inland Bays

From mid-March through early April, 

2002, staff from the Delaware Coastal 

Programs ran the RoxAnnTM system in 

North-South and East-West transects 

(Photo 2) across Rehoboth and Indian 

River Bays on a 19 foot polarcraft, 

recording the geographically referenced 

point data. The RoxAnnTM analyzed two 

acoustic signals, bottom roughness and 

bottom hardness. The ratio of these two 

measurements was calibrated in the field 

to known bottom types. Measurements were ground-truthed in the field using 

underwater video (Photo 3) and grab samples (Photo 5). The RoxAnnTM system 

was able to distinguish between sand, mud, macroalgae species, shell, clams 

(Photo 4) and rock found on the sea bottom.

In the end, the geographically referenced points will be exported into a GIS 

database and will be used to map bottom substrate contours and bathymetry. The 

final product will provide detailed bottom substrate data, maps and bathymetry to 

aid in Delaware's efforts to manage the benthic habitats of the Inland Bays.
Photo 4 Benthic grab sample clam and 

mud

Photo 5 Petite Ponar benthic grab 

sampler for field verifications.

For further information, contact Kimberly 

B. Cole, Environmental Scientist, 

Delaware Coastal Programs, Division of 

Soil and Water Conservation, 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control; 89 Kings 

Highway, Dover, DE 19901; Phone: 

(302) 739-3451; E-mail: 

kcole@state.de.us
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

The Coastal Bays of Maryland's Eastern 

Shore Catch up with Chesapeake Bay

The coastal bays on Maryland's eastern shore are home to more than 300 species 

of migratory waterfowl, songbirds, and birds of prey. The shallow bays provide 

habitat for rare plant and animal species, as well as blue crabs, flounder, and 

clams. Located entirely within Worcester County, the coastal bays host more than 

12 million seasonal visitors who contribute to a $2 billion tourism industry. The 

coastal bays were designated a national estuary in 1996 under the National Estuary 

Program. The Atlantic Coastal Bays Protection Act of 2002, recently passed by 

Governor Glendening and the 2002 Maryland General Assembly, is another 

important step in protecting this beautiful ecosystem.

In 1996, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program 

was established and the effort to develop a 

comprehensive plan to restore and protect 

Marylandís coastal bays began. By 1999, 

federal, state, and local agencies, citizens, 

farmers, developers, and other stakeholders 

had collaboratively developed the 

Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan for Maryland's Coastal 

Bays (CCMP). The new legislation will add to 

those efforts and provide additional protections to the bays while accommodating 

room for growth in the region.
The Atlantic Coastal Bays Protection Act was designed to protect the coastal bays 

by enhancing protection of special habitats, reducing pollutant loads, providing 

public access, reducing impervious surfaces, and properly siting water dependent 

facilities. Special attention is given to the "Critical Area" within the coastal bays, 

which is defined as all land within 1,000 feet of the mean high water line of tidal 

waters or the landward edge of tidal wetlands and all waters of and lands under the 

coastal bays and their tributaries.

The concept of "critical area" designation was formally introduced in Maryland in 

1984 with the passage of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Act. "Critical areas" 

are sensitive coastal areas key to the water quality and productivity of the 

Chesapeake Bay Estuary that can benefit from enhanced protection and land use 

planning. The Atlantic Coastal Bays Protection Act of 2002 extends the concept of 

"critical area" designation beyond the Chesapeake Bay to the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland.

Under the Act, local jurisdictions within the coastal bays watershed will use 

established guidelines and criteria to develop critical area protection programs by 

January 1, 2003. While each local jurisdiction is encouraged to design their own 

plan, specific to its own conditions, the general goals of the Act must be met. These 

goals are to:

● Minimize adverse effects on water quality that result from pollutants that are 

discharged from structures or conveyances or that have run off from 

surrounding lands; 

● Conserve fish, wildlife, and plant habitat in the Critical Area; and

● Establish land use policies for development in the Critical Area, to 

accommodate growth and also manage human activities that can cause 

adverse environmental effects.

During the development of the 2002 Act, Worcester County requested that 

legislators include protection for non-tidal streams in the Act, and legislators granted 

that request. Given the relatively small watershed size, additional protection to nontidal streams in the watershed may have the most significant effect on improving 

water quality and habitat. 

