New York State

Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines

prepared by:

Nancy L. Niedowski

for the

New York State Department of State

Division of Coastal Resources

41 State Street

Albany, NY 12231

- and -

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources

Bureau of Marine Resources

205 N. Belle Meade Road

East Setauket, NY 11733

December 1, 2000
The Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines were prepared under the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center Coastal Management

Fellowship Program, which places recent graduates in coastalmanagement and related fields

with state coastal programs to conduct specialtwo-year projects. The Coastal Management

Fellowship Programis administered by NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson

Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405.

Additional financial assistance was provided through a federal grant from the U.S.

De partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of

Ocean and CoastalResource Management, undertheCoastalZone Management Act of 1972,

as amended.

The New York State Coastal Management Program is administered by the New York State

Department ofState,Division of CoastalResources, 41 State Street,Albany, New York 12231.

December 2000
PREFACE

All salt marsh restoration activities are regulated, and require permits and approvals. Using this guidance

document does notrelieve the reader ofregulatoryrequirements, nor doesit guarantee receipt of a permit.

This document does not waive existing regulatorystandards. Using this document should not be substituted

for communication with permit staff regarding a proposed salt marshrestorationproject. Regional permit

staff should always be contacted by a project proponent early in the planning process and prior to

submission of permit applications.

This document is primarily intended to guide voluntary restoration projects, not mitigation projects.

Mitigation projects are constrained by specific regulatory standards. This document does not modify or

waive any programstandardsformitigation. In addition, while voluntary projects are more flexible in goalsetting and design, suchprojects willnevertheless be subject to regulatory requirements, including permits

and approvals from the State and federal government.

The Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines are primarily intended for use with projects

sponsored by municipalities. Individuals with ideas for restoration projects are strongly encouraged to

collaborate withtheir municipality, and tocontact regionalDepartment ofEnvironmentalConservationstaff

prior to project planning. Activities in identified tidal wetlands, including salt marshes on private property,

are regulated by the State of New York, and require permits and approvals.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... vi

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1

1.a. Purpose of the Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines ............... 2

1.b. Intended Audience and Format of the Guidelines ............................ 2

1.c. Overall Goal Setting for Habitat Restoration in New York State ................ 4

1.d. Definitions of Terms ................................................. 6

1.e. Principal Planning Considerations in Salt Marsh Restoration ................... 7

2. TEMPERATE SALT MARSH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION ................ 11

2.a. Salt Marsh Development ............................................ 11

2.b. Salt Marshes in New York State ...................................... 12

2.c. Salt Marsh Vegetation .............................................. 12

2.d. Salt Marsh Fish and Wildlife .......................................... 13

2.e. Salt Marsh Functions ............................................... 14

2.f. Conceptual Model for Salt Marsh System Restoration ...................... 16

2.f.1. Introduction to Conceptual Models ............................... 16

2.f.2. Controlling Factors ........................................... 16

2.f.3. Attributes of the Controlling Factors .............................. 17

2.f.4. Structural Elements ........................................... 18

2.f.5. Attributes of the Structural Elements .............................. 19

2.f.6. Functions .................................................. 20

2.f.7. Specific Functional Parameters .................................. 21

2.g. Generic Activities Affecting Salt Marshes and Adjacent Habitats ............... 22

3. HUMAN DISTURBANCES ................................................ 22

3.a. Ditching ......................................................... 23

3.b. Filling ........................................................... 23

3.c. Restricted Tidal Connection .......................................... 24

3.d. Diking & Impoundment ............................................. 25

3.e. Pollution ......................................................... 25

3.f. Shoreline Hardening & Structures ...................................... 27

3.g. Sea Level Rise .................................................... 28

4. NATURAL DISTURBANCES .............................................. 29

4.a. Seasonal Disturbances .............................................. 29
ii

4.b. Natural Disasters .................................................. 30

5. POST-DISTURBANCE CONDITIONS IN SALT MARSHES ..................... 30

5.a. Changes in Tidal Regime ............................................ 31

5.b. Subsidence ...................................................... 31

5.c. Flooding ........................................................ 32

5.d. Changes in Salinity ................................................. 32

5.e. Changes in Salt Marsh Vegetation ..................................... 33

6. OVERVIEW OF RESTORATION METHODS ................................. 34

6.a. Manipulating Tidal Regime ........................................... 34

6.a.1. General Considerations ....................................... 34

6.a.2. Measuring Tidal Elevations ..................................... 34

6.a.3. Duration of Inundation ........................................ 35

6.a.4. Sizing of Culverts ............................................ 36

6.a.5. Open Marsh Water Management ................................ 36

6.a.6. Low-lying Structures ......................................... 38

6.b. Manipulating Elevation, Slope, and Substrate ............................. 38

6.b.1. General Considerations ....................................... 38

6.b.2. Slope ..................................................... 39

6.b.3. Substrate Properties .......................................... 39

6.b.4. Tidal Channels .............................................. 40

6.b.5. Heavy Equipment ............................................ 40

6.c. Manipulating Vegetation ............................................. 40

6.c.1. Planting vs. Natural Colonization ................................ 40

6.c.2. Spartina alterniflora—Seeding ................................. 41

6.c.3. Spartina alterniflora—Stems, Plugs, and Potted Seedlings ............ 41

6.c.4. Spartina alterniflora—Planting Methods .......................... 42

6.c.5. Spartina alterniflora—Fertilization .............................. 42

6.c.6. Spartina alterniflora—Spacing of Plants .......................... 43

6.c.7. Other Plant Species .......................................... 43

6.c.8. Estimated Costs for Plants ..................................... 43

6.d. Invasive Species Control: Common Reed ................................ 45

6.d.1. General Considerations ....................................... 45

6.d.2. Common Reed Habitat ........................................ 45

6.d.3. Disturbances Favoring Common Reed ............................ 46

6.d.4. Natural History of Common Reed ............................... 46

6.d.5. Impacts caused by Common Reed ............................... 46

6.d.6. Ecological Value of Common Reed .............................. 47

6.d.7. Determining the Need for Control ................................ 47

6.d.8. Control Methods for Common Reed ............................. 48
iii

6.d.9. Tidal Inundation ............................................. 48

6.d.10. Cutting and Mowing ......................................... 49

6.d.11. Cutting and Mowing Combined with Other Techniques ............... 49

6.d.12. Controlled Burning .......................................... 49

6.d.13. Controlled Burning Combined with Other Techniques ................ 50

6.d.14. Chemical Control ........................................... 50

7. SALT MARSH RESTORATION—RECOMMENDED MONITORING 

PROTOCOL .......................................................... 53

8. COMMON REED CONTROL—RECOMMENDED MONITORING

PROTOCOL .......................................................... 67

9. SALT MARSH BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 77

10. COMMON REED CONTROL BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. 95

APPENDIX A

FIELD AND REPORTING FORMS FOR RECOMMENDED 

SALT MARSH RESTORATION MONITORING PROTOCOL ................... 99

APPENDIX B

WORLD WIDE WEB RESOURCES RELEVANT FOR 

SALT MARSH RESTORATION .......................................... 107

APPENDIX C

RESTORATION PROJECT TIMELINE .................................... 113

APPENDIX D

FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

RELATED TO WETLAND RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT ............. 117

APPENDIX E

KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS ........................................ 125

APPENDIX F

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... 135

v

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1. Process and Considerations for Restoration Projects ......................... 8

Figure 2. Recreational Shellfishing .............................................. 9

Figure 3. Salt Marsh Development Over Time .................................... 11

Figure 4. Low Marsh Zone .................................................. 13

Figure 5. Grid Ditching in Long Island Wetlands .................................. 23

Figure 6. Wetland Filling .................................................... 24

Figure 7. Tidal Restriction ................................................... 24

Figure 8. Petroleum Pollution ................................................ 26

Figure 9. Bulkheading ...................................................... 27

Figure 10. Walkway Over a Marsh ............................................. 28

Figure 11. OMWM Ditch Plug ................................................ 37

Figure 12. Common Reed .................................................... 45

Figure 13. Transect and Quadrat Placement for Salt Marsh Restoration .................. 63

Figure 14. Location of Appropriate Reference Site ................................. 65

Figure 15. Recommended Quadrat for Salt Marsh Restoration ........................ 65

Figure 16. Transect and Quadrat Placement for Phragmites Control Project .............. 75

Figure 17. Recommended Quadrat for Phragmites Control Project .................... 76

Figure 18. Reporting Vegetation Zones Along a Transect ............................. 76
vi

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 1. Gross Primary Productivity of Various Ecosystems ......................... 14

Table 2. Cost of Nursery-Grown Salt Marsh Plant Species ......................... 44
1

1. INTRODUCTION

Planning, design, and implementation of publicly and privately sponsored salt marsh restoration projects

in the northeast United Statesisrapidly increasing. Both governmental and non-governmental entities are

looking beyond habitat protection alone, and are turning their attention to the possibilities of habitat

restoration. Increased implementation of salt marsh restoration projects is partially attributable to the

availability of funding (e.g., Natural Resources Damage Assessment Program, Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program), and the incorporation of restoration considerations into ongoing resource management

programs (e.g., National Estuary Programs, National Estuarine Research Reserves). The increase in

implementation is also a result of improving science and information on practical salt marsh restoration. 

The guidelines have beendeveloped as part ofthe State’s overall policy“toconserve,improve,and protect

its natural resources and environment...”, as stated in Title 1, section 0101 of the New York State

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). This policy is echoed and expanded upon in several other

sections of the ECL and in the State’s Coastal Management Program with several specific charges to

restore degraded habitat for the purposes of maintaining the health and viability of fish and wildlife

populations (ECLTitle 3, §0301.1(n); Title 11, §0303.2(b)(1), Title 13, §0105.1, Executive Law Article

42, §913). Salt marshes are a vital part of healthy coastal ecosystems and the fish and wildlife populations

that depend on them.

With the increase in state funding opportunities for aquatic habitat restoration through the 1996 Clean

Water/Clean Air Bond Act and several years of full funding of the Environmental Protection Fund, local

planning and implementation of aquatic habitat restoration projects has substantially increased. Notably

lacking, however, is state guidance on restoration planning, project design, and implementation. 

The guidelines also seek to address common shortcomings noted by scientists and natural resource

managers in past restoration projects. Some consistently highlighted issues (Kusler and Kentula, 1990)

include:

C poorly planned and designed projects,

C lack of baseline site information (no pre-project monitoring),

C lack of workplan compliance (no compliance monitoring),

C lack of post-project monitoring,

C inadequate monitoring (too short, wrong parameters),

C project information and data lost or inaccessible,

C data lack comparability among different projects or over time, and

C no determination, or a faulty determination, of success or failure is made.

The guidelines in this report attempt to provide a framework forsalt marsh restoration activities, including

planning, design, implementation and monitoring.
2

Tidal wetlands, including salt marshhabitats, are protected in the State of New York under Article 25 of

Environmental Conservation Law, the Tidal Wetlands Act. All tidal wetland restoration projects are

regulated activities in New York State and require both state and federalpermits. Use of these guidelines

does not waive regulatoryrequirements, nor does is guarantee receipt of required permits and approvals.

Use of these guidelines also should not be substituted for consultation with Department of Environmental

Conservation permit staff prior to submission of permit applications. You must research your project’s

regulatory requirements, consult with appropriate permit staff, and file all required permit applications.

Appendix D contains a listing of state and federal statutes that regulate activities in tidal wetlands. The

Appendix also lists statutes that support federal involvement in ecosystem restoration.

1.a. Purpose of the Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines

This guidance document should assist in improving standards of practice for the burgeoning array of salt

marsh restoration activities in the State of New York. The increase in funded habitat restoration projects

highlights the need for accepted reference standardsto guide project planning, techniques, and monitoring

to measure success. Holding all projects to more consistent standards increases the likelihood of achieving

success and ensures that public dollars are wisely spent.

To this end, the guidance document has been designed to provide a comprehensive, accessible, and

understandable source for current technical information on salt marsh restoration and ecology, to increase

the qualityofrestorationproject planning. The guidelines include restoration monitoring protocols that were

researchedand developedtoprovideessentialand standardized pre-project, compliance, and post-project

information for the evaluation of project success. The protocols are designed to be understandable and

useable bya wide varietyofuser groups, including trained volunteers. Finally, the protocols are presented

in workplan format, to facilitate their incorporation into contracts, memoranda of understanding, and

requests for proposals associated with restoration projects.

1.b. Intended Audience and Format of the Guidelines

This document is designed to serve severalaudiences. First, it is intended to assist individuals with little or

no restoration experience by providing basic information regarding salt marsh restoration. For these

individuals, there are briefcharacterizations ofthe salt marshecosystemand commondisturbancesto New

York salt marshes. The effects of these disturbances on salt marshes are also discussed. Despite some

overlap, these sections are kept separate to facilitate the user’s access to needed information. The

Restoration Methods section briefly presents the main topics in this area, while providing documentation

of alternatives, additional considerations, and references to more detailed information. While the idea of

a salt marsh restoration “cookbook” is appealing, the topic is too complex for such an approach. This

document familiarizes the reader with the extent of detail associated with the main topics while remaining

manageable and intelligible to the non-specialist. Ideally, readers with little experience should exit the

document informed about the fundamentals of salt marsh restoration planning and the ability to seek out

additional information and the appropriate expertise required for a restoration project.
3

Second, this document is expected to serve experienced natural resources managers by providing explicit

documentation of the topics and a compilation of references. While the formulation of a restoration

“cookbook” is not feasible, some aspects of the habitat restoration process can greatly benefit from a

degree of standardization, especially methods for post-project monitoring and the goals for habitat

restoration programs and projects from the perspective of the State of New York. Experienced natural

resources managers benefit from this standardization because their individual projects become more

comparable, communicationisfacilitated, and the potentialforconflictsinstrategy and/or goals isremoved.

Also, while an experienced restorationpractitioner mayhave expertise inone particular area of salt marsh

or restorationecology, he orshe maylack strengthin other important areas and therefore mayalso benefit.

This guidance document contains the following sections: 

COverall goalsetting forhabitat restoration in NewYork State, intended to serve as general

guidance for developing project-specific restoration goals, objectives, and tasks;

CDefinitions of terms related to restoration;

CPrincipalplanning considerations,discussingidentificationofsite-specific goals,objectivesand

limitations, and the difficulties encountered in the restoration planning process;

CSalt marsh habitat characterizations outline the habitat zones associated with tidal wetlands,

their vegetation, common fish and wildlife species, habitat functions, and generic impacts to these

habitats;

CHuman disturbance characterizations discuss common human activities in New York State

that adversely affect salt marshes; 

CNatural disturbance characterizations discuss naturalevents and processesinfluencing, often

substantially, salt marsh structure and function; 

CPost-disturbance conditions in the marsh describes a number of common, undesirable

situations that occur in salt marshes as a result of the anthropogenic and natural disturbances

described previously; 

CRestoration methods discusses the most important considerations and techniques for the

restoration of salt marshes; 

CSalt marshrestorationmonitoring protocolrecommends an approach that should be used in

New York State funded or authorized salt marshrestorationprojects and, whenappropriate, used

for non-state funded or authorized projects;
4

CSalt marsh restoration bibliography, drawn from peer reviewed literature, governmentsponsored studies and reports, conference proceedings, books, magazines, and the internet; 

CCommon reed control monitoring protocol; 

CCommon reed control bibliography, derived from the same sources listed above; 

CSalt marshconceptual modeldiscusses and listsmeasurable parametersto help construct sitespecific monitoring programs and assist in general restoration planning;

CAppendices,withtables and other graphicssummarizingand expanding onimportant information

contained within the document. 

1.c. Overall Goal Setting for Habitat Restoration in New York State

One component of adequate habitat restoration planning is identification and articulation of goals.

Therefore, the following goal statements were developed to serve asthe basis for anoverall State ofNew

York habitat restoration program:

1. To the greatestextent practical, achieve functional, community, and/orecosystem

equivalence with reference sites when undertaking restoration.

Many restoration efforts to date have evaluated success based only on measures such as postproject percent coverage ofvegetation. Percent cover of vegetation at a restoration site alone does

not indicate the presence of a fully functional habitat. Important characteristic functions such as

provision of habitat for key species, support of a diverse food web, primary productivity and

export of organic material, nutrient cycling, and other factors are essential to a successful

restoration project.

2. Restore critical habitats for priority fish, wildlife, and plant species, including

those listed as threatened, endangered, and of special concern by Federal and

State governments, and species of historical or current commercial and/or

recreational importance in New York State.

There are manyNew York State listed animalspecies dependent onsalt marshesforfood,shelter,

breeding, rearing ofyoung, or other criticallife stage needs. Attention should be focused on those

species listed as endangered, threatened and ofspecial concern in the State of New York. Such

species currently include:black rail(Endangered, Laterallusjamaicensis),leasttern(Threatened,

Sterna antillarum), northern harrier (Threatened, Circus cyaneus), common tern (Threatened,

Sterna hirundo), least bittern (Threatened, Ixobrychus exilis), and osprey (Special Concern,
5

Pandion haliaetus). Current New York State protected plants of salt or brackish marshes

include: saltmarsh loosestrife (Endangered, Lythrum lineare), Slender marsh-pink (Endangered,

Sabatia campanulata), clustered bluets (Threatened, Hedyotis uniflora), swamp sunflower

(Threatened, Helianthus angustifolius), marsh fimbry (Threatened, Fimbristylis castanaea),

marsh straw sedge (Rare, Carex hormathodes), cyperus (Rare, Cyperus polystachyos var.

texensis), and others.

3. Planandimplement restorationinitiativesusing aregionalperspective tointegrate

and prioritize individual restoration projects and programs.

While it isimportant to support the implementationofindividual, well-planned restorationprojects,

a long-termrestorationprogramincluding objectivesforthe state is needed. This program should

include planning restoration on a landscape ecology or regionalscale. Such planning involves the

identification of those habitats most in need of restoration in a given region and the areas in that

regionwhere thistype ofhabitat restoration is feasible. Individual projects from a given region can

then be evaluated against the landscape-oriented restoration goals for that region.

4. To the extent practical, use historical acreages, proportions, and/or spatial

distributions to prioritize habitats from a state or regional perspective. 

State and regional planning initiatives help frame goals and give important context to restoration

strategies and programs. Regional planning can identify status and trends and examine the

feasibility of restoring certain habitats locally while addressing regional needs. Historical acreage

is not always attainable at anindividualsite, but maybe cumulatively achievedatseveralsites within

a region through thoughtful planning and evaluation. Determinationofthe target historicalacreage

or proportion of salt marshhabitat is beyond the scope of this document, but is recommended as

part of future expansion of state habitat restoration planning.

5. To the extent practical, ensure where appropriate that historical acreages,

proportions, and/or spatial distributions of priority habitats are restored and

preserved in New York State.

In many cases, restoring sufficient historical acreage may not be feasible. Some types of habitat

restoration are lesslikely to succeed. These habitats should be given higher priority for protection

than for restoration. In all cases, where restoration is associated with a higher degree of

uncertainty, special consideration should be given to long-term protection and preservation

opportunities for those habitats. 

These overall goals for habitat restoration in New York State can serve as a basis for framing goals and

objectivesforindividualhabitatrestorationprojects. The overall goals are intended as a planning guideline,

and should not be substituted for project-specific articulation of goals and objectives.
6

1.d. Definitions of Terms

Restoration ecology is a scientific discipline requiring consistent use of terms. Unfortunately, the lack of

standardization for key terms associated with restoration complicates its practice and clouds general

understanding of what restoration can and cannot accomplish.