An innovative conservation approach is being developed to protect non-tidal 

streams. Local jurisdictions are required to map and establish three land use 

designations: Intensely Developed Areas (areas of concentrated development 

where little natural habitat occurs), Limited Development Areas (areas in which 

development is of a low or moderate intensity), and Resource Conservation Areas 

(areas characterized by natural environments or by resource-utilization activities). 
There are different environmental protections afforded to each of the three land use 

designations. For example, developers of sites within Intensely Developed Areas 

must generally provide at least 15% forest or developed woodland cover after 

development or a fee-in-lieu payment.

Local programs are approved by a State Critical Area Commission, but are 

implemented locally. The statewide Critical Area Commission was created under 

the 1984 legislation to oversee the development and implementation of local land 

use programs within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The new Atlantic Coastal 

Bays Protection Act of 2002 expands the Commission with two new members from 

Worcester County.

Worcester intends to beat the January 1, 2003 deadline by finishing their critical 

area plan by mid-summer in 2002. County Commissioners and staff were well 

prepared to address the requirements of the Coastal Bays Protection Act after 

having proposed county legislation for similar protection planning at the County 

level earlier in the year.

While the actual effects of the Atlantic Coastal Bays Protection Act have yet to be 

ascertained, the Act is a significant accomplishment for Worcester County and the 

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. The commitments and contributions to the 

development of this Act by the agencies and stakeholders involved are as critical to 

the future health of the coastal bays as the Act itself.

For further information, contact Katheleen Freeman, Coastal Planner, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources; Coastal Zone Management; Phone: (410) 260-

8986; Fax: (410) 260-8739 E-mail: kfreeman@dnr.state.md.us
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Inaugural National Conference on Coastal 

and Estuarine Habitat Restoration Call for 

Presentations!

The Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration 

will be held April 13-16, 2003, in Baltimore, Maryland. Restore America's Estuaries 

will host the conference, to be held at the Hyatt Regency Inner Harbor Hotel. This 

will be the first nationwide forum focused solely on the goals and practices of 

coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. Incorporating the non-profit, government, 

business and academic sectors and will address habitat restoration in coastal and 

estuarine areas of the United States, including the Great Lakes region, as well as 

transboundary initiatives and issues.

Those who are interested in providing presentations are invited to submit proposals. 

All conference proposals should relate specifically to one or more of the following 

conference themes: Best Practices in Restoration, Community Involvement, 

Planning and Priority-Setting, Science and Technology, Monitoring and Evaluation, 

and Policy and Funding.

For further conference information, contact Heather Bradley, Conference 

Coordinator; Phone: (703) 524-0248; E-mail: hbradley@estuaries.org.

For more conference information and full descriptions of conference themes, please 

see the full "Call For Presentations" on the website at www.estuaries.org. Session 

proposals are due by September 13, 2002.
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Identifying the Factors that Affect Lobster 

Health in Long Island Sound

In August 2000, Coastlines reported on the 1999 mass mortality in the lobster 

fishery in Long Island Sound and the subsequent research to address this disaster. 

This article is meant to provide an update on the most recent research and 

monitoring program. 

Over the last decade or so, the entire 

northeastern American lobster fishery 

experienced increased prosperity. Advances 

in gear efficiency, coupled with tremendous 

resource abundance, contributed to both an 

enhanced catch rate and an expanding 

fishery throughout much of the 1990's. By the 

late 1990's, the fishing effort was in the range 

of over four million traps throughout the 

entire northeastern seaboard. In Long Island Sound, which represents the southern 

limit of the American lobster's range, there was a steep increase, by a factor of 3 to 

4, in the number of traps and landings in New York, compared to a doubling in 

Connecticut.

In the fall of 1999, Connecticut and New York lobstermen reported unusual levels of 

die-off. This was substantiated by records from New York's Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and the Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (CT DEP) that estimated a 55% reduction in lobster 
landings for that period, as compared to the previous year. This forced many 

lobstermen to leave the fishery altogether and resulted in the allocation of federal 

and State of Connecticut funding to support lobster research in Long Island Sound. 

By mid-2001, seventeen projects were initiated to try to identify the causes of the 

mass mortalities, and to strengthen state monitoring programs overseen by CT DEP 

and NYS DEC. University and federal agency researchers are investigating 

potential causes, including environment, human, failure of immune and endocrine 

systems, and shell disease. 

Monitoring in Long Island Sound

Current lobster monitoring projects involve tracking lobster movements using 

tagged lobsters and monitoring lobster catches through onboard electronic 

recorders and trawl surveys. In 2001, state agency scientists and lobstermen 

tagged nearly 4,000 lobsters to document their movement within and around the 

Sound. In Connecticut, preliminary return data show that more than 50% of the 

recaptured lobsters had moved less than 1 kilometer, and approximately 75% had 

moved 5 kilometer or less. Only two percent traveled more than 10 kilometer from 

their release point. Male, female, and egg-bearing females all showed the same 

tendency to remain near their capture area. Continuing data collection in the spring 

and summer months will help to show whether this pattern is maintained yearround.

Electronic data recorders purchased by the CT DEP are being installed on 24 

commercial lobster vessels. Vessel captains will record biological data from their 

catch, including the incidence of shell disease, number of dead and dying, size, sex, 

and egg status. This data will be used to produce a summary report for the 

harvesters and state on a monthly basis.

Recent trawl surveys conducted by the CT DEP in the Sound have shown that an 

encouraging number of juvenile females are present, which brings hope for 

recovery of the population over the long term if they survive to reproduce. However, 

lobstering currently remains poor in many parts of the Sound and the industry 

continues to struggle to adjust to the fewer available lobsters. 

The Research Effort Continues

Several ongoing studies are examining potential causes of the 1999 die-off event. 

Researchers are working with healthy lobsters to find out how their health changes 

under stressful conditions, both in the Long Island Sound estuary, and in water 

bodies outside the affected region. Scientists induce stress by exposing the lobsters 

to an array of stressors, including high water temperatures, low oxygen levels, and 
a range of salinity. Healthy lobsters are also being exposed to naturally-occurring 

bacteria, and then held in the Sound to see if they react similarly to those that died 

in 1999. Evaluating the cumulative effects of stress on lobster immune and 

endocrine systems is an important goal of these studies.

Researchers are also investigating how the environment in Long Island Sound has 

changed over time. Water quality and environmental conditions over the last 

decade are being analyzed for trends. Core samples taken from different areas in 

the Sound are helping researchers to study changes in the Sound that may have 

occurred over a much longer time frame (hundreds of years). The results will 

indicate whether the environmental changes seen are the result of local influences, 

or are more strongly linked to global climate changes.

Pesticides such as malathion, methoprene, and pyrethoids, which are used for 

mosquito control in coastal New York and Connecticut, are being studied to 

determine what effect, if any, they may have on lobster health. Scientists are 

investigating possible sub-lethal or chronic effects of such pesticides on larval, 

juvenile, and adult stages, at concentrations that might have been present. The 

potential for these pesticides to affect the hormones responsible for growth and 

molting is also the subject of research. 

Parasites such as Paramoeba are also a potential suspect of the 1999 die-off event. 

Scientists are using genetic techniques to more definitively identify the Paramoeba 

sp. that continues to be detected in lobster samples from Long Island Sound. 

Complementary work includes developing a probe to more easily detect Paramoeba 

in the water column and in lobster tissue.

Some research funds are also being used to investigate the growing incidence of 

shell disease in American lobsters. Shell disease should not be confused with the 

Paramoeba infection. It is a bacterial infection that causes darkening and pitting of 

the shell. The appearance in affected lobster prevents them from being sold for the 

"live" market (although the meat is safe to consume). Instead, the meat from these 

lobsters is canned, a less profitable product. The disease currently affects lobsters 

from New York to Massachusetts, and the states are collaborating to record data 

regarding the diseased lobsters. This disease differs from red tail disease 

(Gaffkemia) that resulted in economic losses during the early 1990s. Lobster 

diseases are reviewed in a fact sheet, available on the website described below. 

Shell diseases may be caused by chitinolytic bacteria that break down shell 

components. Ongoing work includes determining which bacteria are common to the 

infected animals, what causes them to attack the exoskeleton, and whether these 

infections can spread through pre-existing breaches in the shell (e.g., wounds 
resulting from fights).

Lobster research and resource monitoring efforts are ongoing, and everyone is 

eagerly awaiting their completion. The information that is being gathered will 

increase our understanding of the vulnerability of the lobster fishery and other 

important marine resources, and provide better information on how we can 

safeguard it for future generations.