The terms defined below represent the key terms commonly used by the practitioners of the discipline.

There are other terms that are often misused interchangeably with some of those listed below. For

example, the terms “rehabilitation” and “reclamation” have been, by some, equated with “restoration”.

However, “rehabilitation” has also beenapplied to the conversionof a former wetland (nowupland) ofone

type into some other type of wetland not previously present. “Reclamation” is used in many places to

indicate the filling of wetlands for the purpose of reclaiming the land (Lewis, 1990). Perhaps the most

problematic misuse of terminology equates “restoration” and “mitigation”. While these terms are not

interchangeable, habitat restoration can be part of mitigation requirements.

To respond to these problems and decrease the general uncertainty surrounding the complex field of

restoration, key terms are defined below. Use of these definitions by entities involved in restoration and

related activities throughout the State of New York would greatly benefit the long term practice and

understanding of wetland restoration as a discipline. 

1. Restoration

Re-establishment ofpreviously existingwetland orotheraquatic resource character and function(s)

at a site where theyhave ceased to exist, or exist only in a substantially degraded state. In practice

this may be achieved by re-establishing the functions of a wetland or other aquatic resource that

have been degraded or lost by such actions as filling, draining, altering hydrology or introduction

of contaminants.

2. Enhancement

Activities conducted inexistingwetlandsorotheraquatic resourcestoachieve specific management

objectives or provide conditions which previously did not exist, and which increase one or more

aquatic function. Enhancement may involve trade-offs between aquatic resource structure,

functions, and values. A positive change in one function may result in negative effects to other

functions.

3. Creation

The establishment of a wetland or other aquatic resource where one did not formerly exist.
7

4. Function

A physical, chemical, or biological process which takes place in wetland areas. Commonly

recognized functions are food chain production, provision of fish and wildlife habitat, barrier to

waves and erosion, storm and flood water storage, and nutrient and chemical uptake.

1.e. Principal Planning Considerations in Salt Marsh Restoration

The methodsselected for a givenproject greatly influence cost, expertise needed, labor, time to complete,

level of maintenance required, and the potential for success. Lessons learned from past successes and

failures with similar restoration projects should help guide the development of current projects. It is

essentialto researchpast experience and to contribute new scientific knowledge to an informationbase on

restoration that is generally accessible to the public. Salt marsh restorations are currently supported by an

extensive knowledge base and success record, relative to other types of habitat restoration. Therefore,

a failuretoresearchand fullyunderstand previously employedmethods, past experience,stumbling blocks,

and both project successes and failures will perpetuate the past mistakes.

Figure 1 outlinesthe basic steps involved in conducting restorationprojects, including planning and design,

construction, monitoring, and information dissemination. Important considerations associated with each

of these phases are also listed.

Planning for individual projects should not be conducted in a vacuum. It will be helpful to research the

regional context for habitat restoration in a proposed project area. Restoration plans may already be in

development in the area. Not only does context research avoid duplication of effort or potential project

conflicts, but additional information, data and other resources and expertise become available. There are

a variety of knowledgable contacts to assist in planning individualrestorationprojectsinNew York State,

including regional National Estuary Program staff, Department of Environmental Conservation staff,

Department of State Division of Coastal Resources staff, and others (see Appendix E, Knowledgable

Contacts).

Goals and objectivesfor eachrestorationproject must be articulated early inthe planningprocess. Clearlystated goals and objectives will assist during planning whentrade-offs are required. Articulating goals will

provide insight, for example, into whether planting salt marsh vegetation should be conducted, at greater

expense, rather than depending on natural recolonization. If erosion of low marsh and creek banks is a

concern, planting may be warranted. However, if common reed control in the high marsh is a higher

priority, the resourcesthat would be required for low marsh planting should be allocated to common reed

control. Without knowledge of project goals, selection of options in situations requiring trade-offs becomes

arbitrary. Once goals and objectives have been determined, performance criteria and monitoring

parameters may be selected and an assessment program developed.
8

1. Planning and Design Phase

a. Define Goals and Objectives

i. Ecological

ii. Economic

iii. Public Benefit (recreational, educational, cultural value)

iv. Aesthetic

b. Develop Specific and Quantifiable Performance Criteria

v. Define Time Scale for Assessment

vi. Define Spatial Scale for Assessment

vii. Determine Target Plant and Animal Community

viii. Determine Target Ecosystem Functions

ix. Should Be Self-sustaining

x. Should Be Resilient

c. Research Restoration Site

xi. Historical Conditions (aerial and historical photos, local records)

xii. Degree of Alteration (physical, chemical, biological)

xiii. Landscape Setting (adjacent land uses, ownership, watershed)

xiv. Allometry

xv. Hydrology

vi. Contamination

vii. Seed Sources

d. Refine Objectives Based on Site Research

e. Plan Restoration Project

xvi. Level of Physical Effort

ii. Technology Requirements

iii. Cost

iv. Schedule

v. Site Constraints (access, flooding, nuisance species)

vi. Legal Restrictions

f. Obtain Required Permits

g. Develop a Contingency Plan for Unexpected Outcomes

h. Do Engineering Designs

2. Construction Phase

a. Consider Effect on Resources (at site and adjacent sites)

b. Consider Best Times to Plant, Lay Fallow, Develop Channels, etc.

c. Monitor Construction Activities and Workplan Compliance

3. Assessment Phase

a. Collect Minimum Standard Baseline Data

b. Tailor Monitoring Program to Project Goals and Objectives

c. Make Needed Adjustments to Correct Course of Development

Figure 1. Process and Considerations for Restoration Projects (based on R. Thom, 1998).
9

Figure 2. Recrational shellfishing in an intertidal mudflat.

It should be noted that trade-offs involving habitat exchange are often unacceptable. In such cases, fully

functionalhabitats are altered to create a different type ofhabitat. For example, an intertidal mudflat might

be graded and planted to create low salt marsh, i.e., salt marsh is added to this area at the expense ofthe

mudflat community. It is important to consult with existing planning efforts to discuss regional priorities with

regard to habitat type, and to verify that a proposed project is not a habitat exchange. Because habitat

manipulations involve some degree of risk in terms of outcome, habitat exchanges should be avoided. 

In addition to the ecological value,

societal value of restoring salt marshes

should also be considered in restoration

planning. Potential values derived from

salt marsh restoration activities may

include educational, recreational, and

commercial benefits. The recreational

and aesthetic values of the restored salt

marsh often will be more important in

garnering public and political support for

a project than the degree of ecological

function achieved. 

Generally, the likelihood for success increases and costs ofa project decrease ifpre-projectsite research

is appropriately conducted. Historical information on a site, from government and other records, should

be collected. Historical aerial photographs and false-color infrared photography should be obtained and

used inplanning the extent and type of restoration. Often local and regionalnaturalresource management

agencies and organizations will have valuable information on a potential restoration site, and should be

contacted.

Site-specific characteristics of each restoration locale also influence restoration planning. Although the

impactsto and the generic characteristics of salt marshes are often similar, restoration of these resources

must be planned and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific characteristics (e.g., long wind

fetch), coastal processes(e.g., 2 foot tidalrange), disturbances (e.g., filling), the surrounding environment

(e.g., adjacent golfcourse),and othermicro- andmacrocharacteristics will affect projectsuccess, and must

be examined and understood prior to undertaking restoration activities. Site surveys to assess these and

other site-specific characteristics should occur for every restoration project early during planning. The

guidelines presented here should be used keeping the limitations associated with site-specificity in mind.

The degree of salt marsh restoration possible may be limited by a number of factors. Salt marshes in the

northeast United States have been affected by human activities since before colonial settlement. It is not

practical or even possible to restore salt marshes to pre-disturbance conditions. Unaffected reference

marshes are not available for comparison in planning and evaluation processes. 
10

The degree of restoration possible is also limited by human encroachment. Even recently disturbed salt

marshes may not be restored to pre-disturbance conditions because criticalsalt marshprocesses like tidal

inundation conflict with human development in the area. In such cases only partial restoration is feasible,

targeting a smaller total acreage of salt marsh for restoration, or particular functions of the marsh may be

improved.

Monitoringmust become a regularpartofrestorationprojects, and standard, accepted methodologiesmust

be followed. Failure to adequately monitor may mean that problems are not identified in time for

correction; project comparisons are difficult; and expenditure of time, labor, and funds are hard to justify.

Informationonappropriatesaltmarshrestorationmonitoring parametersis available. Salt marsh monitoring

protocols that are implemented now may be modified in the future as the knowledge base of restoration

science grows.

Increased use of standardized monitoring should also be accompanied by selection of and comparison to

reference sites. These sites are generally high quality examples of a habitat that are used to assist design

and evaluation of restoration projects in a nearby area. This type of reference site provides an example

of ecologicalstructure and function of a habitat in its current context. Without comparison to a reference

site, it isimpossible to establishrealistic restorationgoals duringplanning, ortrack restorationprogress after

project implementation.

Finally, to decrease the number oftrial-and-error restorationprojectsimplemented, informationavailability

must be improved. First and foremost, good records for all projects must be kept, including budgets,

workplans, site plans, survey data, monitoring programs, photographs, and post-project monitoring data

and analysis. Project information and data should be disseminated to restoration practitioners and other

interested parties through conferences, workshops, public outreach, and the use of internet technology.

Centralrepositoriesforrestorationdata and informationshould be designated, and specific contact people

identified. Regional restoration planning, through National Estuary Programs for example, should assist in

increasing information availability and accessibility. 

Although there are many complicated planning considerations and limitations associated with habitat

restoration, this does not mean that undertaking such projects cannot succeed and provide benefit to a

community, municipality, or region. Restoration projects do not have to be vast in size or scope to be of

value. Those without experience planning and conducting restoration are encouraged to start small, and

take advantage of knowledgable contacts and information resources available. With adequate research,

planning,site investigation, and monitoring, a saltmarshrestorationproject has anextremely highlikelihood

of success.
11

Figure 3. Salt marsh development over time (based on Warren, 1995).

2. TEMPERATE SALT MARSH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION

2.a. Salt Marsh Development

Present day salt marshes in the northeasternUnited States appear to have beenestablished only during the

last 3,000 to 4,000 years,subsequent to a rapid fallinsea level followed bya rapid rise (~16 mmper year)

in sea level 7,000 to 8,000 years ago. After this period sea level rise slowed to approximately one

millimeter per year, and salt marshes were established (Nixon, 1982). 

Over time, the gradual accumulation of sediments in shallow coastal waters leads to the formation of

mudflats. Spartina alterniflora (smoothcordgrass) colonizesthese intertidal mudflats, and the presence

of Spartina alterniflora acceleratessediment depositionat the seaward edge ofthe vegetated area. The

belowground roots and rhizomes begin to formsalt marshpeat. As the marsh peat accumulates, high marsh

Spartina patens (salt-meadow cordgrass) replaceslowmarshSpartina alterniflora inareas nearing the

high tide limit. The high marsh continues to accumulate peat, and also accumulates sediment in response

to sea level rise. In this manner, salt marshes grow upward and outward over time (Nixon, 1982; Teal,

1986).
12

2.b. Salt Marshes in New York State

InNew York, salt marshes can be found across Long Island in north and southshore embayments and in

the Peconic estuary at the eastern end of the island, as well as around New York City, in Westchester

County on Long Island Sound, and in the Hudson River north to approximately the Tappan Zee Bridge.

The Hudson River is tidal north to the Federal Dam at Troy, New York, but is in general not greatly

influenced by salinity north of Poughkeepsie, New York (NYS DOS, 1990).

Tidal ranges differ greatly among these areas, ranging from 0.2 meters in the South Shore Estuary at

Bayshore, Long Island, to 0.7 meters at Montauk Point and PlumGut ineasternLong Island, to 1.3 meters

at The Battery in New York City, and approximately 2.0 meters at bothWillets Point in the East River in

New York City and at Port Jefferson on Long Island’s north shore. Because of these variations in tidal

regime, salt marsh communities within New York State differ, particularly in terms of vegetation. Salt

marshes with large tidalranges are oftendominated by tall form Spartina alterniflora, while those found

in areas with more restricted tidal ranges will maintain a shortformSpartina alterniflora zone, and more

expansive high salt marsh areas.

2.c. Salt Marsh Vegetation

Salt marshes constitute some of the most diverse and biologically productive habitats ofthe coastalregion.

Typical zonation in a salt marsh includes low marsh, high marsh, and mudflats. This zonation can extend

to include brackish and freshwatertidalhabitats as well. However, restoration of brackish and freshwater

tidal marsh habitats are not within the scope of this document. 

Salt marsh zonation is generally defined bysalinitygradients and durationof inundation. Salt marshes are,

however, a dynamic ecosystem. The extent of zonation can be influenced by a number of natural

processes. For example, as peat accumulates under marsh grasses, higher marsh elevations are subject

to less frequent flooding by tides, which may lead to conversion from low to high marsh.

Low marsh, which is submerged at high tide but exposed at low tide, is dominated by smooth cordgrass

(Spartina alterniflora). Smooth cordgrass can grow to three meters (ten feet). Few other higher plant

species are present in the low marsh; species of algae like rockweed (Fucus vesiculosus), green algae

(Enteromorpha spp.), and sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) may be present between cordgrass stems.

Glasswort (Salicornia europaea) can sometimes be found, in low densities, in the low marsh zone. 

High marsh, which is only periodically flooded by spring and flood tides, is dominated by a mix of saltmeadowcordgrass(Spartina patens) and short-formsmoothcordgrass,withlesseramountsofspikegrass

(Distichlis spicata), and black grass (Juncus gerardii). High marsh may also support switchgrass

(Panicumvirgatum),sea-lavender(Limoniumcarolinianum),saltmarshplantain (Plantago maritima),

seaside gerardia (Agalinis maritima), and glassworts (Salicornia spp.). This zone also supports a salt

panne community in the depressions and pools of the high marsh surface. Inundation of these areas
13

Figure 4. Tall form Spartina alterniflora in the low marsh zone.

fluctuates greatly, often causing substantial increases in salinity in soil water. The salt panne community

generally exhibits glassworts, short-form smooth cordgrass, and arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum);

widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) grows in permanent pools.

Tidal creeks frequently occur inconjunctionwithcoastalsalt marsh. These creeks flow sinuously through

marshvegetation, and have verticalbanksthat mayerode and slump into the water, whichisfreshto saline.

Salt marsh tidal creeks also distribute seawater throughout the marsh, and transport wrack, detritus and

aquatic species into and out of the vegetated marsh.

Intertidal mudflats are comprised of

sandy or muddy substrates lying

between low and high tide. Intertidal

mudflats are entirely exposed during

low tide. The chemical properties of

intertidal mudflats are primarily

determined bysubstrate grain size, i.e.,

fine or coarse. Mudflats do not

support any rooted vegetation but are

characterized by communities of

micro- and macroalgae. These algal

communities often form extensive mats

on the surface. Intertidalmudflats also

support important bacterial

communities.

2.d. Salt Marsh Fish and Wildlife

Thereare anumberofbirdspeciesthat nest intidalmarshes, includingmarshwren(Cistothorus palustris),

sharp-tailed sparrow(Ammodramus caudacutus), red-wingedblackbird(Agelaiusphoeniceus), blackcrownednightheron(Nycticorax nycticorax), Canadagoose(Brantacanadensis),Americanblackduck

(Anas rubripes), and sometimes clapper rail (Rallus longirostris) and willet (Catoptrophorus

semipalmatus). 

Many more birds depend on tidal marshes for food, feeding on small fish, invertebrates, insects, and

vegetation. This group includes Canada goose, which breeds and winters in salt marshes near ice-free,

shallow water, and American black duck, a permanent resident requiring nearby open water and thick

marsh vegetation. Green heron (Butorides striatus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret

(Egrettathula),glossyibis(Plegadisfalcinellus), tree swallow(Tachycinetabicolor), and terns(Sterna

spp.) also feed in tidal wetlands. Northern harrier and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) hunt inmarshes

for small mammals like meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). 
14

Gross Primary Productivity of Various Ecosystems

Marine (cal/cm2

/yr)

Open Ocean 100

Coastal Zones 200

Upwelling Zones 600

Estuaries and Reefs 2000

Terrestrial (cal/cm2

/yr)

Grasslands 250

Dry Forests 250

Cultivated Land 300

Moist Temperate Forests 800

Mechanized Agriculture 1200

Table 1. Comparison of ecosystem primary productivity in

calories/cm2/year (based on Odum, 1971).

Characteristic fishesintidalcreeks and floodedmarshareasincludeAtlantic silversides(Menidia menidia),

sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). Many fish

speciesreside in salt marshes for most of their life cycle, includingmummichog,striped killifish(Fundulus

majalis), and sheepshead minnow. Atlantic silversides spawn in salt marshes. Other fish depending on

salt marsh habitat, associated tide creeks, and adjacent mudflatsfor nurseryareasincludewinter flounder

(Pleuronectes americanus), tautog (Tautoga onitis), sea bass (Centropristes striata), alewife (Alosa

pseudoharengus), menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), mullet (Mugil

cephalus), sand lance (Ammodytes americanus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). 

Invertebrate macrofauna are animportant component of tidal salt marsh systems, providing food formany

birds and fish of the marsh, as well as contributing to the structural and functional characteristics of the

habitat. The macrofauna are significant consumers of algae, detritus, and smaller invertebrates; infauna

rework marshsediments and inoculate themwithmicrobes while feeding. Among those macrofauna most

frequently observed insalt marshes are ribbedmussel(Geukensia demissa), fiddler crabs(Uca spp.), and

salt marsh snail (Melampus bidentatus).

2.e. Salt Marsh Functions

Salt marshes perform many functions, including nutrient and organic matter production and transport,

nutrient and contaminant removal, reduction of wave energy during storms, flood water storage, and

sediment trapping. Salt marsh areas also provide critical habitat for the larval and juvenile stages of many

fishand invertebrate species, and are used forspawning byadults ofthese species. Marshes are important

feeding and nesting grounds for many bird and other vertebrate species. 
15

The primaryproductivityofSpartina species onLong Island and inRhode Island ranges from 430 to 510

gdryweight/m2/yr (Nixon, 1982). Dry weight value maybe roughly converted to anorganic carbonvalue

(g C/m2/yr) by dividing the dry weight value by two, as approximately one-half the dry weight of marsh

grassesiscarbon(Peterson& Peterson, 1979). The resultant carbon productivity ranges can be expressed

as 215 to 255 g C/m2/yr for Long Island and Rhode Island marshes. 

Salt marshes are the primary source of much of the organic matter and nutrients forming the basis of the

coastal and estuarine food web. As salt marsh vegetation decays, a steady supply of detritus is released

into surrounding waters, promoting the secondary production of finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, and birds.

Salt marshes export an estimated 40% of the aboveground Spartina alterniflora biomass, ranging

between 200-400 g dry weight/m2/yr (100-200 g C/m2/yr; Teal, 1986). For comparison, the world’s

average agricultural production from corn fields is 412 g C/m2/yr. Salt marshes, therefore, provide the

resources for some of the most productive ecosystems on Earth (see Table 1).