For further information, contact Antoinette Clemetson, Lobster Outreach Specialist, 

New York Sea Grant Extension; 30 Sound Avenue, Riverhead New York, 11901-

1098; Phone: (631) 727-3910; Fax: (631) 369-5944; E-mail: aoc5@cornell.edu or 

Nancy Balcom, Extension Program Leader, Connecticut Sea Grant College 

Program, 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, Connecticut, 06340-6097; Phone: 

(860) 405-9127; Fax: (860) 405-9109; E-mail: nancy.balcom@uconn.edu

Please visit the website http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/LILobsters/LILobsters.htm

for additional information. To review the earlier Coastlines article visit 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/aug00/lobster.html. 

Long Island Sound Lobster Research Initiative is a joint collaboration of National 

Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, EPA Long Island Sound 

Study, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Sea Grant College Programs 

in Connecticut and New York.
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Conflicting Values and Uses Draw 

Attention to Small Motorized Watercraft in 

New Jersey

Recently, two workshops were held on the Impacts of Small Motorized Boats on 

Shallow Water Systems to address the rapid increase in the number of small boats 

and personal watercraft in New Jersey coastal waters. Conflicts regarding 

competing uses and values of water are increasing among recreationalists, 

waterfront residents, and environmentalists. In recent years, as their use has 

increased, small motorized watercraft have become a critical source of conflict 

along New Jersey's shorelines. 

Small Motorized Watercraft

Small motorized watercraft include both jet-driven and propeller-driven boats, less 

than about six meters long, that can access shallow water. Personal watercraft 

(PWCs) are vessels less than about five meters long, that are propelled by waterjets. PWCs are capable of operating in very shallow water and even in the 

narrowest tidal marsh channels. Propeller-driven watercraft are propelled by one or 

more blades (screws) that create a backward thrust of water. 

These small motorized watercraft can cause significant negative effects on water 

and sediment quality, benthic habitats, and biotic communities. Contaminants such 

as metals and hydrocarbons can leach from boat engines and hulls into the water 

column, and bottom sediments are commonly resuspended into the water column 
from the turbulence caused by the propulsion of watercraft. Hydrocarbon 

compounds and trace metals released from two- and four-cycle engines and boat 

hulls tend to accumulate in bottom sediments. The resuspension of bottom 

sediment increases turbidity levels, re-introduces nutrient and chemical 

contaminants into the water column, and reduces light transmission through the 

water column.

Propeller wash and propeller cutting directly impact benthic habitats by damaging 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), scarring the substrate, and eroding 

sediments. The impacts of scarring are particularly critical due to the time needed (3-

7 years or more) for natural recovery by seagrasses. Deep propeller cutting also 

creates steep topographical depressions in the substrate that may remain 

uncolonized and barren for as much as 10-20 years.

PWCs have also had documented impacts. The high speeds and audible sounds of 

water jet-driven vessels have been shown to adversely affect the behavior, 

reproduction, and distribution of colonial nesting birds (e.g., common terns) in 

coastal environments. PWCs also may affect nearshore habitats by accelerating 

sediment resuspension and eroding shoreline areas. The scarring impacts of PWC 

use, however, has not been sufficiently documented in New Jersey or elsewhere. 

Additional data collection will help to formulate effective environmental management 

strategies.

The Workshops

The two recent workshops were organized by the Jacques Cousteau National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) and the New Jersey Coastal Zone 

Management Program (NJCZMP), who are partnering to identify and address 

coastal management concerns at state, regional, and local levels. The JCNERR, 

located in Tuckerton, New Jersey, is one of 26 national reserves dedicated to the 

education, research, and stewardship of estuaries and coastal systems. The 

workshops are part of a larger series of Coastal Decision-Maker Workshops 

(CDMW) of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which are aimed at 

providing information, resources, and networking opportunities to individuals whose 

decisions affect the health and integrity of coastal resources. 
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

National Estuaries Day

Mark your calendars for October 3 - 5, 2002! This year's celebration of National 

Estuaries Day marks the beginning of a new partnership between NOAA's National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System and EPA's National Estuary Program. For the 

first time EPA and NOAA will co-produce Estuary Live! on October 3 ñ 4. This web 

based broadcast will provide classrooms and the general public around the world 

with the opportunity to take a "virtual" live tour of some of the nation's most valued 

estuaries.

NEPs and NERRs will be partnering locally to raise public awareness about 

estuaries in both programs, for exampled six of the estuaries will be highlighted 

through educational videos. Live estuary tours will be hosted by the following 

National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERR) and National Estuary Programs 

(NEP): Padilla Bay NERR and Puget Sound NEP in WA; South Slough NERR and 

Tillamook Bay NEP in OR and the Lower Columbia River NEP in OR and WA; 

Barataria-Terrebonne NEP, LA; Charlotte Harbor NEP and Rookery Bay NERR in 

FL; North Inlet-Wynah Bay NERR in SC; North Carolina NERR and Albemarle 

Pamlico Sounds NEP in NC; Jacques Cousteau NERR and Barnegat Bay NEP in 

NJ; and Chesapeake Bay NERR in MD, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, and, one 

of 15 Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers designated by the Coastal America 

partnership, the National Aquarium in Baltimore will highlight their Chesapeake Bay 

Conservation program.

Schools, science centers, aquariums and other educational facilities that have KUBand satellite dishes will be recruited to provide classes or the general public the 

opportunity to participate in Estuary Live! Anyone with Internet access can be part 
of this state-of-the-art exploration of the nation's estuaries from their home or office. 

Participants can email questions that will be answered by the estuary guides as 

they take viewers on tour of their estuary.

Estuary Live! will kick-off local National Estuaries Day events to be celebrated on 

October 5th. The purpose of National Estuaries Day is to promote the importance of 

estuaries and the need to protect them.

For more information, please check out the www.estuaries.gov website that will 

provide links to the Estuary Live! program and local National Estuaries Day events 

around the country or call Betsy Salter, U.S. EPA at (202) 566-1244 or Theresa 

Eisenman (ext. 105) and Becky Weidman (ext. 145), NOAA at (301) 713-3155.
National Estuary Program 

Note: This information is provided for reference 

purposes only. Although the information provided 

here was accurate and current when first created, it 

is now outdated.

Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program

United States

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of Water

(4504F)

EPA842-F-02-

007C

August 2002

Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries 

Program

Neuces Bay Island Habitat Restoration Project

INTRODUCTION
The Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program 

(CBBEP) project area lies along the south central 

Texas Gulf coast. The Texas Coastal Bend 

project area encompasses, 12 counties, 11,500 

square miles of land and 515 square miles of 

bays and estuaries. Three of the seven major 

estuaries along the Texas coast are within the 

Coastal Bend, each exhibits a wide variety of 

highly productive habitats, including oyster reefs, 

seagrass meadows, open bay bottoms, coastal 

marshes, wind tidal flats, barrier islands, and 

freshwater marshes. Among the major riverine 

systems that flow into the estuaries are the 

Mission, Aransas and Nueces Rivers. 

The composition and distribution of the habitats and biota of the Coastal Bend are 

greatly influenced by climate and their geographic setting. More than 3,200 known 

species of animals and plants live in the Coastal Bend bays and estuaries. Habitat 

loss is a priority issue for the CBBEP as identified in the Coastal Bend Bays Plan. 

The Bays Plan identifies approximately 50 actions that are intended to benefit the 

bay system while supporting continued economic growth and public use of the 

bays.

The Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, a local non-profit, was established in 

1994 with the goal of developing and implementing the Bays Plan. The CBBEP 

supports and develops management solutions with a focus on public health issues, 

altered freshwater inflow into bays and estuaries, condition of living resources, loss 

of wetlands and estuarine habitats, degradation of water quality, altered estuarine 

circulation, and bay debris.

The National Estuary Program
Estuaries and other coastal and marine waters are national resources that are increasingly threatened 

by pollution, habitat loss, coastal development, and resource conflicts. Congress established the 

National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1987 to provide a greater focus for coastal protection and the 

demonstrate practical, innovative approaches for protecting estuaries and their living resources.

As part of the demonstration role, the NEP offers funding for member estuaries to design and 

implement Action Plan Demonstration Projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to address 

priority problem areas, show improvements that can be achieved on a small scale, and help determine 

the time and resources needed to apply similar approaches basin-wide.

The NEP is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It currently includes 28 

estuaries: Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC; Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex, LA; Barnegat 

Bay, NJ; Buzzards Bay, MA; Casco Bay, ME; Charlotte Harbor, FL; Columbia River, OR and WA; 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX; Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ, and PA; Delaware Inland Bays, DE; Galveston 

Bay, TX; Indian River Lagoon, FL; Long Island Sound, CT and NY; Maryland Coastal Bays, MD; 

Massachusetts Bays, MA; Mobile Bay, AL; Morro Bay, CA; Narragansett Bay, RI; New Hampshire 

Estuaries, NH; New York-New Jersey Harbor, NY and NJ; Peconic Bay, NY; Puget Sound, WA; San 

Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, CA; San Juan Bay, PR; Santa Monica Bay, CA; Sarasota Bay, FL; 

Tampa Bay, FL; and TIllamook Bay, OR.