Mudflats are also important contributorsto primary productionand breakdown oforganic materials. Algal

communities on mudflats are primary producers and provide a food source for snails and other benthic

organisms. Bacterial communities contribute to the breakdown of organic materials. 

The presence of salt marsh grasses such as Spartina alterniflora reduces the energy of waves moving

shoreward. At the seaward edge of salt marshes, a wave energy reduction of 26% m-1 vegetationhas been

reported (Fonseca & Cahalan, 1992). Wave energy reduction decreases with distance into the marsh.

The ability of salt marshvegetationto reduce wave energy in this manner helps prevent shoreline erosion.

Reduction of wave and current energies in salt marshes causes them to trap sediment. As flow velocity

decreases, water losesits capacityto carrysediment particles(Nixon, 1982). Sediment then settles to the

bottom. The large initial reduction in flow velocity at the seaward edge of salt marshes concentrates

sediment accumulationat thislocation, contributing to long-term maintenance and development of the salt

marsh (Teal, 1986). Salt marsh grasses also reduce the velocity of terrestrial runoff. Water leaving the

marsh, therefore, carries less particulate material and is less turbid (Desbonnet et al., 1994). 

Reductionofflowvelocities by salt marsh grasses contributes to flood control. Decreased flowvelocities

allow water to be transferred into soils and underground watercourses (Desbonnet et al., 1994),

decreasing the impact of flood waters on adjacent upland.

Salt marshes remove nutrients, especially nitrogen, from coastal waters, contributing to water quality.

Experimentaladditionofnutrients during the growing season showed retention of between 80% and 94%

of added nitrogenand phosphorus; inspring and fallretentiondroppedtobetween60% and 75% of added

nutrients(Teal, 1986). Salt marshproductivityisstimulated bythe additionofnitrogen(Nixon, 1982), and

consequent increases in productivitybyherbivores and detritivores are also reported (Teal, 1986). Highly

productive areas of salt marshes are characterized by tall form Spartina alterniflora plants with thick,

widely spaced stems. These characteristics make the marsh surface more accessible to predatory fish,

increasing species diversity (Teal, 1986).
16

Salt marsh sediments filter and accumulate heavy metals (Teal, 1986). Most heavy metals forminsoluble

sulfidesthat adsorb onto clays, organics, and precipitatesinthe sediments. Salt marsh vegetation stabilizes

the sediments, allowing formationofthe anoxic environment required for deposition of heavy metal-sulfide

complexes. Salt marsh grasses also take up metals to varying extents, sequestering them in plant tissues

until death. At this time, the metals are exported into surrounding coastal waters with plant detritus.

Although salt marshes are generally thought to be a heavy metal sink, chronic contamination can damage

the marsh. Salt marshes carrying high heavy metal loads may also become a long-term source of

contamination in coastal waters (Teal, 1986).

2.f. Conceptual Model for Salt Marsh System Restoration

2.f.1. Introduction to Conceptual Models

The conceptualmodelis a toolto assist the restoration practitioner in understanding important connections

among ecosystem attributes (physical, chemical, and biological). The model should also assist in selecting

the best monitoring parameters to assess the system with respect to project goals (Thom & Wellman,

1996). Tailored conceptual models can be constructed for individual restoration projects, defining the

specific parameters controlling development and maintenance ofthe restorationsite structure, itsimportant

characteristics, and the functions for which it is being restored (Thom & Wellman, 1996). 

Insuchmodels,a small number of critical, site-specific controlling factors,structuralelements,and functions

are defined and the relationships between them outlined (often graphically). Below is a generic listing of

conceptual model components for salt marsh ecosystems, and specific parameters associated with these

components that may be selected for use in a more tailored monitoring program. The best conceptual

models and restorationmonitoring programs willbe based onsite-specific information, data, and goals, i.e.,

the listing below may not be comprehensive for everyproject’s purposes. However, basic planning may

be conducted using this listing, and the use of a conceptual model is recommended for all restoration

projects (Thom & Wellman, 1996).

2.f.2. Controlling Factors 

The controlling factors of the salt marsh include 4 main categories. These are:

C Hydrology,

C Morphology,

C Water Chemistry and Physical Properties, and

C Substrate Properties.

The controlling factors of a habitat are those that determine the structural and functional parameters at a

given site. These factors determine whether establishment of a salt marsh habitat is indeed possible at a

givensite. In planning salt marsh restoration projects, the controlling factors should be carefully considered.
17

The hydrology of a potentialrestorationsite involvesthe presence/absence and cycling of water at the site.

Sources of water may include groundwater, rivers and streams, tides, tidal creeks, rainfall, snowmelt,

terrestrial runoff, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and others. How these water sources enter and

exit the site, in terms of quantity, form, frequency and duration, constitute site hydrology.

The morphology, or physical form, of a site is particularly important to salt marsh habitat because certain

physical forms interact with site hydrology to produce favorable conditions for salt marsh plant growth.

Salt marsh morphology is determined by a variety of attributes, including elevation, slope, micro- and

macrotopography, and the presence/absence of channels, among others.

All salt marsh restoration projects will require detailed elevationmaps and information on tidal range. To

maximize the potential for success, knowledge of local tidal elevations is critical. These elements are

associated with the hydrological and morphological controlling factors of a restoration site.

Chemical and physical properties of the water entering and exiting a potential restoration site will be an

additional controlling factor governing establishment of salt marsh habitat. Important properties of water

include salinity and temperature. Individual species of both flora and fauna have different tolerance

thresholds for these water properties. Specific chemical properties can therefore influence the community

structure of the habitat.

Finally, substrate properties of a potential restoration site influence the interactionbetween the hydrology

and morphology of the site. The size and type of sediment particles influences water drainage and the

location of the water table. Other properties, such as organic matter content, pH, salinity, and others

determine the presence/absence and growth rate of salt marsh flora and fauna. 

2.f.3. Attributes of the Controlling Factors

The controlling factors described above are characterizedbymore specific attributes. These attributes can

often be measured and tracked, and therefore can be used to construct a monitoring program for a salt

marsh restoration project. Often, controlling factor attributes offer the most insight when used in preproject planning and post-construction assessment. This is particularly true of hydrological and

morphological attributes. In other words, data on the hydrological and morphological attributes of a

potentialrestorationsite canguide plannersindeterminingwhether and howto restore a site into salt marsh

habitat. After the site has been manipulated, measuring these attributes can help planners determine

whether the planned morphology and hydrology of the site have been achieved. 

However, water chemistry and substrate attributes may provide the most insight over time as part of an

ongoing, post-project monitoring program. These attributes can be examined in relation to data on flora

and fauna to assess cause and effect relationships betweencontrolling factors and structural factors. For

example, the presence of an undesired plant species may be explained by data onwater chemistryand/or

substrateproperties. Further, resolving the cause of an undesired result then allows the practitioner to more

effectively and efficiently make plans to correct the situation.
18

Hydrologic attributes include the following: 

Tidal elevations, duration of inundation, wave energy, height of water table, terrestrial water inputs,

frequency of storm/rain/snow events, and timing of storm/rain/snow events.

Morphologic attributes include the following: 

Number of tidal inlets, tidal inlet width/depth/shape, slopes, elevation of site features, number of tidal

channels/creeks, sinuosity of channels/creeks, channel/creek width/depth/shape, and nearshore bottom

topography.

Water property attributes include the following: 

Salinity, temperature, pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), contaminant concentrations.

Substrate propertiesinclude the following: Grain size/drainage, organic matter content, pH/oxygenation,

and soil/porewater salinity.

2.f.4. Structural Elements

The structural elements of the salt marsh include 7 main categories. These are the following:

CIntertidal Flats/Primary producers,

CIntertidal Flats/Fauna,

CLow Marsh/Vegetation,

CLow Marsh/Fauna,

CHigh Marsh/Vegetation,

CHigh Marsh/Fauna, and

CUpland Fringe/Vegetation.

The structural elements of a site are not to be confused withthe morphology, or physicalshape, ofthe site.

Ina habitat, the structure is considered to be the plants and animals that occur there. In other words, a salt

marshhabitat is not a salt marshhabitat until the appropriate community of plants and animalsinhabit a site

with favorable morphological, hydrological, water, and substrate properties. The true structure of the

habitat, then, is indeed the flora and fauna present at the site. 

Often, achieving a certain community structure, i.e., the occurrence of several specific attributes

simultaneously, willbe the primarygoalof a restorationproject. Alternatively, influencing a single structural

attribute maybe the project goal, e.g., increasing the numbers oflowmarshnesting birdsinhabiting the site.

Therefore, those structuralattributes most closely associated withthe restorationproject’s goals should be

included in the project’s monitoring program. In general, the structural attributes chosen will be tracked

both before and after site manipulation for purposes ofcomparison. Often, the same structural attributes

will also be tracked at a similar site nearby the restoration site (the “reference site”) that is not undergoing

anymanipulation. This allows the practitioner to resolve project-caused results from environment-caused

results during the ongoing, post-project monitoring program.
19

2.f.5. Attributes of the Structural Elements

The communitystructureofsalt marshhabitat encompassesseveraldistinctzones,wherecharacteristic flora

and fauna appear. These zones most generally include the intertidal mudflats, where topography is fairly

level, with vast expanses ofsubstrate exposed at lowtide; the lowsalt marsh, usually dominated bya single

tall grass species tolerant of daily, prolonged inundation; the high salt marsh, which is more irregularly

flooded and supports a more diverse arrayofplant and animalspecies; and the upland fringe, orsalt shrub

area, where conditions are sufficiently dry that some woody vegetation may grow, and the influence of

freshwater inputs can substantially increase plant diversity, supporting both salt-tolerant and brackish

species.

To construct an appropriate monitoring program for structural attributes of a restoration project, it will

generally be necessary to first define the zone or zones (as described above) that will be manipulated or

created. Only specific attributes associated with those zones need to be monitored. Again, the goals of

the restoration project generally provide the most insight into the structural attributes of highest priority.

It is not necessary to track all the specific attributes of a particular zone to adequately assessthe status of

that zone; however,anadequateunderstandingofthe relationshipsamongstructuralattributes, and between

structural and controlling attributes, is essential in order to construct a monitoring program that effectively

and efficiently assesses restoration success. Below is a listing of some key species found in the different

salt marsh structural elements.

The Intertidal Flats/Primary Producers category includes:

Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), greenfleece (Codium fragile), greenalgae (Enteromorpha spp.), epibenthic

microalgae/bacteria, epiphytic algae, and phytoplankton (in pools and during inundation).

The Intertidal Flats/Fauna category includes:

Macro- & microinvertebrate infauna, salt marsh snail (Melampus bidentatus), mud snail (Ilyanassa

obsoletus), oyster (Argopecten irradians), softshell clam (Mya arenaria), hard clam (Mercenaria

mercenaria), ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa), marsh fiddler crab (Uca pugnax), sand fiddler crab

(Uca pugilator), greencrab (Carcinusmaenas),mudcrabs(Panopeusspp.), great egret(Casmerodius

albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), tricolor heron(Egretta tricolor), little

blue heron(Egrettacaerulea),greenheron(Butoridesstriatus), willet(Catoptrophorussemipalmatus),

greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca).

The Low Marsh/Vegetation category includes:

Tall form smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), rockweed (Fucus vesiculosus), and glassworts

(Salicornia spp.).
20

The Low Marsh/Fauna category includes:

Ribbed mussel, marsh fiddler crab, mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), sheepshead minnow

(Cyprinodon variegatus), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), juvenile fish and fish larvae including

winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), bluefish (Pomatomus

saltatrix); clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), willet, marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris).

The High Marsh/Vegetation category includes:

Saltmeadowcordgrass(Spartinapatens),shortformsmoothcordgrass,spike grass(Distichlisspicata),

black grass (Juncus gerardii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), sea-lavender (Limonium

carolinianum), glassworts, and widgeon grass (in pannes).

The High Marsh/Fauna category includes:

Mummichog (in pannes/high tide), sheepshead minnow (in pannes/high tide), Atlantic silverside (in

pannes/high tide), salt marsh snail, periwinkle (Littorina littorea), hydrobia (Hydrobia totteni), northern

harrier (Circus cyaneus), wading birds (in pannes), American black duck (Anas rubripes), sharp-tailed

sparrows(Ammodramus caudacutus), marsh wren, meadowvole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mosquitoes (Aedes spp.), grasshoppers, and spiders.

The Upland Fringe/Vegetation category includes:

Marsh elder (Iva frutescens), groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia), switchgrass, three-square rush

(Scirpus pungens),seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), and prairie grass(Spartina pectinata).

2.f.6. Functions

The functional elements of the salt marsh include 9 main categories. These are:

CProvision of habitat,

CPrimary production,

CSupport of food web dynamics,

CCycling of nutrients,

CExport of organic matter,

CRemoval of contaminants,

CAttenuation of wave energy,

CStorage of flood water, and

CEnhancement of sedimentation/accretion.

Saltmarshecosystems cansupport anarrayoffunctions that provide ecologicalservicesto native flora and

fauna, other habitats, and also economic services to human beings. Functions can be thought of as the

“activities” of the salt marsh, regardless of whether they are caused actively or passively by the flora and

fauna. These functions are the products of the interaction of controlling factors and structural attributes.
21

Attaining one or more of these functions is often the goal of a restoration project, i.e., to reach a state

where the ecological and/or economic salt marshservices are available. For example, a project goal might

be to increase primary production and support higher trophic levels in the food web, such as commercial

and recreational fish species. An obvious functional goal of many salt marsh restoration projects is

provision of habitat, either for a single priority species or a suite of native species. Many functions are

closely associated with specific structural attributes: Provision of habitat is again an obvious example, as

the particularstructure ofthe animalcommunityislargelyinfluencedbythe structure ofthe plant community,

and also vice versa. Also, attenuation of wave energy and storage of flood waters are directly determined

by plant community structure; food web dynamics are determined by both plant and animal community

structure.

Tracking functional attributes of the ecosystem during a restoration monitoring program is important;

however,some functions maybe inferred bymonitoring the structuralattributes withwhich theyare closely

associated. In general, at least one important function of salt marshes should be monitored as part of the

ongoing restoration monitoring program to assess the development ofthe naturalprocesses underlying the

structure. Monitoring these processes can provide an early warning of problems with the restoration; that

is to say, an appropriate structure may exist at the site, but sub-optimal or abnormal functioning may

indicate degradation of this structure, or an inability to provide other related functions.

2.f.7. Specific Functional Parameters

The salt marsh functions discussed above can be tracked by measuring or observing specific parameters.

Some ofthese specific functionalparametersmaybe auxiliaryproject goals, e.g., communityresistance and

resilience, lowwater column turbidity, or a low frequency of flooding in adjacent terrestrialareas. Choice

of one or more of these specific measurement parameters should be dictated by the restoration project’s

goals, and more specifically byanadequate understanding ofthe relationship among functions and between

functions, ecosystem structure, and controls.

Provision of habitat parameters include:

Landscape patchiness, species richness (number of species), species dominance (relative abundance),

community resilience (after disturbance), and community resistance (to disturbance).

Primary production parameters include:

Aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, and gross/net production.

Support of food web dynamics parameters include:

Number of trophic levels, trophic organization, and ecological efficiency (trophic transfer).

Cycling of nutrients parameters include:

Nitrogenfixation(N2to NO3/NO2/NH3), denitrification (NO3 to N2), nitrification (NH3 to NO3), organic

nitrogen (urea, amino acids, peptides), and detrital N/C ratios.
22

Export of organic matter parameters include:

Primary production gradients, dissolved organic matter (DOM), and particulate organic matter (POM).

Removal of contaminants parameters include:

Heavymetalconcentrations (inH2O), plant tissue heavy metalconcentrations, pesticide concentrations (in

H2O), benthic macroinvertebrate tissue contaminant concentrations, and pollution gradients

(sediments/water column).

Attenuation of Wave Energy parameters include:

Flow velocities, erosion rates/patterns, and sedimentation/accretion rates.

Storage of Flood Water parameters include:

Frequency/duration of flood events (of adjacent terrestrial areas).

Enhancement of Sedimentation/Accretion

Water column turbidity, sediment cores, and sedimentation rate (using sediment traps).

2.g. Generic Activities Affecting Salt Marshes and Adjacent Habitats

Activities that cause disruptions in the hydrologic regime, or cause minor elevational or gradient changes,

canhave profound adverse effectsonvegetatedtidalwetlands. Degradation and loss of upland buffers may

cause increased sediment flow, alteredgroundwaterelevations and flow,lossofnutrient filtering vegetation,

and loss ofwildlife habitatfor wetland edge species. Changes in ambient soil and water salinities will affect

species compositions in tidal wetlands and creek communities, e.g., invasion by common reed. Other

activities that have an adverse effect on tidal wetlands include ditching, diking, fill, excavation, channel

dredging, application of pesticides, and stormwater discharge. Finally, tidal creeks are affected by

alterations to their bank structure, e.g., bulkheading, and by changes in the size or shape of their inlet.

Mudflat areas adjacent tosaltmarshesare anextremely dynamic and somewhatresilient habitat. However,

activitiessuchas dredging and fillingalterthe area’s morphology, water circulationpatterns,substrate type,

and oxygenation, and can expose or bury organisms. Sediment resuspension can clog filter- and

suspension-feeding mechanisms in species like bivalve molluscs and substantially decrease primary

production as a result of light attenuation. This could lead to hypoxic substrates and a decline in benthic

habitat quality.

3. HUMAN DISTURBANCES 

Understanding human disturbancesthat cause negative impactsinthe salt marsh habitat is important when

planning and designing restoration projects. Ditching and filling account for the largestsalt marshlossesin

New York State. There may be more than one type of human disturbance in a salt marsh. It would not
23

Figure 5. Aerial photo of grid ditching in Long Island tidal wetlands.

be unusual to see a salt marshthat has been ditched for mosquito control, partially bulkheaded to protect

a shoreline development, and partially filled for adjacent development. Addressing these various human

disturbances willinvolve trade-offs that mayonly be effectively chosen ifthese disturbances, their impacts,

and the available restoration methods are understood. Therefore, the generic human activities that may

disturb the salt marshecosystem, listed above, are discussed separately and in greater detail in this section

of the document. 

3.a. Ditching

Extensive grid ditching of salt

marshes has been conducted in the

northeast during this century, to

eliminate or manage mosquito

(Aedes spp.) populations (Taylor,

1998; Hruby, 1990; Clarke et al.,

1985; Niering & Warren, 1980).

Grid ditching typically involved

construction of parallel ditches at

100-150 foot intervals, and cross

ditchesto drain standing water areas

(Taylor, 1998). Some ofthe natural

standing pools and pannes on the

marshsurface do providea breeding

ground for mosquito populations.

However, ditching is non-specific in that it drains all pools, not only those standing pools serving as

mosquito breeding areas. Impacts resulting from ditching include changes in original tidal regime and marsh

vegetation. The functions and habitat value of a salt marsh are decreased as a result of ditching. Clarke

et al. (1985)showedthatforagingbyshorebirds,waterfowl, and insectivores was greatly decreased ingrid

ditched marshes in Massachusetts. Other researchers have observed decreases in the numbers of birds

using ditched salt marshes overtime (Howe et al., 1978;Nixon, 1982;Taylor,1998). Draining also results

in the loss of important submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in natural pools on the high marsh (Taylor,

1998).