Background

In the early 1800's, Nueces Bay was a destination of choice for many outdoor 

enthusiasts attracted by its rich resources. Collectors traveled from the East to 

collect birds for their museums, plume hunters visited to gather bird feathers and 

oystermen harvested the largest oyster reefs in South Texas.

At the end of the 1800's, natural islands existed in Nueces Bay. All of these were 

populated by different species of colonial waterbirds. Dams were built on the 

Nueces River and many of the natural islands disappeared. When oil and gas were 

discovered, access channels were built to establish oil and gas pipelines. The 

dredge spoils from these manmade activities led to the creation of additional 

shallow bay islands. The islands were largely populated by colonial waterbirds and 

wading birds. Interestingly, records show that bald eagles once nested on the 

islands during this time.

Prior to 1980 there were more than fifty-six islands in Nueces Bay. Islands in 

Nueces Bay have suffered from severe erosion due to waves, currents, and storm 

events. In addition, extensive shell mining occurred as late as the 1970's, which 

caused exaggerated subsidence. An estimated 24 million cubic yards of shell was 

mined from Nueces Bay for use in construction activities. Since 1980, the loss of 

hard reef habitat from shell mining and island erosion due to waves, currents and 
storm events has greatly reduced the available habitat for nesting birds and other 

marine life.

While the loss of oyster reefs and associated 

emergent islands has greatly reduced habitat 

for marine life and birds in Nueces Bay, it 

has also resulted in increasing shoreline 

erosion along the shoreline of the delta area 

and the north shoreline of the bay. Average 

erosion rates of 3 feet per year are common 

in the area. In some areas erosion 

approaches 5 feet per year. The shoreline 

retreat is causing habitat loss, decreasing diversity of marine life, more frequent and 

severe impacts on shorelines, loss of public and private property and deterioration 

of water quality because of the loss of filtering wetlands.

Project Overview

The vision of the CBBEP is to maintain healthy bays and estuaries so that residents 

and visitors may enjoy their aesthetic, recreational, and commercial values. One of 

the CBBEP's most unique projects to date is the Nueces Bay Island Habitat 

Restoration Project. The purpose of this project is to both restore lost island habitat 

and protect existing rookery (bird nesting) islands. The Texas General Land Office 

and the CBBEP partnered in this $1.5 million construction project that took over a 

year in planning and four months to complete, ending in time for the 2002 bird 

nesting season (March - September).

The Texas Colonial Waterbird Coordinating Board identified the need for habitat 

protection and restoration in Nueces Bay, and partnered with the CBBEP to create 

a Colonial Waterbird Management Plan for the Coastal Bend area. The Nueces Bay 

Island Habitat Restoration Project was identified as part of the management plan to 

restore lost island habitat and protect existing rookery islands. The CBBEP took on 

the challenge and identified funding partners to restore island habitat in Nueces 

Bay. The CBBEP worked closely with the Texas General Land Office through their 

Coastal Erosion Protection Response Act (CEPRA) Program. The Texas General 

Land Office provided matched funding and managed the entire project.
25 Square Feet Transformed to 5 Acres

As a result of the shell mining, very little hard 

substrate habitat remained in Nueces Bay. A 

small fragment of one of the original 56 

islands was enlarged and restored to almost 

5 acres. Biologists took core samples to 

determine the most viable and productive 

island for restoration. This island was 

selected because of its available hard substrate and its immediate approximation to 

the mainland. This allowed access through the temporary use of a bridge to 

complete the project.

Dredged material from the bay was used to 

restore the island and the shoreline was 

stabilized with limestone rock that serves as 

a reef and protective barrier. This is now the 

largest island in Nueces Bay and is an 

important part of the solution to restoring the 

nesting sites and colonial waterbird 

populations that were once found in Nueces 

Bay. To decrease erosion at the five 

remaining islands, sediment-filled geotextile tubes were placed along the highenergy shoreline of the islands. 