3.b. Filling

Many marshes have been filled, either as a result of the need to dispose of dredged material from

navigational channels and basins (Rozsa, 1995), or to “reclaim” the land for development, industry, and

agriculture (NYS Office ofPlanningServices, 1972; Freese &Kulhawy, 1983). Coastalsalt marshes have

also been used extensively as a locationformunicipal landfills such as Pelham Bay, Pennsylvania Avenue,
24

Figure 6. Wetland filling caused by golf course construction.

Figure 7. Perched culvert impeding tidal flow.

and Fresh Kills (Rozsa, 1995). Filling with upland substrates enhances the ability of invasive species to

take hold inthe area, due to lowsalt content, decreased moisture, and often the presence ofseedsinthese

fill substrates. Filled marshes are subject to direct and substantial alteration of their tidal regime, natural

morphology, and original marsh vegetation. Original salt marsh functions are generally lost.

3.c. Restricted Tidal Connection

Marshes were historically drained for a variety of purposes, including mosquito control, flood control, and

for the production of salt hay, a combination of high marsh species used as animal feed (Hruby, 1990;

Roman et al., 1984; Nixon, 1982). To drain the marsh, flow control devices, such as tide gates (flapper

orsluice gates) are installed at tidal inlets

or ditch mouths. These devices allow

water to drain out of the marsh on the

ebb tide, but restrict or prevent water

flow from the incoming flood tide

(Romanet al.,1984; Niering& Warren,

1980). Structures such as road beds

and railways oftenfullyor partially block

marsh areas from tidal flow (Hruby,

1990). Culverts below roads or

railways are used to maintain some tidal

connection despite the artificial

obstruction. Many culverts provide

insufficient inundation because of their

size, placement, or from blockage by
25

debris. These types of disturbances result in salt marshes mapped as “formerly connected wetlands” by

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under Article 25, Environmental

ConservationLaw ImplementingRegulations 6NYCRR Part 661. In these marshes, flow control devices

and/or inadequate culvertsdecrease or eliminate the connectionbetweenthe marshand itsinundating body

of water. Impactsresulting fromrestricting tidalconnectionmayinclude changesinthe frequency, volume,

and durationoftidalflooding. Tidal restrictions can also change marsh vegetation, morphology, subsidence,

water quality, and salinity and soil oxidation. Some restrictions also provide a physical barrier to certain

fish and wildlife species that normally migrate inand out ofthe marsh. The effects of these tidal restrictions

have significantly degraded salt marsh functions and habitat value throughout the marine coast of New

York. 

3.d. Diking & Impoundment

Impoundments are flooded areas created bybuilding dikes or placingweirsinthe mouthof a creek or tidal

inlet (Herke et al., 1992). Diking and impoundment of salt marshes has sometimes occurred under the

guise ofhabitat creation:recreationally important colonialwaterfowlspeciespreferexpanses ofopenwater

to emergent marsh areas (Peck et al., 1994; Sinicrope et al., 1990; Shisler, 1990). Unfortunately, after

an initial increase in waterfowl use in such impoundments, a subsequent decline occurs as the open water

habitat is invaded by new plant communities, like cattail (Typha spp.) and common reed (Phragmites

australis; Rozsa, 1995). Impoundments were also created on some tidal creeks and embayments to

power mills. Mill pond impoundments, which caused prolonged inundation of vegetated salt marshes ,

resulted in the eliminationofthis vegetationfromallbut a narrowfringe around the impoundments as water

elevationsincreased (Rozsa, 1995). Impacts from diking and impoundment include changes in tidal regime,

flooding, salinity, original vegetation communities, and possibly altered morphology. Many salt marsh

functions are substantially altered by impoundment. Shisler (1990) notes that impoundments were often

the cause of the worst mosquito problems associated with salt marsh habitats. In addition, Herke et al.

(1992)showed thatsemi-impoundedmarshesresult inadramatic decrease inestuarine-dependent fishand

crustacean use and export.

3.e. Pollution

Salt marshes can be damaged or destroyed by acute pollution events such as oil spills, and chronic

exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons from marinas, boat traffic, and terrestrial runoff. Petroleum

contamination kills marsh vegetation as well as fauna, and remains in the substrates, vegetation, and certain

organisms for a long time subsequent to the initial pollution event (up to 12 years; Teal, 1986). Chronic

input of small quantities ofpetroleumand other contaminants such as heavy metals, can also substantially

damage marsh flora and fauna (Teal, 1986; Nixon, 1982). 
26

Figure 8. Removing petroleum pollution from a marsh.

Other types of pollution affecting salt marshes include traditional mosquito management techniques

employing broad-spectrum chemical pesticides, applied directly to the salt marsh(Lent et al., 1990). For

example, DDT was used extensively to control mosquito populations in marshes throughout New York

State until it was banned in eastern Long Island in 1966 and nationally in 1972 (Howe et al., 1978).

Marine and coastal birds were significantly impacted by environmental contaminants such as chlorinated

hydrocarbons, including DDT. This category of compounds, mostly pesticides and herbicides,

bioaccumulates in bird prey species and subsequently affects the reproductive processes of marine and

coastal birds (Howe et al., 1978). Contaminated sediments enter nearshore waters when they are

resuspended inthe water column bydredging (SCPD, 1985). Effects from chemical pollution include both

acute and chronic toxicity to marsh vegetation and wildlife, and may cause indirect impacts across the

coastal food chain.

Stormwater discharges are a majorsource ofpollution, including petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These chemical compounds are often derived from road and paved area

runoff. The New York City Parks Department Natural Resources Group has conducted both field and

laboratory research on heterotrophic bacteria capable ofdegrading petroleum hydrocarbons found in the

root zone of smooth cordgrass. Petroleum-contaminated restoration sites are planted with Spartina

alterniflora and fertilized. The Spartina plants aerate the root zone, promoting growthofthese beneficial

bacteria. Reductions in total petroleum hydrocarbons in field studies to date show that this process is

working (Matsil & Feller, 1996).

Stormwater discharges also cause sedimentationinthe marshat ratesfar greaterthanthoseassociatedwith

natural marsh building processes. Stormwater sediment loads are primarily derived from sand and dirt

running off roads and paved surfaces. While deposition of sediment over the long term from regulartidal

flooding and periodic large stormeventsisintegralto maintaining the natural configurationofthe marshand

its vegetative communities (Stumpf, 1983), excessive sediment loads delivered by large pulses of
27

Figure 9. Bulkheaded shoreline of a tidal creek.

stormwaterrunoff disrupt this process. These sediment loads can result in significant changes to salt marsh

elevations. Stormwater discharges are also characterized by large pulses of fresh water into the system,

which can disrupt the salinity regime in the marsh. Chronic fresh water influxes will altersoilsalinities and

the nutrient cycling regime, and influence the vegetative community found at the site. Both stormwater

discharge impacts—excess loading of sediment and fresh water—may result in competitive exclusion of

native salt marsh vegetation by invasive species. Functions and habitat can be severely impacted, if not

eliminated, as a result of alltypes of anthropogenic pollution(chemicalcontaminants, excesssedimentation,

freshwater pulses) in the salt marsh.

3.f. Shoreline Hardening & Structures

Increased residentialand recreationaluse of

the coastal area has led to a greater number

of man-made structures intruding in and

affecting naturalhabitat. In salt marsh areas,

such structures are primarily bulkheads,

revetments,groins,jetties,breakwaters, and

docks. Bulkheads, generally constructed of

woodenplanks, steel sheeting, or concrete,

are structures designed to minimize the loss

of substrates from the shoreline by erosion

(Freese&Kulhawy, 1983). Bulkheads and

other structures such as revetments deflect

waves from the shore face, but cause

scouring at the toe of the structure and the

adjacent shorelines. This process undermines the integrity of the structure itself, and alters the slope of the

adjacent bottom areas. Single sections of bulkhead can actually increase erosion rates in adjacent

unprotected areas; this “flanking” ofthe bulkhead results in erosion of the shore behind the bulkhead from

either side (Freese & Kulhawy, 1983). 

The presence of bulkheads initiates a cycle where toe scour causes a deepening of the water directly in

front of the bulkhead; wave heights and flooding are thereby increased; and wetland areas that would

naturally attenuate wave energy and store flood waters are eroded away.

New marsh formation, especially on the back side of barrier beaches on the south shore of Long Island,

is dependent on overwash fromstorms. These processes are impeded by shoreline hardening structures.

Marsh accretion and landward retreat are also prevented by bulkheads.

The constructionofsmall, “light duty” docks, pedestriancatwalks or walkways, and observationplatforms

is commoninmarshes. Researchers examined the effects of docks on salt marsh vegetation, and found that
28

Figure 10. Walkway to a dock constructed over salt marsh.

dock height (measured from the marsh surface to the bottom of the longitudinal supporting beam) was a

significant limitingfactorforvegetationgrowthunderthosestructures(Kearneyet al., 1983). The presence

of docks and other pile-supported structures create a shaded environment that may result in the loss of

vegetationadapted to higherlight intensity. In their study, Kearney et al. (1983) found that bothheight and

densityof allplant species examined were severely depressed at dock heights of< 30 cm. Normal heights

were attained indifferent species ofvegetationat different dock heights: spikegrass was largely unaffected

by a dock of ~70 cm in height; salt meadow cordgrass required a dock height of ~85 cm to remain

unaffected; smooth cordgrass required a dock height of ~200 cm to reach no effect status.

Effects from shoreline hardening and the placement of other structures (such as docks) in or near salt

marshes may alter marsh vegetation, structure, and hydrology. The New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, under 6NYCRR Part 661, hasrequirements for dock width and placement

inintertidalmarshes,flats, and adjacent areas. Cumulative impacts from a large number of individual, small

scale projects negatively affect, if not eliminate, the function and habitat value of salt marshes.

3.g. Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is thought to be induced largely by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases from

automobilesand industrialemissions(e.g., carbondioxide, methane)inthe atmosphere and their concurrent

impact on global temperature (Titus, 1991; Titus et al., 1991). Current estimates of sea level rise range

from 50-200 cm(2-7 ft) over the next 150-200 years (Titus et al., 1991); a 30 cm (1 ft) rise is likely by

the year 2050 (Titus, 1991; EPAGlobalWarmingSite,1998). Coastal marshes are particularly vulnerable

to globalsea level rise, as they occur primarily within a few feet of mean sea level (EPA Global Warming
29

Site, 1998; Titus et al., 1991). Although marshes successfully developed despite sea level rise (and fall)

over time (Teal & Teal, 1969; Orson et al., 1987), the current situation poses a serious threat to these

areas for several reasons. 

Sea level rise now occurs at a more rapid rate than in the past. Many coastal wetlands, which rise as a

result of sediment accumulation and peat building, may not succeed in keeping pace (Titus et al., 1991).

Concurrent with a rise through peat accumulation comes a landward migration of the marsh. However,

many marshes are adjacent to bulkheaded and developed uplands, and inland migration of the marsh as

sea levelrisesis precluded (see Shoreline Hardening& CoastalStructures above; Titus et al., 1991; Titus,

1991; Rozsa, 1995; Teal, 1986). Most adjacent upland areas are steeper than current wetland areas.

Evenifsalt marsh development keeps pace with sea level rise a net loss of coastalwetland acreage would

still occur (Titus, 1991). Researchers predict a one meter rise in sea level will inundate 36,000 km2

(14,000 mi2), divided equally between wet and dry land (Titus et al., 1991). This underscores the

importance of identifying and protecting lowlyingareasto allowfuture landward migrationofsalt marshes.

Other anthropogenic factors not associated withglobalwarming are also blamed for sea levelrise overthe

past century. Groundwater withdrawal, surface water diversion, changes in land use, and deforestation

are thought by some to be responsible for ~30% ofthis century’srise in sea level (Sahagian & Schwartz,

1994; Sullivant, 1994; Monastersky, 1994). Subsidence of coastal areas from groundwater withdrawal

and landformmodificationwill compound the effects ofsea levelriseonsaltmarshes(Fee, 1993; C. Rilling,

personal communication).

4. NATURAL DISTURBANCES 

Natural disturbances in the salt marsh may compound the effects of anthropogenic disturbances, and may

influence the timingand methodology selected, as well asthe likelihood ofsuccess, forrestorationprojects.

Natural disturbances are not “bad” in themselves, but may be “bad” for a restoration project, especially

iftheyare not considered during planning. The natural processes discussed below—seasonal disturbances

associated with ice sheets, and acute natural disasters such as storms and hurricanes—are destructive

forces at work in the marsh, and may substantially alter morphology and vegetative succession. They are

nonetheless part of the natural ecology of the salt marsh, necessary for development and maintenance of

the habitat over time. Existing anthropogenic stresses in the salt marsh, however, may adversely affect

marshes’ resilience to natural events.

4.a. Seasonal Disturbances

Salt marshesinthe northeasternUnited States canbe covered withice during the winter. Ice sheets uproot

vegetation in the marsh when chunks of ice are dislodged by storms. Tidal action also causes ice sheets

to shear the stems of cordgrass and other marsh plants (Bertness, 1992; Niering & Warren, 1980). Ice

may cause changes in the elevation of a salt marsh through sediment erosion, transport, and deposition.
30

Large debris (e.g., boulders, lumber or concrete from coastal structures) may be transported by ice and

deposited on the marsh surface, changing morphology and directly affecting vegetation (Shisler, 1990;

Freese & Kulhawy, 1983).

Ice scouring canalso cause indirect impactsto salt marshenvironments. Uprooted plants and shorn stems

are transported in extensive rafts onto upper highmarshareas byextreme hightides orstormwaves. Rafts

of material remain trapped on the surface of the marsh when high waters recede, where they may shade

out existing vegetation. Patchy loss of marsh vegetation from both the ice scouring and subsequent

deposition of debris rafts on the high marsh is important in maintenance and development of vegetative

community structure in the salt marsh. Bare areas produced by this loss of vegetation are colonized by

more opportunistic salt marshvegetation, or formshallowpannes whichcanincrease species diversity and

habitat heterogeneity of the marsh (Bertness, 1992; Niering & Warren, 1980).

4.b. Natural Disasters

Weather events have disastrous effects on coastal environments. Wave energy during tropical

(hurricanes) and extratropical (nor’easters) storms may cause severe shoreline erosion, changing the

morphology ofsalt marshes, and of the nearby submerged landforms and protective featuresthat influence

them, such as sandbars and barrier beaches. Storm surge, a rise in overall water levels beyond that of

normaltides, maycause severe impacts oncoastal areas, largely due to flooding. Storm surge is influenced

by direct wind action, atmospheric low pressure, heavy rainfall, and wave and swell transport of water.

The timing of peak surge with respect to the tidal cycle will determine the degree of severity of surgerelated flooding (Freese & Kulhawy, 1983). Sediment and debris may be deposited in excess on the

surface of the marsh during hurricane and heavy storm events, resulting in morphological changes to the

marsh and direct impacts on vegetation (Niering & Warren, 1980). However, it should be noted that

storm-related sediment depositionalso appears to be a crucial element in maintaining some marshes over

the long term as they contend with sea level rise (Stumpf, 1983).

5. POST-DISTURBANCE CONDITIONS IN SALT MARSHES

Developing a successful restoration plan ultimately depends on an understanding of the on-the-ground

effect(s) caused by a disturbance. A single type of disturbance may have several effects; for example, a

tidal restriction placed within a salt marsh habitat will alterthe tidalregime, possibly cause subsidence and

aeration of the substrate, change the substrate salinity, and potentially promote the invasion of nuisance

species. The details of a restoration plan must respond to site-specific issues, avoiding a generic response

to disturbance type. Projects that do not respond to impacts in the habitat are more likely to be subject

to unforseen problems and failure. The most prevalent on-the-ground impacts stemming from the

anthropogenic disturbancesdiscussedabove and observed insalt marshhabitats ofthe northeasternUnited

States are discussed in this section.
31

5.a. Changes in Tidal Regime

Tidal inundation is the primary physical characteristic of a salt marsh. Alterations in the tidal regime will

have a profound effect onthe vegetative communities present (Lefor et al., 1987). Salt-tolerant vegetation

will be replaced by other species in areas that are no longer inundated. Phragmites australis (common

reed) will often invade these disturbed environments, outcompeting other species and often forming a

monoculture (Romanet al., 1984; Niering & Warren, 1980). Impounded or other areas withdecreased

salinitiesmaybecome dominatedbybrackishspecies,suchas cattail(Typha angustifolia;Beare&Zedler,

1987; Peck et al., 1994; Sinicrope et al., 1990). In addition, lack of inundation will cause marsh

substratesto dryout, changing the chemicalproperties of these substrates and increasing erosionbywind,

rain, and terrestrial runoff. Finally, tidal restrictions that prevent inundation reduce or eliminate the extent

of fish use of the marsh (Burdick et al., 1997).

Changes in tidal regime may also lead to increased inundation. Inlet dredging, for example, causes

increased tidal flow into an embayment, raising the mean high tide elevation and changing the zonation of

salt marshvegetation. Low marsh Spartina alterniflora replacesformer highmarsh vegetation in the new

intertidalzone. The overall area of the salt marsh is decreased as the former low marsh is lost underwater.

Reduction of tidal range in a salt marsh lowers the water table, and surface substrates become dry. In

addition to drying, the oxygen content of these substrates increases. Associated with aeration of marsh

substrates is a host of other chemical processes, including an increased rate of organic matter

decomposition(oxidation), conversion of ironsulfide (pyrite)inmarshsubstratesto sulfuric acid, decrease

in substrate pH to highly acidic conditions, and mobilization of potentially bioavailable heavy metals.

5.b. Subsidence

Subsidence is a drop in the surface elevation of the marsh below its former elevation. Tidal restrictions,

in addition to reducing saltwater flooding, reduce the amount of sediment entering the marsh. Decreased

sedimentation, compactionofdrymarshpeat, and increasedmicrobialdecompositionofthe peat cancause

subsidence over time (Roman et al., 1984; Rozsa, 1995). Subsided areas that are subjected once again

to full tidal flow may be inundated for periods too long forthe survivalofsalt marshvegetation(Seneca et

al., 1985); i.e., too much water remains on the marsh during low tides (Rozsa, 1995). 

Restoration of tidal flow can result in the conversionofthe area to a habitat other than salt marsh, such as

shallow water habitat or unvegetated flats. Restoration of salt marsh in subsided areas can occur, but

longer time frames are required. Rozsa (1995) observed that the Great Harbor Marsh (CT), which had

subsided 60 cm(2 ft.) below its original elevation as a result of a tide gate, once again supported wetland

vegetation 40 years after a hurricane destroyed the gate in the 1950s. However, despite nearly a halfcentury of self-restoration, the plant communities in Great Harbor Marsh did not replace those lost when

the tide gate was installed—the area had supported a high marsh plant community, but now supports a

Spartina alterniflora-dominated low marsh community (Rozsa, 1995). 
32

Restorationoforiginalplant communitiesina subsided marshmayrequire more highlyengineeredsolutions;

Rozsa (1995) cites work conducted bythe U.S. ACOEat LeetesIsland Marsh(CT) modeling controlled

flow restoration, whichuses a series ofstructuresthat allowmore water to leave the salt marsh on low tide

than enters onhightide. Another solution may be the addition of fill to subsided intertidal or subtidal areas,

creating suitable elevations for the establishment of salt marsh vegetation (C. Pickerell, personal

communication).