The project was challenging because 

Nueces Bay is a shallow bay system, 

averaging 3-feet in depth, with numerous 

pipeline crossings. Another challenge was 

locating suitable substrate material for the 

restoration project. Fortunately, sandy shell 

material was identified within the bay and 

used to restore the island. A hydraulic 

dredge was used to pump the material to the 

restoration site. The shoreline was then 

stabilized using 5,000 tons of limestone rock that doubles as reef habitat and 

erosion protection. 

This project also provided erosion protection for the five remaining islands by 

placing sediment-filled geotextile tubes along the high-energy shoreline of the 
islands. On some of the islands, the geotextile tubes were placed slightly back from 

the existing shoreline in the hope that a future project may allow nourishment of the 

island using dredged material. 

Rookery Success Observed

Rookery islands in Nueces Bay have historically supported eight species of nesting 

birds such as Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Snowy Egrets, Roseate Spoonbills, 

Reddish Egrets, Caspian Terns, and Black Skimmers.

Biologists are discovering that the Nueces 

Bay Island Habitat Restoration Project 

provides a much- needed undisturbed bird 

sanctuary that is attracting different species 

of colonial shorebirds. The proof of this is in 

the weekly surveys now showing over 350 

black skimmers, 60 gull-billed terns, and 2 

least terns nesting on the restored habitat. Of 

particular importance are the black skimmers and least terns; both species are 

experiencing sharp declines, according to the annual Texas Colonial Waterbird 

Census. In 2003, biologists are looking to manage the island by planting native 

species of thorn scrub to attract wading birds like Reddish Egrets, Roseate 

Spoonbills, and Great Blue Herons. This will provide an educational opportunity to 

document the island's vegetational succession and the diversity of bird life.

For further information, contact:

Monika K. De La Garza, Public Relations and Outreach Manager, Coastal Bend 

Bays & Estuaries Program, 1305 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 205, Corpus 

Christi, TX, 78401, Phone: (361) 885-6246; E-mail: Monika@cbbep.org or visit the 

Coastal Bend website at www.cbbep.org.

Previous Publications in the Demonstration Projects 

Series
Report Title National Estuary 

Program Date Publication # 

The National Estuary Program: A 

Ten-Year Perspective

General NEP Discussion 1998 EPA842-F-98-003K

Rock Barbs In Oregon's 

Tillamook Bay Watershed

Tillamook Bay, Oregon 1998 EPA842-F-98-003L

The Weeks Bay Shoreline & 

Habitat Restoration Project

Mobile Bay, AL 1998 EPA842-F-98-003M

Evaluation of Shrimp Bycatch 

Reduction Devices in Texas 

Coastal Bend Waters

Corpus Christi, TX 1998 EPA842-F-98-003N

Evaluating Simple, Cost Effective 

Solutions for Reducing 

Stormwater and Urban Runoff

Santa Monica, CA 1999 EPA842-F-99-0040

Bay Scallop Restoration Project 

in Chincoteague Bay

Annapolis, MD 1999 EPA842-F-99-004P

Clear Creek Wetland Restoration 

Project

Galveston Bay, TX 1999 EPA842-F-99-004Q

The Tampa Bay Watch High 

School Wetland Nursery Program

Tampa Bay, FL 1999 EPA842-F-99-004R

Punta Gorda Waterfront Juvenile 

Fisheries Habitat Project

Punta Gorda, FL 2000 EPA842-F-00-005S

Indian River Lagoon National 

Estuary Program

Indian River Lagoon, FL 2000 EPA842-F-00-005T

Tillamook Bay National Estuary 

Project

Tillamook County, OR 2000 EPA842-F-00-005U

Broad Marsh River Stormwater 

Remediation Project

Buzzards Bay, MA 2000 EPA842-F-00-005V

Morro Bay National Estuary 

Program

Morro Bay, CA 2001 EPA842-F-01-006W

Santa Monica Bay, Innovations in 

Treating Urban Runoff

Santa Monica, CA 2001 EPA842-F-01-006X

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary 

Program

Washington, NC 2001 EPA842-F-01-006Y

San Juan Bay National Estuary 

Program

San Juan, Puerto Rico 2001 EPA842-F-01-006Z

Galveston Bay Estuary Program Galveston Bay, TX 2002 EPA842-F-02-007A
Eelgrass Restoration in 

Delaware's Inland Bays

Delaware Inland Bays 2002 EPA842-F-02-007B