5.c. Flooding

Drained salt marshes that have subsided due to oxidation and decomposition may increase the potential

for freshwater flooding. When marsh elevations are lower, freshwater inputs from rainfall, snowmelt,

creeks or rivers may remain trapped on the marsh surface. Standing water such as this may increase

mosquito populations (C. Rilling, personal communication).

Flooding frequently occurs as a result ofdiking creeks and rivers. Salt marshes become flooded with fresh

or brackishwater, decreasing the ambient water and soil salinities and changing other chemicalparameters

(Shisler, 1990). The new ambient conditions influence the vegetative communities present, and invasive or

brackishspecies generally dominate (Sinicrope et al., 1990; Beare&Zedler,1987). Impounded wetlands

that have existed asstanding water areasforsome period of time mayaccumulate a great dealofsediment.

In such instances, elevation of the former wetland surface, if drained, may no longer be appropriate for

establishment of the original salt marsh community. Salt marsh vegetation can be lost due to prolonged

inundation . 

5.d. Changes in Salinity

Salt marshes that have been modified to decrease or eliminate tidal inundation will experience alterations

inthe salinityofboththe “standing”water present, and their substrates. During dryperiods,salinitiesinthe

marsh will increase as evaporation occurs and there is no tidal flushing or rainfall to dilute salt build-up

(Nordby& Zedler, 1991). High concentrations of salt may burn plant roots, community composition may

change, and barren zones may appear (Bertness, 1992).

Conversely, duringwet periods(e.g., rainfall, flooding, springmelt events, pulses offreshwaterfromsewer

overflows), salinities will decrease as salt content is diluted and not replenished by tidal inundation. A

similar situation may result from the impoundment of marshes at the mouth of a river or creek. The

incoming brackish or fresh water will remain in the impoundment basin and no tidal flushing occurs to

replenish salt content (Nordby & Zedler, 1991). 

A decrease in salinity in the marsh to less than ~18 parts per thousand (ppt) will promote the invasion of

commonreed which is less tolerant of salt than naturally dominant species like smooth cordgrass and salt
33

meadow cordgrass. In reduced-salinity marsh areas where Phragmites invasion does not occur, plant

species diversity is often substantially increased, encompassing both salt marsh and brackish species.

Cattail, for example, will germinate and grow in marshes whose salinities have decreased below 20 ppt

(Beare & Zedler, 1987). However, Nordby & Zedler (1991) found that among fish and macrobenthic

species, reduced salinities resulted in reduced species richness and abundances, population structures

skewed toward young animals, and dominance by species with early reproductive development and long

spawning periods.

5.e. Changes in Salt Marsh Vegetation

Salt marsh vegetation (primarily Spartina alterniflora and S. patens) may be lost as a result of chemical

and physicalchangesinthe ecosystemand through competitive exclusion by invasive species. Evenminor

changes in the elevationorsalinity of salt marsh habitats will enhance competitive exclusion, especially by

common reed. Phragmites australis is indigenous to the northeast (Orson et al., 1987); however, an

invasive form from Europe that spreads rapidly through brackish and freshwater marsh habitats is now

believed to be present in North America (Besitka, 1996; Casagrande, 1997; R. Rozsa, personal

communication). Recent researchindicatesthat the invasive Europeanformis phenotypically distinct from

the native version (Besitka, 1996); current studies are underway at Yale University(PrincipalInvestigator

ProfessorK.Vogt/ResearchAssistant K.Sullivan) to establishgenotypic differences betweenlive,invasive

examples of Phragmites and historical examples of native Phragmites (C. Rilling, personal

communication).

Once established, Phragmitesshades existing vegetation and hinders the germination and growth of other

species. Phragmites stands are also thought to provide inferior nesting habitat for many marsh birds

(Howe et al., 1978), including seaside sparrow, sharp-tailed sparrow, and willet. These marsh specialists

are adapted to nesting in short grasses like Spartina patens and Distichlis spicata (Benoit, 1997).

Conversion of salt marsh to Phragmites monocultures alters detrital cycling patterns due to the slower

degradation rate of Phragmites’ woodystalks, and increasesthe likelihood offire as dead, woody stems

accumulate (Niering & Warren, 1980). The slower degradationrate ofPhragmitesstalks can also raise

the elevationofthe marsh, therebydecreasing the area that canbe flooded withsalt water bytidalflowand

further promoting Phragmites australis invasion (T. Diers, personal communication). Stands of

Phragmites, growing up to 14 feet in height, are often considered to negatively impact the “viewshed” in

an area (Tiner, 1987; Eastman, 1995). 

Total loss of vegetation in the marsh, and the subsequent exposure of the substrate, will impact other

important marsh functions. For instance, the presence of vegetation (any species) will decrease wave

energy and retard erosion ofthe shore;store flood waters and decrease flooding of adjacent upland areas;

remove nutrients and contaminantsfrom terrestrial runoff; and fostersedimentation, whichimproves water

quality in nearshore waters.
34

6. OVERVIEW OF RESTORATION METHODS

This overview of restoration methods is organized by types of impact (not disturbance) to assist with the

development of restoration plans which respond to the specific conditions observed in a given salt marsh

habitat. The impacts described in the previous section can generally be categorized as being associated

withthe tidalregime,themorphology, and/or the vegetationofthe salt marshhabitat. For sites with impacts

to tidal regime, for example, restoration planning willinvolve considerationofthe factors discussed below

under “Manipulating Tidal Regime”. Most projects will be required to respond to more than one impact

category.

6.a. Manipulating Tidal Regime

6.a.1. General Considerations

The most basic means ofrestoring salt marshesisreintroductionof a tidalregime. Ditches may be plugged

to raise the elevation of tidal inundationinthe marshand reestablishnaturalpools and pannes in the marsh

surface (Taylor, 1998). Tide gates and other flow restriction devices at tidal inlets may be removed or

replaced with self-regulating devices that are calibrated for appropriate tidal hydrology in the marsh

(Niering& Warren, 1980; ASCE, 1998). Culverts may be removed, replaced with wider culverts, or have

clogging debris cleared from them (New Hampshire NRCS, 1998; Hruby, 1990). Dikes and other

impoundments may be removed to drain flooded areas and restore a natural tidal range (Sinicrope et al.,

1990). 

Reintroduction of tidal flushing to drained marshes that have subsided will result in flooding duration that

is too long over most of the restorationarea to achieve the originalratios oftarget plant communities (e.g.,

lowmarsh, highmarsh, salt shrub). Areas that were originally Spartina patens-dominated highmarshmay

be converted to S. alterniflora low marsh (Hruby, 1990; Rozsa, 1995). Inextreme cases, the subsided

area may be converted to unvegetated intertidal flat or standing water (Rozsa, 1995). Restoration may

require some filling and regrading of the area to achieve the original, appropriate elevations before tidal

inundation is reestablished. Conversely, for impoundments that have acted as settling basins, some

excavationand regradingmaybe required to appropriate elevations beforetidalinundationisreestablished.

Otherwise, a significant area of the restoration site will remain above mean high water elevation.

6.a.2. Measuring Tidal Elevations

The firstmeasurementsrequired whenplanning the restoration of tidal regime at a site are tidal elevations.

MeanHighWater (MHW) at a specific site is a function of tidal prism, and is affected byadjacent bottom

contours, prevailing winds, and currents (Lefor et al., 1987; PERL, 1990; Lagna, 1975). Normandeau

Associates (1992) note that salt marshes are associated with coastal features such as barrier spits and

islands, embayments, and river mouths, all of which will modify tidal heights and ranges. Therefore,
35

published tidal data are not likely to be sufficiently accurate for an individual salt marsh restoration site.

McKee & Patrick (1988) found that growth range of Spartina alterniflora is positively correlated with

mean tidal range (the elevation difference between low and high water), which explained ~70% of the

statistical variation in upper and lower limits of growth. These researchers also found that Spartina

alterniflora growth range differs by latitude among marshes with similar tidal ranges. Therefore, it is

essential that tidal elevations be determined specifically for individual restoration sites. 

There are a variety of simple methods available for measuring tidal elevations. The New Hampshire

Coastal Program recommends a water-level maxima/minima gauge employing sliding magnets on a

measuring rod developed by Richter (1997). In addition, they describe a “glue stick method”, employing

six foot tomato stakes marked at five centimeter intervals, covered with dried Elmer’s glue colored with

food coloring. A number of such stakes are placed throughout the restoration site; when the tide rises the

glue will be washed off up to the elevation of high tide, and this elevation can be reconciled with known

elevations at the site (NHCP, 1998). For example, a leveled stringmaybe run from the stake (tied at the

point indicating the highest elevation of the tide) to the point of intersection with the marsh surface. If the

string is level between these points, the point of intersection should closely approximate the level of high

tide in the marsh.

Another simple tide staff is described by Roman et al. (1984). Graduated poles housed within circular

pipes are placed near tide gates or tidal creek inlets at the restoration sites. The graduated poles have a

cup filled with cork dust attached. When the tide rises the cork dust floats up to the level of high tide

adhering to the graduated pole at this level when the water falls. For any of these methods, a minimum

measurement duration of two complete Spring tidal cycles is required (Burdick, unpublished).

6.a.3. Duration of Inundation

Tidalelevationdata should be combined withinformationontopographic elevation and morphology of the

site to determine durationofinundation. The duration of inundation at a particular elevation influences the

vegetationfound there. Seneca et al. (1985)studied the influence ofdurationofinundationondevelopment

of a planted Spartina alterniflora marsh. They found that through the first several growing seasons, S.

alterniflora exhibited maximum well-being in the 7- and 4-hour inundation zones, but for the remaining

period through 12 growing seasons S. alterniflora demonstrated a shift inmaximumwell-being to the 11-

and 9-hour inundation zones, and dominated these zones for the duration of the study. The upper zones

(7- and 4-hourinundation) became a mixed species marshoverthe 12-year period, and bythe twelfthyear

Phragmites australis came to dominate the uppermost, 4-hour inundation zone (Seneca et al., 1985).

Theseresultscomplimentworkfromotherresearchers(Bertness & Ellison, 1987; Bertness,1992)showing

that S. alterniflora islimited to the lowest elevations ofthemarsh because of competition with other marsh

species.
36

6.a.4. Sizing of Culverts

Where feasible, restoration tidal regime can be accomplished byremovalofrestrictions to the level of the

natural marsh surface. If removal of some or all of the restrictions is not feasible, culverts can be placed

or enlarged to improve tidalflowinto the marsh. Site specific calculations must be made to determine the

volume of tidal water required to flood the desired area. 

Hruby (1990) provides a simplified method for estimating this volume. To calculate the volume of water

required to flood the wetland, the surface area of the wetland and a topographic map of the area are

needed. The amount of water needed to flood a given area of wetland can be calculated with this

information by assuming an even grade between the two intervals. 

In order to determine how many culverts, and of what size, are necessary to deliver the required amount

of water the volume of water that will flow through a culvert of a given size must be determined. Such

calculations are complexforround or ovalpipes; Hruby(1990)suggeststhatthe followingestimates(based

ondata fromSeatuck NationalWildlife Refuge,Islip, NY) maybe used:1) A 12"round corrugated culvert

will pass ~1200 m3in one tidal cycle. 2) A 35" oval pipe will pass ~4000 m3 in one tidal cycle. The

number of pipes needed to flood the area of the marsh can then be roughly estimated using these figures

(Hruby, 1990). These calculations should be employed to obtain estimates only; an engineering study

should be conducted during the formalplanning process to determine the actual area ofinundationthat will

result.

6.a.5. Open Marsh Water Management

A series of techniques collectively termed “Open Marsh Water Management” (OMWM), designed to

provide alternatives to grid ditching and chemical applications for controlofmosquito populations, canbe

categorized as tidal regime restoration methods. OMWM centers on the creation of permanent, deep

water areas in the high marsh that are connected by shallow channels to knownmosquito breeding areas.

Larvivorous fish, such asmummichog, thus have a habitat in the marsh (deep water pools), and access to

mosquito breeding areas(shallowchannels). When high water flooding of the marsh triggers larval hatches,

the shallow channels are simultaneously flooded, bringing larvae-eating fish to the hatching mosquito

population (Lent et al., 1990).

Two desirable OMWM techniques are available: closed systems and semi-tidal systems. Taylor (1998)

described optimum characteristics for the development of closed OMWM systems: Closed systems have

shallow ponds and pannes (2"-18"), sump ponds (30"-36"), and pond radial ditches (~30"). Ponds are

created atsmall depressions ofmosquito breeding, by enlarging the area of the depressionand excavating

to a depth of 30"-36" in the deepest area of the pond. Peat depth is a limitation on any excavation for

pannes, sumps, and ditches. Unconsolidated sands and gravels belowthe peat layer will not retain water

(Hruby, 1990). Slopes should be gentle, ranging from 4:1 to 10:1. More shallow areas (such as the

optimum migratory bird depth of 12"-18", 2"-3" shorebird foraging depth, or 7"-25" preferred Ruppia
37

Figure 11. Ditch plug in an OMWM system.

maritima depth range) may be created in the pond, as long as there is a 30"-36" sump area provided

somewhere in the pond. Curvilinear ponds between1/10 and 1/4 acre insize provide the greatest wildlife

habitat benefit. Radial connector ditches that allow larvivorous fish access to and from sump ponds and

mosquito breeding habitat should be at least 18" deep and 24" wide. Existing ditches greater than 36" in

depthmaybe filledwithmarshspoil to achieve a more appropriate ~30" depth. To create shallow ponds,

pannes, and sump ponds,some parallelgrid ditches must be plugged to hold permanent water on the high

marsh. These ditches maybe blocked with marsh spoil at or near their connection with the tidal channel.

Plugs must be filled to slightly above marsh level, and extend laterally onto the marsh to prevent erosion

around the edge of the plug. Plugs will settle and be impacted by water flow before revegetation and

stabilizationoccurs. Lumber may be used to reinforce plugs, and wire may be used to discourage muskrat

burrowing, during thisstabilizationperiod (Taylor, 1998). Another approach to ditch plugging involves use

of4' X 8' pressure-treated or marine plywood alone, driven into the peat withanexcavator. The top may

then be notched to the depth desired for the ditch water level (C. Rilling, personal communication).

Some drawbacks to OMWM systems,

especially the closed system, are

reported. These systems may have high

maintenance costs (T. Diers, personal

communication). However, New

Hampshire mosquito control divisions

have found that properly-constructed

closed systems do not require ongoing

maintenance (J. Taylor, personal

communication). OMWM systems have

not been demonstrated as a common

reed control method in salt marshes.

Finally, the problem of spoil disposal

resulting from pool and ditch excavation

must be confronted (T. Diers, personal

communication). In general, however,

spoil from pool and ditch excavation may be used to bring up ditch depths and plug man-made ditches.

Rotary ditching equipment may also be used to minimize spoil disposal impacts. This equipment, widely

used in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Delaware, shoots out a slurry that does not raise salt marsh

elevation; vegetation is unchanged and the site fully recovered within one year (J. Taylor, personal

communication).

The characteristics ofsemi-tidalsystems are alsodescribedbyTaylor(1998):Thistechnique involves deep

ditches (30") with sills, or shallow tidal outlets (4"-8"), that are only partially tidal. In this manner a sill

drains veryshallowstanding water fromthe surface ofthe marsh, but does not excessively lower the water

table. The depth of the sill controls the height of the water table. The sump pond and connector ditch
38

systemdescribed forthe closed system is also used for semi-tidal systems. However, some natural pond

and panne formation will be precluded by the lower water table, impacting shorter-legged bird foraging

area and vegetative community structure (Taylor, 1998).

Other biological methods of mosquito control have been suggested for use in salt marshes. The most

commonly employed species, mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), however, is native to the midwestern

United States south to Mexico. Thisspecies has nonetheless been used for mosquito control in fresh and

brackish water habitats from coast to coast. Mosquito fish are used by Suffolk County Vector Control

(Yaphank, NY) only in contained freshwater areas, such as ornamental ponds, and measures to prevent

escape into the natural environment are employed (T. Iwanejko, personal communication). The

introduction of non-native species into the environment is not recommended. In addition, introduction of

mosquito fish into New York salt marshesis unnecessary due to the presence of native species of larvaeeating fish such as killifish.

6.a.6. Low-lying Structures

Before tidal inundation can be reestablished at a site, the elevations of the lowest structures in the area

(private property, homes, roads) must be determined. Restoration of the full tidal range may not be

possible due to the potential for flooding nearby structures and property. Self-regulating tide gates are

opened by a float that rises and falls with the tides. These devices can be set at the time of installation to

restrict naturaltidal inundation only to the extent required for the protection of low-lying structures. Selfregulating gates face the tidal side of an inlet and are hinged at the top; therefore, they float on the water’s

surface until counterfloats extending above the hinge point close them. The gates will be closed during high

tides orstorms, keeping excess waterawayfromnearbyhomes and property. During ebb tide, a hydraulic

head in the inlet reverses, and the gate reopens (ASCE, 1998). These devices require long-term

maintenance to ensure continued proper operation, but are effective in balancing habitat restoration and

protection of adjacent properties.

6.b. Manipulating Elevation, Slope, and Substrate

6.b.1. General Considerations

Salt marsh habitat is created by an interaction of the tidal regime and the morphology of the inundated

landform. Specifically, proper elevations and slope are crucial for the establishment of native vegetation,

which are specialized for different frequencies and duration of tidal inundation (Seneca et al., 1985;

Broome et al.. 1988). For example, the difference in elevation between the marsh edge and the bordering

upland may be only 10-15 cm, or 4-6 in. (Lefor et al., 1987). Therefore, reintroduction of tidal flushing

alone may not meet your restoration goals. 
39

Subsided or compacted areas which have lost elevation and lie below tidal elevations may require the

additionoffill. Conversely, filled marshes, which have gained elevation and lie above tidal elevations need

to be excavated to an elevation allowing tidal inundation. Similarly, impounded areas that have acted as

settling basins (increasing marsh elevation) mayrequire some excavation(after draining the impoundment)

to achieve elevations that will result in an appropriate tidal cycle for marsh vegetation. In any of these

scenarios,some grading and contouring willbe necessary to achieve the necessary duration of inundation.

6.b.2. Slope

The slope of the site is an important factor to consider in restoration planning (Broome, 1990; Shisler,

1990; NormandeauAssociates, 1992). The more gentle the slope at a restoration site, the greater the area

onwhich intertidal marsh vegetation may become established. Broome et al. (1988) recommend slopes

of 1-3% for marsh establishment. Gentle slopes dissipate wave energy over a greater area, thereby

decreasing erosion and disruption to plantings. However, slopes that are too flat will decrease drainage,

potentially leading to waterlogging and hypersaline conditions (Broome, 1990; Normandeau Associates,

1992). Mature marshes exhibit a varietyofslope conditions (<1% to 10%), ranging from flat, high marsh

surface to the nearly vertical low marsh creek banks (Broome et al., 1988; Normandeau Associates,

1992). Some authors cite an observed range ofmarshslopes of6-20% (Reimold & Cobler, 1986, cited

inShisler, 1990 & NormandeauAssociates, 1992). The type of restoration and the site conditions will help

determine whether changes in the slope are required. Where excavation or fill are planned, target slopes

should be carefully considered. Projects involving simple removal of tidal restrictions, by contrast, often

will not require any change in slope.

6.b.3. Substrate Properties

Restoration of areas requiring the addition of fill, such as subsided or compacted marsh areas, may be

accomplished using uncontaminated dredged material of proper grain size (CoastalAmerica, 1996). The

grain size of added fillinfluences bothvegetative success and the level of difficulty encountered in handling

the materialat the restoration site (Normandeau Associates, 1992;Broome, 1990). Substrate properties

affect colonization byimportant macrofauna, likeGeukensia demissa and Uca pugnax (Kraus & Crow,

1985; Bertness & Miller, 1984). Coarse substrates, such as sand, are well drained, preventing chemical

alterations associated withwaterlogging fromoccurring (Normandeau Associates, 1992; Broome, 1990).

These substrates are also more likely to resist excessive accumulationofsalt (Broome et al., 1988). Sand

is more easily handled, contoured, and planted than finer-textured substrates (Normandeau Associates,

1992; Broome, 1990; Broome et al., 1988). However, sand is low in nutrients and fertilization of plantings

is required (Broome et al., 1988; Normandeau Associates, 1992). Also, Geukensia demissa prefer

substrates with a low sand content (0-20%) and high organic matter content (10-20%), and are found in

decreasing concentrations on soils with increasing percentage of sand (Kraus & Crow, 1985). 
40

Severalauthors cite specifications fromGarbisch (1986) for wetland restoration substrates: a minimum of

one foot in depth of clean inorganic/organic materialof which 80-90% by weight will pass through a No.

10 sieve (Shisler, 1990; Normandeau Associates, 1992). Shisler & Charette (1984) recommend the

following order of preference for substrates: 1) natural marsh peat; 2) clay and silty clay; 3) estuarine

sediments(dredged material); and 4)sand (cited inShisler, 1990). These authors caution that sand placed

on marsh peat is unstable and will compact over time, resulting in pools of standing water on the marsh

surface (Shisler, 1990). Broome et al. (1988) comment, however, that although most marshes naturally

exist on peats high in organic matter, these marshes were initiated prior to organic matter accumulation, a

process occurring overtime through the development of the marshitself. This organic matter accumulation

will occur over time in a marsh established on sand or dredged material as well.

6.b.4. Tidal Channels

The creation of tidal channels is often necessary to facilitate the transport of seawater into back marsh

areas. Filled marshes are more likely to require tidal channel creation than formerly connected or slightly

disturbed areas. Tidal channels will often develop their own “fingers” (dendritic channels) and morphology

through exposure to the natural tidal regime over time (Simenstad & Thom, 1996). Therefore, planning

and engineering these dendritic channels at a restorationsitemaynot be cost-effective (R. Thom, personal

communication). Planning for tidal channel creation should be based on restoration goals as well as the

size of the restoration site, its existing configuration, and the tidal regime to which it will be exposed.

6.b.5. Heavy Equipment

The use ofheavy equipment inrestorationactivities(backhoes, bulldozers, trucks) maycompactsubstrates

that have been graded to an appropriate elevation, possibly resulting in restoration failure. In addition,

compacted substrates greatly affect the survival, development, and rate of plant propagation at the site.

Herbaceous species planted forrestorationrequire unconsolidated substrates offour to six inches in depth

for optimaldevelopment. There is special, low ground pressure equipment (less than 2 pounds per square

inch) available to help prevent compaction problems during restorations (Hruby, 1990; for example, CT

DEP).

6.c. Manipulating Vegetation

6.c.1. Planting vs. Natural Colonization

Often, restoration of tidal flushing, combined with the existence or creation of an appropriate marsh

morphology (i.e., elevation, slope, grade,substrate, etc.) willbe enough to rapidly revegetate the area with

native salt marsh communities (see Sinicrope et al., 1990). However, if there is no peat layer, or the site

isisolated fromsourcesof recolonizing vegetation, planting may be required in order to decrease the length
41

oftime before naturalrevegetationoccurs. Planting, though potentially costly, is beneficial in the restoration

of sites damaged by pollution, e.g., an oilspill(Matsil& Feller, 1996), and canhastenre-establishment of

target salt marsh vegetative communities.

The following factors should assist in making this decision: surrounding land uses and their potential to

contribute disturbances or invasive species; isolationofthe site from similar, natural sites that could act as

seed sources; the time of year the restoration will be accomplished; hydrologic considerations such as

timing and duration of inundation, water level fluctuations, and flushing; and the characteristics of site

substrates and any substrate augmentations planned (Kentula et al., 1993).

6.c.2. Spartina alterniflora—Seeding

Seeding has beenused to restore Spartina alterniflora marsh. However, seeding is not effective on sites

subject to evenmoderate wave energies(Broome, 1990) and is not recommended in most cases. Seeds

maybe collected locally and propagated for planting asstems or plugs. Spartina alterniflora seed should

be harvested near maturity but prior to shattering (usually in August-early September in the northeast).

Seed heads maybe clipped withknives or shears. Harvested seed should be transferred to burlap sacks

fortemporarystorage and kept moist under refrigeration, for 3-4 weeks before threshing. After threshing,

S. alterniflora seed should be stored in saline water (18-35 ppt) in covered containers at 2-4 degrees

Celsius (36-39 degrees Fahrenheit). Seed life, when stored in this manner, is up to 1 year. For additional

detail on harvesting seed heads, threshing, storage, and planting see Broome (1990) and Broome et al.

(1988). The cost of Spartina alterniflora seed from a nursery runs from $15 to $35 perthousand pure

live seed; the cost of pure live Spartina alterniflora seed needed to plant one acre (10 pure live seed per

sq. ft., requiring a total of 440,000 pure live seed) is approximately $6,600 (Environmental Concern,

1998).

6.c.3. Spartina alterniflora—Stems, Plugs, and Potted Seedlings

Planting growing or dormant plants, or plant propagules, isthe mostreliable planting method for salt marsh

restorationprojects(Broome et al., 1988; Garbisch et al., 1975). Spartina alterniflora maybe planted

using single stems (no soil around roots) or plugs (intact root and soil mat included). Transplants of S.

alterniflora may be dug from the field or grown from seed in pots or flats, either in a greenhouse or

outdoors when temperatures permit (Broome, 1990; Broome et al., 1988). Seedlings of S. alterniflora

and other salt marsh plants maybe greenhouse-grown ina medium of equal parts sand, top soil, and peat

moss or vermiculite (Broome et al., 1988).

Potted seedlings are desirable because they avoid disturbing natural vegetation, and can be held when

delays are encountered. However, potted seedlings oftenresult inmuchhigher costs(especially iftheyare

purchased from a nursery); require advance planning if notreadily available from a commercial source or

ifpropagatedfromharvestedseed; are inconvenient to transport; and do not contain native soilcomposition

and microorganisms that will jump-start functional restoration (Broome, 1990).
42

6.c.4. Spartina alterniflora—Planting Methods

Mechanizedplanting has beenaccomplished atsome sites--see Broome (1990) andBroome et al.(1988).

However, hand-planting is generally required for intertidal vegetation. Planting should occur in spring or

early summer (e.g., May-June; Broome, 1990). Planting holes should be ~15 cm in depth, 5-7 cm in

diameter; a soil auger ofappropriate diameter maybe used forthis purpose (Broome et al., 1988). Stems

or plugs of Spartina alterniflora are then inserted into the planting hole. Soil should be firmly pressed

around the plant to prevent dislodging by waves (Broome, 1990).

6.c.5. Spartina alterniflora—Fertilization

Betterresults are oftenachieved whena slug offertilizer, containing bothnitrogenand phosphorus,isadded

to each plant during planting (Garbisch et al., 1975; Broome, 1990; Broome et al., 1983). Slow release

fertilizers(suchas MagAmp or Osmocote), are the most effective and widely used (Broome et al., 1983;

Broome, 1990; Broome et al., 1988). Use ofslowreleasefertilizersavoidspulsednutrient additions, which

may cause increased insect herbivory and defoliation (Langis et al., 1991). MagAmp, however, hasthe

disadvantage of producing low growth early in the season as a result of extremely low solubility and an

inappropriate ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus. A possible alternative nitrogen source to slow-release

fertilizers is ammonium sulfate. This is more economical, but is soluble and therefore less persistent. An

alternative source of phosphorus to the slow-release fertilizers is concentrated superphosphate (Broome

et al., 1983). 

Osmocote or Mag Amp fertilizers should be placed directly in the planting hole beneath the Spartina

alterniflora sprig or plug, about 15-30 grams (0.5-1 oz.) per plant. Conventional, soluble fertilizers may

also be placed directly in the planting hole whenapplied at lowrates offertilization(Broome et al., 1983).

These should be placed in a separate hole near each plant (~5 cm distant), at a higher rate of fertilization

thanfor conventionalfertilizers(Broome, 1990; Broome et al.,1988). This avoids direct contact with plant

roots and the potential for root burn. Surface fertilization is ineffective for low salt marsh restoration

(Broome et al., 1983). Broome (1990, p. 57) provides a table of appropriate quantities for various

fertilization rate formulations, for both slow-release and soluble fertilizers.

Less standard fertilizers composed ofkelp meal, seaweed extracts, and fish meal may be appropriate for

salt marsh restoration. Pelletized versions of these products exist and some are designed for long-term

nutrient release. However, no research appears to have been conducted on the use of such fertilizers in

intertidal environments. Some non-standard fertilizer formulations also contain growth hormones, which

maynotbe appropriate for applications inthe naturalenvironment. Additional information on non-standard

fertilizer formulations is necessary before their use in salt marsh restoration projects could be

recommended.
43

6.c.6. Spartina alterniflora—Spacing of Plants

The spacing of plants is important to the success of vegetation re-establishment. Broome et al. (1986)

found that plans for marsh plant spacing should be based on the harshness ofthe restorationenvironment.

Restorationsuccessinthe first growing season, inhigh energy and exposed areas will depend on a higher

planting density. Inthistype of environment, 45- and 60-cmspacings (~1.5-2.0 feet) resulted in the most

successful aboveground standing crops ofSpartinaalterniflorapopulations nearthe lower elevationlimits

of this species. In more favorable environments, 90-cm to 1 m spacing (~3.0 feet) is adequate for

establishment ofsimilar aboveground crops(Broome et al., 1986;Broome,1990). One foot plant spacing

is commonly used in New York for Spartina alterniflora. The advantage of closer spacing toward

population establishment is provided by the greater density of plants emerging from rhizomes at the

beginning ofthe second growing season, and possibly fromthe stabilizing effect ofthe more closely-spaced

roots and rhizomes during the firstwinter. In addition to planting success, Broome et al. (1986) found that

inthe early post-restoration, belowground biomassisalsoaffectedbyspacing. Belowground biomass after

3 growing seasons was greatest for areas planted at 45-cm intervals, with no significant difference in this

parameter observed between areas planted at 60- and 90-cm spacings. After 4 growing seasons,

however, no significant differences were observed in belowground biomass among spacing treatments

(Broome et al., 1986).

6.c.7. Other Plant Species

Spartina patens may be planted as described above for S. alterniflora. Direct seeding is not considered

effective for restoration of S. patens, but seeds may be harvested and propagated for planting as potted

seedlings. In general, however, S. patens seeds are not considered to be very viable (C. Pickerell,

personal communication). Slow release fertilization is generally unnecessary in the high marsh, therefore

conventional forms of fertilizer may be used when planting S. patens in these areas. Fertilization should

ideally occur 3-4 weeks after planting to allow the rootsystemto develop. Nitrogen fertilization provides

the most vigorous response (Broome, 1990).

Distichlis spicata is another highmarshplant species. It may be restored by transplant, rhizomes, seeds,

or plugs. Distichlis spicata should be transplanted in late winter-early spring (February-March). Seeds

mayalso be propagated for use as potted seedlings as described above; seedsshould be harvested inthe

fall and must be stored under refrigeration (Broome, 1990).

6.c.8. Estimated Costs for Plants

Plantinga one acre restorationsite with S. alterniflora peat pots, therefore, could cost between$24,200-

$33,000 (assuming one 2" peat pot per square foot). Collection and propagation ofnative plant seed for

use in the restoration project should be considered to insure use of the most appropriate plant variety at

the site. For example, short form S. alterniflora maynot be appropriate for some sites, e.g., where tidal

range is large and tall form S. alterniflora naturally dominates. The converse—tall form S. alterniflora
44

is not appropriate for sites naturally dominated by short form S. alterniflora—would also be true. Use

of native seed for plug propagationalso promotes naturalgenetic diversity at the site, and the introduction

of genetic stock that is most appropriate for conditions at the site. 

Costsfor several common salt marsh plants may be estimated using Table Two (Pinelands Nursery, 1998;

Talmage Farm, 1998; Environmental Concern, 1998). This table shows costs for salt marsh plant

materials, including additional high marsh and shrub fringe species.

Table 2. Cost of nursery-grown salt marsh plant species in 1998 dollars.

Species Size/Form Cost (1998 dollars)

Spartina alterniflora 1.5"-2" peat pots $0.55-$0.75 ea.

Spartina patens 1.5"-2" peat pots

bare root clump/plug

$0.55-$0.75 ea.

$0.60 ea.

Distichlis spicata 1.75"-2" peat pots $0.60-$0.85 ea.

Juncus gerardii 2" peat pot $0.55-$0.70 ea.

Panicum virgatum 1.75"-2" peat pots

1 quart pot

1 gallon pot

$0.50-$0.85 ea.

$1.60 ea.

$4.35 ea.

Iva frutescens 1 gallon pot

12"-18"

18"-24"

2'-3'

$6.00 ea.

$4.00-$5.00 ea.

$6.00 ea.

$8.00 ea.

Baccharis halimifolia 1 gallon pot

12"-18"

18"-24"

2'-3'

$6.00 ea.

$4.00-$5.00 ea.

$5.00 ea.

$7.00 ea.

Vegetation at the restoration site, either planted or naturally re-established, may be damaged by grazing

and foraging activities of waterfowl and other wildlife. Floating debris deposited on the marsh may also

impactrestorationsuccess. Exclusion fencing and/or debris barriers may be required to prevent vegetative

losses(Broome, 1990; M. Matsil, personalcommunication; C. Pickerell, personalcommunication). Large

debris suchaslogs, however, willnot be excluded by barriers and maystill cause significant damage to the

salt marsh. If possible, conduct periodic visual assessments of the marsh (separate from the standard

monitoring protocol) to assist in timely mitigation of such disturbances, should they occur.
45

Figure 12. Stand of invasive common reed.

6.d. Invasive Species Control: Common Reed

6.d.1. General Considerations

Salt marsh vegetation may be absent as a result of competitive exclusion by invasive species, often

Phragmites australis. In many cases, restoration of tidal inundation coupled with an appropriate

morphology will gradually eliminate Phragmites without further intervention. However, in cases where

Phragmites remains or site specifics dictate (the presence of freshwater seepage or springs),removal of

this species may be more effectively accomplished by mowing or cutting, or by application of glyphosate

herbicide, produced commercially byMonsanto underthe name Rodeo. A variety of Phragmitesremoval

techniques are discussed below.

6.d.2. Common Reed Habitat

Commonreed is commoninbrackishenvironments associated withSpartina, Carex, Typha, and Juncus

species. Common reed can be found almost anywhere wet but not inundated. Its more frequent

occurrence inbrackishareasis not preferential but a result of its competitive edge overfreshwaterspecies

whenwaters are slightly saline. Observed maximum salinity tolerances from 10 to 30 parts per thousand

(ppt) have been reported, with 10 to 18 ppt a more commonly observed range. Common reed will

outcompete other vegetation in shallow, stagnant waters with poorly aerated sediments. 

Reproduction by this species is primarily vegetative, although seed is produced. Phragmites australis

flowers and sets seed between July and September, and seeds are dispersed between November and

January. Investigations indicate that most seed produced by common reed plants is not viable. Once seeds

are set, nutrients are translocated to rhizomes and the aboveground portions of plants die back for the

winter. 
46

6.d.3. Disturbances Favoring Common Reed

Anthropogenic disturbance has increased the quantity of favorable common reed habitat in the United

States. Filling and construction activities that alter an area’s hydrology promote the growth of Phragmites

australis where elevations are increased or inundation is decreased. Common reed is adept at invading

bare, sandy patches caused by excessive sedimentation. The proliferation of paved surfaces also

contributes to the creation of bare areas because it promotes flashy passage of water through the

environment, destabilizing substrates. Runoff containing deicing salts increases soil salinity, favoring

common reed. High concentrations of nutrients, especially nitrates, also appear to favor this species,

although European declines of Phragmites australis have been partially blamed on eutrophication. 

6.d.4. Natural History of Common Reed

Commonreed is anindigenousspeciesofthe northeasternUnited States. Evidence ofits presence has been

found incores 3000 years old (Niering and Warren, 1977). In the twentiethcenturymany populations of

commonreed exhibited extremely aggressive growth, forming vast monocultures and replacing indigenous,

oftenrare plant communities. Currently, there remains some uncertainty regarding the natural history of this

species and the cause ofitssuddenexpansion. Similarly,there remains highuncertaintyregarding whenand

how to manage common reed in coastal environments.

The aggressive formofPhragmites australisis believed to be a genetically different stock native to Europe

transported to North America in ship ballast (Besitka, 1996; Casagrande, 1997; R. Rozsa, personal

communication). Recent research indicates that the invasive, European form is phenotypically distinct from

the native version (Besitka, 1996); current studies are underwayat Yale University (Principal Investigator

Professor K. Vogt/ResearchAssistant K.Sullivan)toestablishgenotypic differences betweenlive,invasive

examples of Phragmites and historical examples of native Phragmites (C. Rilling, personal

communication).

6.d.5. Impacts caused by Common Reed

Common reed shades other indigenous vegetation, and hinders germination and growth by other species

through shading and dense accumulation of litter. Phragmites monocultures alter detritalcycling patterns

because Phragmites’ woody stalks exhibit a slower rate of decomposition. Phragmites monocultures

are also more susceptible to wildfires when the dead, woody litter from stalks accumulates (Niering &

Warren, 1980). Slow degradation of Phragmites litter raises the elevation of an invaded marsh,

decreasing tidal flooding and further enhancing habitat suitability for this species (T. Diers, personal

communication). 

Mammalian and avian diversity are low in Phragmites stands. This is partly caused because this species

provides inferior nesting habitat for many marsh birds (Howe et al., 1978), including seaside sparrow,

sharp-tailed sparrow, and willet. These birds are marsh specialists adapted to nesting in short grasses like

Spartina patens and Distichlis spicata (Benoit, 1997; Benoit, 1999). 
47

Phragmites australis monocultures can produce large broods ofmosquitos. Common mosquito control

techniques are ineffective inPhragmites-dominated marshes because dense stands ofthisspecies prevent

access to mosquito breeding areas.

Phragmites mayalso detract fromanarea’sscenic quality. This species can reach 14 feet in height (Tiner,

1987; Eastman, 1995), shielding panoramas from view. Common reed invasion has caused this type of

problem in Boston’s Back Bay Fens, designed by Frederick Law Olmstead.

6.d.6. Ecological Value of Common Reed

In some cases, Phragmites control is not necessary. Since this species is indigenous to marsh habitats,

eradication is not warranted. Stable stands, i.e., those that are not increasing insize and invading adjacent

habitat, should be considered a natural and appropriate part of the plant community. 

A variety of recent research on the effects of Phragmites australis on habitat value indicate that this

species may provide more beneficial functions than previously thought. Phragmites has a high capacity

for nutrient assimilation. Rates of denitrification and concentrations of ammonium in porewaters are lower

in areas where Phragmites is the dominant species, than in areas dominated by other indigenous marsh

vegetation. 

While some declining bird species are negatively affected by Phragmites invasion, stands of this species

are not entirely devoid of habitat value. For example, marsh wren and swamp sparrow are marsh

specialiststhat prefertall, reedyvegetation. For certain bird species the presence of Phragmites has been

observed to make little difference in use of an area. 

Invertebrate populations also appear not to differ in their use ofPhragmitesstands and Phragmites-free

areas. Studies using the common estuarine species marsh fiddler crab, grass shrimp (Palaemonetes

pugio), and larval mummichog found no preference bythese species for Phragmites or Spartina stems,

preference given only to stems over bare substrates. 

6.d.7. Determining the Need for Control

Stands of common reed should be assessed for stability before control methods are planned and

implemented. If available, historical aerial photography may be used to determine trends in Phragmites

coverage at a given location. To assess stability, the following parameters should be monitored over

several growing seasons: percent aerial cover by Phragmites; stem density; culm height, especially at

peripheryofstand; and trendsinspecies diversityamong other plantsinthe community. In a single growing

season, stability may be roughly assessed by monitoring growth beyond a set of markers delineating the

front edge of a stand at the beginning of the season. A disputed indicator of expanding stands is the

presence of long rhizomes spreading over new areas of the marsh surface; further information on this

indicator is needed.
48

Clear goals and specific management objectives must be developed for Phragmites australis stands

warranting control. Articulating these goals and objectives will assist in the selection of the most

appropriate control method. The degree of control desired, time frame for results, species targeted for

revegetationor for use ofthe restored salt marsh, and other factors should be determined for eachcontrol

project. Each project can then be tailored to fit its particular goals and limitations.

6.d.8. Control Methods for Common Reed

Regardless oftechnique used, effective controlofPhragmites australisrequires knowledge ofthe plant’s

life cycle and itslocalgrowing seasoninorder to most appropriately select and schedule controltreatments

(Cross & Fleming, 1989). Also, the likelihood for return of Phragmites after controlstrategies have been

implemented, due to site characteristics or ongoing disturbances,should be carefully considered during the

planning phase. Disturbances contributing to the presence of common reed should be identified and

minimized prior to the implementation of any control strategy in order to maximize the likelihood for

success.

Considerable care should be exercised inselecting a controlmethodforPhragmites australispopulations.

Unfortunately, it is not appropriate to advocate a single method for all cases. Site specifics and project

goals must be examined to determine which method ormethods willbe most effective and least disruptive.

For example, the time windowsforsensitive speciesinthe area and controlmethod implementationshould

not coincide. Adjacent land uses at a site may preclude certain control strategies, like prescribed burning

or flooding. Also, the size of the Phragmites australis stand may also influence selection of control

methods, e.g., cutting or mowing may not be feasible for extremely large sites. These and other factors

must be carefully examined priorto project planning once it has been determined that a Phragmitesstand

warrants control. Details and planning considerations associated with common Phragmites australis

control methods are presented in the following sections. 

6.d.9. Tidal Inundation

Where control is warranted, the most basic method involvesreintroducing regulartidalflooding ofthe site

(Rozsa, 1995). Phragmites seeds cannot sprout in salinities >10 parts per thousand (ppt) and most

Phragmites plants cannot tolerate salinities >18 ppt. It is important to take flood considerations into

account when planning for removal of tidal restrictions; self-regulating tide gates and other technologies,

oftenexpensive, maybe required to balance ecosystemrestorationwithadjacent land use. Other methods

for increasing tidal flow to a formerly flooded area involve simple measures such as removing blockages

in culverts. After tidal inundation has been reintroduced, it may take many years to completely eliminate

Phragmites, but stand height can be reduced by one to three feet per year during this period. Salt marsh

vegetation often will naturally recolonize the site. 

At some sites,suchas areas nearfreshwaterseeps, removaloftidalrestrictions alone will not be effective.

In these situations, an effective commonreed controltechnique involves creationof 24" wide by 36" deep
49

perimeter ditches dug at the upland edge of unrestricted tidal marshes. These perimeter ditches are then

connected to grid ditches subject to tidal flooding. This drains fresh water and increases salt water flow

into the back marsh, raising soil salinity (T. Diers, personal communication). In brackish marshes where

saving specialized indigenous vegetation is a priority other control techniques are required.

6.d.10. Cutting and Mowing

Cutting and mowing are techniquesfrequently employed to control common reed. Conflicting reports are

given for the best season to conduct mowing and cutting. Some researchers report that mowing may be

conductedineitherthe winter orspring. Winter mowing has produced stunted growth in the following year,

possibly as a result ofinterference withoxygenuptake mechanisms. Spring mowing immediately following

the first appearance ofshoots(around April) hasresulted instunted and lowdensityofnew shoots(OLISP,

1998). However, some reports cite increased growth of Phragmites australisfollowingwinter and spring

mowing. Summer mowing or cuttingmaybe the most consistently effective strategy. Cutting Phragmites

plants after tasseling, i.e., late July, may produce the most stress. This method should be conducted for

several consecutive years for maximum effect. 

All cut materials must be removed from the restoration site to prevent establishment of new Phragmites

plants from cut pieces of rhizome. Cuttings may, however, be mulched or disked on site, although this

generally increases the expense of the project. Mulching or disking still may not prevent the problem of

plant reappearance fromrhizome fragments. Low ground pressure equipment should be used when manual

cutting or mowing is not feasible. 

6.d.11. Cutting and Mowing Combined with Other Techniques

ResearchfromConnecticut College hasshown thatmowing used incombinationwithherbicide application

or flow restoration may elicit better results (C. Rilling, personal communication). Mowing or cutting and

removal of litter subsequent to herbicide application removes combustible plant debris, minimizing a fire

hazard and allowing reestablishment of other vegetation. Mowed or cut stands of Phragmites may be

flooded for a prolonged period (~ 4 months), generally during the growing season. This latter strategy

requiresspringmowing, and suchprolonged floodingmaynot be feasible inmanyareas. Mowing or cutting

may also be followed by the use of a temporary clear or black plastic cover (Marks, Lapin & Randall,

1993; Tiner, 1998). It is thought that high temperatures under the plastic are the primary cause of

Phragmites mortality resulting from this strategy. More information on long-termeffectiveness of plastic

covers used on mowed or cut Phragmites is needed.

6.d.12. Controlled Burning

Controlled burning may be employed in cases where a supply of dry, combustible litter is accumulated

(OLISP, 1998). This strategy, therefore, may only be employed periodically (in alternate years at its most

frequent). Controlled burning in Phragmites stands can be dangerous because there is a potential for

remote spot burns to break out in the area.
50

Conflicting reports are also givenregarding the optimalseasonto conduct controlled burns. The Office of

Long Island Sound Programs (1998) recommends burning simultaneous withnew shoot emergence inthe

spring (around April). Research from Europe supports this recommendation. However, others have

reported enhanced Phragmites growth from spring and winter burns. It is hypothesized that enhanced

growthafter burns during these seasons is caused byeliminationofshade, exposure ofburned soil, nutrient

enhancement from ash deposits, and generation of viable plant fragments(Weinstein, 1996). Mid to latesummer burning may be the most consistently effective alternative. For burning to be effective in reducing

common reed growth, root burn must occur; burns penetrate the roots most easily during this period.

Phragmites may also be vulnerable to late summer(July/August) burns because translocation of nutrients

to roots mayhave begun. Burn timing must be planned with potential effects on wildlife, e.g., nesting birds,

in mind. 

Itshould be noted that controlled burning is a regulated activityinthe State ofNew York requiring a variety

of approvals and permits. It is necessary to contact Department of Environmental Conservation permit

staff, the local fire department and fire marshall, and the State Emergency Management Office prior to

planning and undertaking a controlled burn for Phragmites australis control.

6.d.13. Controlled Burning Combined with Other Techniques

Controlled burning may be used most effectively in combination with other control strategies. Burning

subsequent to herbicide application removes dead stems and litter, assisting revegetation by other plant

species (Marks, Lapin & Randall, 1993). Burns may also be followed by prolonged manual flooding of

the area (~ 4 months), generally during the growing season. Prolonged flooding ofthis nature would follow

emergence (spring) burns, and may not be feasible in many areas.

6.d.14. Chemical Control

Chemical control of Phragmites is possible. It is important to note that chemical control should be

carefully considered before implementation; particular attentionshould be paid to the likelihood ofa return

of the Phragmites after the control project is terminated, e.g., in freshwater or brackish systems and in

disturbed areas without mitigation.

Herbicidesthat have beenused to control common reed include amitrole, dalapon, and glyphosate (Cross

& Fleming, 1989). All three of these chemicals listed above are absorbed through plant leaves and are

translocated to rhizomes (CCE, 1998a,b,c). Amitrole (Rhone Poulenc Agricultural Company, Research

Triangle Park, NC; CCE, 1998b) is effective on both flooded or dry sites; Amitrole is, however, a

Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP), and may be purchased and used only be certified applicators. Amitrole

is considered a probable human carcinogen (CCE, 1998b). Dalapon (BASF Corporation, Agricultural

Product Group, Research Triangle Park, NC; CCE, 1998c) and glyphosate, bothgeneral use pesticides,

are not as effective on flooded sites but do work on moist or dry sites. Rates of application for Amitrole

range from 2-12 lb. per acre, generally occurring during the summer. Dalapon has been used at rates
51

ranging from 15-30 lb. per acre, applied throughout the growing season (Cross & Fleming, 1989). The

third herbicide, glyphosate, willbe furtherdiscussedbelowunder one ofitstrade names,Rodeo (Monsanto

Agricultural Company, St. Louis, MO; CCE, 1998a).

The herbicideRodeo isthemostcommonherbicideemployedforPhragmites control, and canbe effective

in controlling monocultures of this plant. Rodeo is a moderately toxic herbicide containing glyphosate, the

same active ingredient as Roundup, the common lawn and gardenherbicide. The glyphosate in Rodeo is

not, however, pre-mixed with a surfactant. As described above, this nonselective herbicide is absorbed

through plant leaves and translocated to plant roots, where it disrupts an enzyme essential to protein

production. Cell disruption, decreased growth, and death of the plant root and rhizome eventually follow

(Rilling, 1998a). 

Rodeo should be applied to actively growing plants following pollination and tasseling (between July and

September; Magee, 1981; Marks, Lapin & Randall, 1993). All plants do not tassel simultaneously, and

several treatments during the flowering period may be necessary (OLISP, 1998; Rilling, 1998a). Rodeo

is generally applied at a rate of 4-6 pints per acre (Cross & Fleming, 1989; Rilling, 1998a). Cross &

Fleming (1989) report that some researchers found an increased effectiveness when Rodeo applications

were split, i.e., administering two doses at 1⁄2 the dosage rather than a single full dosage. The second

application should occur 15-30 days after the first (Cross & Fleming, 1989). 

Rodeo should be applied during warm, sunny weather with no rain forecast for a minimum of 12 hours.

Lowwind conditions are also necessary to prevent spray drift onto non-target vegetation(OLISP, 1998;

Rilling, 1998a). Late summer (around August) is a good target period for satisfying many of the above

conditions. Rodeo has been applied using techniques ranging from manual spray equipment transported

bybackpack, to aerialapplicationfroma helicopter. Size of stand, accessibility, and proximity to rare plant

species or other priority vegetation must be considered when planning herbicide application (Cross &

Fleming, 1989). Wilting and yellowing generally begins within a week following application, and browning

and deteriorationof roots should be complete within 6-8 weeks (Rilling, 1998a). Removalofplants after

shoots turn brown will assist recolonization by other plant species. 

Rodeoishighlyadsorbent onsubstrates withhighorganic content, where it becomesinert,and non-volatile.

Rodeo is degraded into naturalproducts, e.g., carbondioxide, nitrogengas, phosphate, and water, bysoil

microorganisms between 1 and 174 days (CCE, 1998a; Weinstein, 1996; Rilling, 1998a). Because

glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic materials, it has half life of 12 days to 10 weeks in

naturalwaters(CCE, 1998a; Rilling,1998a). For this reason it is recommended that Rodeo be mixed with

distilledwater priorto applicationto minimize adsorbance onto particulate organic materials intap or other

water, decreasing the effectiveness of application.

Rodeo has been approved by the U.S. EPA for use in aquatic systems (Cross & Fleming, 1989). The

protein production enzyme disrupted by glyphosate is found only in plants (Rilling, 1998a). Rodeo is

therefore considered oflow toxicity for humans, birds,mammals,fishes, and aquatic invertebrates(Rilling,
52

1998a; CCE, 1998a). There is low potential for accumulation of glyphosate in the environment or in animal

tissues. No reproductive, teratogenic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, or organtoxicityeffects have been found

in field and laboratory evidence. Acute toxic effects are limited to eye irritation. Oral LD50 values for

glyphosate range from 1,500 mg/kg to over 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits and goats (CCE, 1998a).

Rodeo must be mixed with a surfactant prior to application. The surfactant acts as a wetting agent,

softening the waxy layer on plant surfaces and allowing glyphosate to be absorbed. Without a surfactant,

the herbicide “balls up” on the leaf surface (CCE, 1998a; C. Rilling, personal communication). Some

surfactants used withglyphosate (e.g., Induce or Chemsurf90) may have toxic effects for humans and the

environment. For example, the surfactant additive found in Roundup is a modified tallow amine toxic to

fish (CCE, 1998a). Roundup should therefore not be used for the control of Phragmites australis in

aquatic environments. Limited test data appears to indicate that othersurfactants are relatively non-toxic,

e.g., X-77, LI-700, and Kinetic (Weinstein, 1996). Selection of an appropriate surfactant for Rodeo

should be carefully researched; see Weinstein (1996) for additional information on surfactants.

It should be noted that pesticide applicationis a regulated activity in the State of New York. Department

of Environmental Conservation permit staff must be consulted prior to planning and undertaking any

pesticide applications for Phragmites australis control.
53

7. SALT MARSH RESTORATION—RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROTOCOL

Monitoring is a critical element of adaptive management, an interactive process that regularly reexamines

prior choices in the light of current outcomes (Wilber & Titre, 1996). This incremental management

process employs a flexible design, where management actions maycontinually change to respond to new

information on progress generated by monitoring. This type of structure maximizes the success of

management activities. Additional information on adaptive management may be obtained from Yozzo, Titre

& Sexton (1996) and Thom & Wellman (1996).

This section includes the recommended components of a monitoring program for salt marsh restoration

projects conducted in the estuarine waters of New York State. These components are not presented in

a “discussion” format; several fine discussions of restoration monitoring are available elsewhere and are

recommended as background (seeThomand Wellman, 1996; PERL, 1990; Kentula et al., 1993, pp. 43-

72; Erwin, 1990, pp. 429-458; Broome, 1990, pp. 60-61). They are presented as a protocol and in

contract work plan format to assist municipalities and other entities with the incorporation ofa monitoring

program into the restoration project planning process. The New York City Parks Department Natural

Resources Group is the first to participate in a pilot initiative using this monitoring protocol for their statefunded habitat restoration projects.

The monitoring protocols which follow can and should be tailored forindividualprojects. The parameters

and methods suggested represent the baseline information generally required to adequately monitor the

generic salt marsh restoration project. However, depending on restoration goals and the details of the

project, a modification of the suggested protocol may be warranted. For example, the numbers and

placement oftransects and quadrats maybe altered, different biotic elementsmaybe tracked,or additional

chemical parameters may be included. Also, although these elements are not included in the protocols

whichfollow, pre-projectmonitoringmustincludesiteassessment ofimportant characteristics(hydrological

properties, elevations, tidal regime) needed to develop a feasible restorationproject. In general, planning

of the monitoring program should occur during the general project planning process. Alterations to the

suggested protocol should be reviewed with the regulators in charge, the appropriate natural resources

managers, and qualified ecologists.

A sample timeline for monitoring salt marsh restoration projects is included in Appendix C.

55

SALT MARSH RESTORATION MONITORING WORK PLAN

Modifications to the monitoring guidelines described below must be discussed with and approved by the

Regulator(s) and representatives of the funding entity prior to all restoration activities. All approved

modifications need to be clearly articulated in the work plan in a manner similar to that below.

1) Principle parties:

The party responsible for carrying out all restoration requirements will be referred to as the Responsible

Party (RP). These restoration activities include the development and implementation of a monitoring

protocol to assess the progress of the restoration during, and to evaluate the success or failure of the

restoration at the conclusion of, the monitoring period (a period > 5 years is recommended). 

The RP for the (project name) is (agency/name) .

Other parties that may be involved in restoration and restoration monitoring activities are: 

CThe Designer ofthe restoration, who isresponsible forincludingmonitoringspecificationsinthe design and

site plan, including specific locations oftransects, quadrats, permanent fixed-point photostations,and other

features. 

The designer for this project is (agency/name) .

CAn Ecologist to assist in planning and implementing a site-specific monitoring protocol. 

The ecologist for this project is (agency/name) .

CThe Contractor(s) is(are)incharge of constructionand ofmaintenance ofthe siteand itsfeatures,including

all transects, quadrats, and fixed-point photo stations. When a contractor is not required , all site

manipulation and maintenance activities are generally the responsibility of the RP.

The contractor(s) for this project is/are (name/names) .

CThe Regulator(s) is(are) responsible for approving the restorationdesigns and monitoring protocols, and

for any required permitting for restoration activities.

The Regulator(s) for this project is/are (NYS DEC, NYS DOS, ACOE, other) .

CVolunteersmaybe involved inconductingmonitoring activities. They may require training, and usually will

be supervised by and/or report to the RP.
56

Note: The RP will be responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all monitoring requirements, including those of

the Designer, Ecologist, Contractor(s), and Volunteers asspecified inthe work plan, and isresponsible for

reporting as specified to the Regulator(s), when applicable. The Designer and the Ecologist may be the

same person or from the same agency, and this person/agency may also be the RP. 

2) Purpose:

This monitoring protocol is designed to assess the progress towards, and the success or failure of, a

restorationof salt marsh habitat and the achievement of acceptable standards of salt marshcharacter and

function. At a minimum, this should include regular assessment, for a period > 5 years, of vegetation

development, soil properties, colonization by benthic invertebrates, and habitat usage by macrofauna, as

described below.

3) Monitoring Protocol Design:

Planand locate allsalt marsh restoration project transects, 1.0 m2 quadrats, and fixed-point photo stations

according to the guidelines described below. Anymodifications to these guidelines shall be discussed with

the Regulator(s) prior to conducting any restoration activities, and, if approved, the modified monitoring

protocol shall be clearly articulated prior to all restoration activities in a work plan. 

A work plan should always be written by the responsible party for any restoration project undertaken,

including any site-specific modifications to the recommended monitoring protocol, where necessary and

appropriate. Monitoring parameters and activities, whether the recommended protocol below or some

other approved protocol, should be clearly articulated and documented in the work plan in a manner and

a level of detail similar to the guidelines below. All transects, 1.0 m2 quadrats, and fixed-point photo

stations should be assigned location codes, and this information should be documented on an official site

map and in the project work plan.

Monitoring, except where noted below, shall be conducted at the restoration project site and at an

appropriate reference site. This reference site will consist of, at a minimum, three control transects

(including3 quadrats each), and must be located contiguous withor nearbythe restorationprojectsite, and

be similar in morphology and vegetation zonation (i.e., compare restored high marsh with nearby

unrestored, “natural” high marsh; restored low marsh creek bank with nearby unrestored, “natural” low

marshcreek bank). An additional requirement of the reference site is that all major vegetation zones of the

restoration site must be matched at the reference site; therefore, additional transects at the reference site

may be needed to provide control data for all applicable vegetation zones or morphological features.

The purpose of the reference site is to help discern background environmental effects from the effects

attributable to the restoration project. For example, vegetation parameters at a restoration site must be
57

compared with the same parameters at a nearby reference site to determine whether an observed loss of

vegetationis a restorationfailure, or is caused by a natural event, such as a hurricane or winter storm, that

has similarly affected all the marshes in the area.

C Transects: Place a minimum of 3 transects evenly spaced across the site. For large sites, transects

should be evenly spaced, and although anabsolute minimum of 3 transects is required, a larger number of

transects is recommended based on the acreage to be covered and the number and type of vegetation

zones present. Transects should run perpendicular to the main channel and/or parallel with the elevation

gradient, acrossthe restorationsiteapproximatelyfromthe seawardedge ofthe Spartina alterniflora zone

(i.e., encompassing traditionalareas ofoccurrence for Geukensia demissa and/or Fucusspp.) to at least

the landward extent ofthe project. Transect locations should be permanentlymarked at the landward and

seaward ends using two stakes that are sturdy and will be easily located. 

Duringmonitoring visits, a tape measure should be used to mark the transect line,starting at the upland end.

Hook the tape measure onto the permanent landward stake and walk toward the seaward transect end,

also marked bya permanent stake. To minimize trampling of the site, do not walk directly to the seaward

transect end but walk diagonally from the upland marker toward some point a short distance away from

the actualseaward marker, but in line with the marker to either the right or left. When you are in line with

the seaward marker, walk to the seaward marker and wrap the measuring tape around the stake, making

sure it istaut. Thisforms a transect line between the landward and seaward stakes. This procedure should

be repeated for all pairs of upland/seaward transect ends at the restoration site.

Noteworthy features occurring along eachtransectshould be recorded relative to the distance marked on

the tape measure at the point of occurrence. It is imperative that a notation is made regarding which

transect end is being used as zero distance (using the placement method above it should be the landward

marker), and that the same transect end (the landward marker) be consistently used as zero distance for

all transect monitoring at the restoration site.

C Quadrats: Place quadrats (1.0 m2) along the transects at a minimum of three different elevations (i.e.,

a minimum of three quadrats per transect) between the seaward edge of the Spartina alterniflora zone

and the landward extent of the project, including, as applicable, all vegetation zones present. Within a

single vegetation zone (e.g., lowmarshSpartina alterniflora zone), quadrats must be located at least 3.0

mapart along the lengthofthe transect. Quadrats will be placed semi-randomly within an area 2.0 meters

to either side of the measuring tape transect line. A stake, bar, length of PVC pipe, or other item 4.0

meters in length, carried or placed on the ground with 2.0 meters length extending on either side of the

centerline, can be used to demarcate this area during monitoring visits. Placement of quadrats can be

accomplished, e.g., by walking in a zig-zag pattern back and forth across the demarcated area along the

entire length of the transect line, dropping quadrats at random (with the exception of deliberate inclusion

of all vegetation zones present and/or deliberate placement ofquadrats > 3.0 meters apart within a single

vegetationzone). After placement, orient the quadrats so one side is parallel to the transect line and record
58

the location of upper and lower quadrat boundaries with respect to the tape measure , e.g., upper

boundaryat 3 meters, lower boundaryat 4 meters. This should be done for all quadrats along all transects

at the restoration site.

C Permanent fixed-point photo stations:The transect marker stakes (seaward end and landward end)

should be used as permanent photo stations for photographic monitoring. Photographs each transect

should be taken facing the seaward transect marker from the landward transect marker, and facing the

landward transect marker from the seaward transect marker. Thisshould be done for allpairs of transect

ends at the restoration site. 

Provide an overview photograph or photographs of the entire restoration site and consistently use this

locationforthe durationofphotomonitoring. Photographs should be taken at low tide (avoiding spring tide

and full moon periods) and should be labeled with the location code, the direction of view, the date, the

time, and the tide. Photographs must be in the formofprints no smallerthan4"x6", and must be in color.

C Video monitoring (optional): Video monitoring is encouraged to supplement photomonitoring and

provide additionalqualitative informationthat cannot be provided bystandard photographs. This includes

close-up images ofvegetation, benthic epifauna, and substrates; a panorama ofthe site is also easily filmed.

The restoration site should be walked by the video monitor, using the transect lines as guides. Cards may

be filmed, or voicemaybe used, to give the required information, such as location code, date, time ofday,

direction of view, and tide. At each transect end the location code and direction of view should be

identified. Close up views should be filmed of all vegetation zones occurring along the transects.

CAerial infrared photography (optional): Aerial IR photography, if available, is useful for assessing

vegetation, both pre- and post-project, for large project areas.

4) Pre-Restoration Monitoring Activities:

On sites where planting isplanned,take a complete set of color photographs including allpermanent,fixedpoint stations (transect ends and elevated overview) upon completionofthe design phase and priorto any

construction activities. Photographs should also be taken at the reference site.

Onsiteswheresome marshhabitat alreadyexists(e.g., formerly connected marshes, grid ditched marshes)

and no planting is planned, allparameters described below under “Post-Construction Monitoring (Annual

for 5 Years)”should be monitored at least once prior to the restoration at both the restorationsite and the

reference site. At a minimum, all parameters should be monitored once during the last August priorto the

restoration. May, August and/or December parameters specified below can be included in pre-restoration

monitoring during the year prior to the restoration, at the discretion of the RP or other overseeing entity.
59

5) Post-Construction Monitoring (Four-Five Weeks Post-Construction):

C The restorationsite should be walked by the RP, the Ecologist, and/or the Regulator(s) 4-5 weeks postconstructionto assess compliance withsubmitted work plans. Elevations should be double-checked prior

to planting.

C Permanent fixed-point photo stations:Take color photographs at permanent, fixed-point photo stations

articulated above, for the restoration site and the reference site. Photographs should be taken at low tide

(avoiding spring tide and full moon periods) in the manner articulated above. Label photographs with the

location code, direction of view, date, time, and the tide. Photographs must be in the form of prints no

smaller than 4" x 6", and must be in color.

C The RP will determine, based on the 4-5 week post-construction assessment, whether any additional

work is required to achieve work plancompliance, and above and beyond any standard regulatoryreview

associated with the project.

6) Post-Construction Monitoring (Annual for 5 Years):

a) Vegetation

The following parameters should be monitored once annually for 5 years, during the last week in August

or the first three weeks in September, at the restoration site and the reference site. 

< Plant species occurring: All plant species occurring in each quadrat along the transect should

be recorded.

< Stem Density: All live stems of any plant species found within a 0.25 m2 section of the quadrat

are counted. Divide each 1.0 m2 quadrat into four 0.25 m2sections and randomly select one 0.25

m2section for the stem density count. Use the same 0.25 m2section for plant height

measurements; see below.

< Plant Height: All live stems of any plant species within a 0.25 m2section of the quadrat are

measured fromthe base ofthe plant to the top ofthe stem inmeters. Use the same 0.25 m2section

of the quadrat for height measurements as was used for stem density count; see above.

< Signs of disease, predation, or other disturbance should be monitored in each quadrat and

along the length of the transect, recording observations as necessary.

< Vegetation Zones: Walk along the measuring tape that demarcates the transect line starting at

the seaward transect end. Note the distance marked on tape measure at the transition between

different vegetation zones, and the dominant species composition of these zones.
60

b) Fixed-point photo stations

Take color photographs from all designated locations once annually for 5 years at the time of vegetation

monitoring (during the last week in August or first three weeks in September), forthe restoration site and

the reference site. The permanent transect marker stakes (seaward end and landward end) should be used

as photo stations for the photographic monitoring. An overview photographor photographs of the entire

restorationsite should be consistently used inallphotomonitoring. Take photographs at low tide (avoiding

spring tide and full moon periods) in the manner articulated above. Label with the location code, direction

ofview, date, time, and tide. Photographs should be in the form of prints no smaller than 4" x 6", and must

be in color.

Video monitoring, if used, should also occur at the time of vegetation monitoring, annually for 5 years.

c) Soil Properties

The following parameters should be monitored once annually for 5 years, at the time of vegetation

monitoring (during the last week inAugustor the first three weeksinSeptember, at lowtide avoiding spring

tide and full moon periods). Measure each soil property parameter at least twice in each quadrat placed

along the transect line.

< Soil organic matter: Sediment cores (2 cores per quadrat) should be sampled to 10 cm depth

using, e.g., a cylindricalpushcorer ~5 cmindiameter. Soil organic matter(includes organic carbon

and other organic compounds) from marsh substrates may be measured by loss on combustion.

Samples for this procedure are dried, weighed, combusted at 500 degrees Celsius for ~8 hours,

and weighed again. During the 8-hour combustion period, organic material burns and is lost from

the sample as a result ofthe hightemperature. Inorganic and refractory materials, which have even

highertemperatures of combustion, remain inthe sample afterthisperiod.Therefore, the difference

in weight betweenthe dried and combusted samples, which may be expressed as a percentage of

the dried weight, represents the organic matter content of the marsh soil sample. 

< Soil salinity: The salinity of the soil may be determined in the field using a refractometer or

conductivity meter. With a refractometer, pore water from a small soil sample is squeezed onto

the lens and the resulting salinity reading is recorded as soil salinity. Pore waters with high

concentrations of suspended solids may require rudimentary filtration in the field. In these cases,

squeeze pore water through filter paper onto the lens of the refractometer.

d) Benthic Invertebrates in m2 quadrats

The following parameters should be monitored annually for 5 years at the time of vegetation monitoring,

during the last week in August or the first three weeks in September. Monitoring should be conducted at

the restoration site and the reference site.
61

< Ribbedmussels: Ribbed mussels in each quadrat should be counted and recorded. Two to six

mussels per quadrat, as appropriate, should be measured lengthwise.

< Fiddler crab burrows: Fiddler crab burrows in each quadrat should be counted and recorded.

The presence of live fiddler crabs should also be recorded, where applicable.

< Otherbenthic invertebrates: The presence of any additional species observed (e.g., Melampus

bidentata), and the number of individuals (when practical), should be recorded both within

quadrats and along the length of the transect line, as applicable.

e) Macrofauna

The following parameters (except “Other macrofauna”, see below)should be monitored at the restoration

site once monthly in June and August for 5 years. Observe birds from an obscured location on the

landward side of the restoration site, unless site-specific characteristics require otherwise. In this case,

identify a location will minimize disturbance to bird species at the site when the monitor approaches.

Document the locationand assign a location code. The location should be easily locatable by monitors in

subsequent years. The monitor should record observations as described below for a 3 to 4 hour period

surroundingmid-tide (1.5 to 2 hours before and 1.5 to 2 hours after mid-tide). Record time ofday, tide,

weather conditions (temperature, wind strength, precipitation), location code, direction of view from the

chosenviewing stationonallobservation sheets. Bird monitoring should not be conducted on days when

there is high wind, rain, or low barometric pressure. 

< Saltwater-fish-feeding birds: Record presence, duration of stay, generallocation, and activity

for wading birds, e.g., great egret, snowy egret, tricolor heron, black-crowned night heron, and

other species, if observed.

< Benthic-invertebrate-feeding birds: Record presence, general location, duration ofstay, and

activity for wading birds, e.g., little blue heron, yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa

violacea), and other species, if observed.

< Othersalt marshassociatedbirdspecies:Record numbers ofspecies and individuals, general

location, activities, and duration of stay.

< Other macrofauna: Record presence, or reasonable evidence of presence, for any other

macrofauna (small mammals, horseshoe crabs, terrapin) at the site, observed during any site visit.

< Wintering waterfowl:If resources are available and the goals of the restoration are compatible,

waterfowl species can be monitored once annually in December. Record species, abundance,

general location, activities, and duration of stay.
62

f) Contingency Inspections

The restoration site (and its reference site) should be inspected for damage in the event of winter storms

or other destructive events. These visits should be conducted subsequent to such events, and at a minimum

once annually in late March/early April to ensure that damage is documented and plans for repair and

debris removal are made at the earliest possible opportunity. If repair, debris removal, or other action is

indicated,photomonitoringasdescribed previously should be conducted during the contingencyinspection.

7) Monitoring Reporting Requirements:

Annual monitoring reports should be written and submitted (by a mutually agreed upon date) to the

applicable Regulator(s) and/or some other pre-designated, central repository. Reporting will begin after

the first post-construction growing season. Include data and photographs, labeled as described above, as

well as a brief summary of the collected data. Length measurements should be reported using the metric

system.

The monitoring reporting deadline for this project is 

8) Recommended Monitoring after 5 Years (optional):

It is recommended that photomonitoring for all restoration sites continue for an additional 3-5 years

following the conclusionofthe initial5-year monitoring period. Photomonitoring during years 5-10 should

occur at a minimum once annually during the last week of August or first three weeks of September, and

consist ofthe same site overview and photographs as described above atallofthe same permanent transect

photostations usedduringthe initialmonitoringperiod. The additional 3-5 years of photomonitoring records

should also be labeled, stored, and distributed in the same manner as occurred during the initial 5-year

monitoring period.
Figure 13. Diagram of hypothetical placement of transects and quadrats for monitoring a salt marsh restoration.

Figure 14. Hypothetical selection of an appropriate reference site for monitoring a restoration project.

Figure 15. Diagram of the recommended quadrat and associated monitoring variables for a salt

marsh restoration.

67

8. COMMON REED CONTROL—RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROTOCOL

Below is an outline of the recommended components of a monitoring program for common reed control

projects, frequently associated withsalt marshrestorations, inbrackishand estuarine waters ofNew York

State. 

1) Principle parties:

The party responsible for carrying out all restoration requirements will be referred to as the Responsible

Party (RP). These restoration activities include the development and implementation of a monitoring

protocol to assess the progress of the restoration during, and to evaluate the success or failure of the

restoration at the conclusion of, the monitoring period (a period > 5 years is recommended). 

The RP for the (project name) is (agency/name) .

Other parties that may be involved in restoration and restoration monitoring activities are: 

CThe Designer ofthe restoration, who isresponsible forincludingmonitoringspecificationsinthe design and

site plan, including specific locations oftransects, quadrats, permanent fixed-point photostations,and other

features. 

The designer for this project is (agency/name) .

CAn Ecologist to assist in planning and implementing a site-specific monitoring protocol. 

The ecologist for this project is (agency/name) .

CThe Contractor(s) is(are)incharge of constructionand ofmaintenance ofthe siteand itsfeatures,including

all transects, quadrats, and fixed-point photo stations. When a contractor is not required, all site

manipulation and maintenance activities are generally the responsibility of the RP.

The contractor(s) for this project is/are (name/names) .

CThe Regulator(s) is(are) responsible for approving the restorationdesigns and monitoring protocols, and

for any required permitting for restoration activities.

The Regulator(s) for this project is/are (NYS DEC, NYS DOS, ACOE, others) .

CVolunteersmaybe involved inconductingmonitoring activities. They may require training, and usually will

be supervised by and/or report to the RP.
68

Note: The RP will be responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all monitoring requirements, including those of

the Designer, Ecologist, Contractor(s), and Volunteers asspecified inthe work plan, and isresponsible for

reporting as specified to the Regulator(s), when applicable. The RP will ensure that any herbicide

applicatoris New York State certified. The Designer and the Ecologist may be the same personor from

the same agency, and this person/agency may also be the RP. 

2) Purpose of the protocol:

This monitoring protocol is designed to assess the progress towards, and the success or failure of, a

restoration of salt or brackish marsh habitat by control or eradication of common reed, through cutting,

mowing, burning, flooding with salt water, use of plastic, and/or application of herbicide, such as Rodeo.

At a minimum, this should include regular assessment, for a period of > 5 years, of the parameters

described below. This monitoring protocol would not be applicable for restoration projects involving

excavationofPhragmitesstands, followed bybackfilling, grading, and re-planting withsalt marshspecies.

For an excavation-type Phragmites removal project, use of the recommended salt marsh monitoring

protocol is encouraged. 

Note: Most Phragmites australis control strategies require multiple treatments (multiple cuttings,

mowings, herbicide applications) to achieve success. Therefore, it is recommended that all monitoring

activities commence following the first post-treatment growing season, and should continue for 5 years

following the final treatment. During years 4-5 after the final treatment it is possible that a monitoring

protocol tailored to development of salt marsh or other habitat (i.e., the salt marsh restoration

recommended monitoring protocol) will provide the best information if used in conjunction with this

Phragmites australis monitoring protocol.

3) Monitoring Protocol Design:

All monitoring, except where noted below, should be conducted at the restoration project site and at an

appropriate reference site. This reference site should consist of, at a minimum, three controltransects, and

must be located contiguous with or nearby the restoration project site. The control transects must

represent stands ofunmanaged commonreed insimilar habitat to the reed management site. For example,

a high marsh area invaded by Phragmites and subject to eradication/management should be compared

with control transects in a high marsh area dominated by Phragmites that will remain untouched by

restoration activities.

The purpose of the reference site is to help discern background environmental effects from the effects

attributable to the restoration project. For example, vegetation parameters at a restoration site must be

compared with the same parameters at a nearby reference site to determine whether an observed loss of

vegetation is a restorationfailure, or is caused by a natural event, such as disease, a hurricane, or a winter

storm that has similarly affected all the marshes in the area. 
69

C Transects: A minimum of 3 transects, evenly spaced acrossthe site,should be used for all restoration

projects. For large sites, transects should be evenly spaced, and although an absolute minimum of 3

transects is required, a larger number of transects is recommended based on the acreage to be covered

and the heterogeneity of the site. Transects should run perpendicular to the main channel and/or parallel

with the elevation gradient, acrossthe restorationsite approximately from the mean low water (MLW) to

at least the landward edge of the project. Transect locations should be permanently marked at the

landward end only using stakes that are sturdy and will be easily located during future monitoring visits. 

Duringmonitoring visits, a tape measure should be usedto mark the transect line,starting at the upland end.

Hook the tape measure onto the permanent landward stake, and walk toward the MLW mark remaining

roughly parallel with the elevation gradient. At the seaward end of the transect, wrap the measuring tape

around a second, temporarystake, making sure it istaut. This forms a transect line between the landward

and seaward stakes. This procedure should be repeated for all transect locations at the restoration site.

Noteworthy features occurring along eachtransect should be recorded relative to the distance marked on

the tape measure at the point ofoccurrence. Note which transect end is being used as zero distance (using

the placement method above it should be the landward marker), and that the same transect end (the

landward marker) be consistently used as zero distance for all transect monitoring at the restoration site.

C Permanent fixed-point photostations: Thepermanent and temporarytransect end markers(landward

end and seaward end, respectively) should also be used asthe photostations for photographic monitoring.

Photographs should be takenfacing the seaward transect marker from the landward transect marker, and

facing the landward transect marker from the seaward transect marker. It is particularly important that

some standard height reference marker be included in all photographs takenforthe purpose ofmonitoring

a common reed eradication or control project, during every monitoring visit to the site for the duration of

the monitoring period (~ 5 years). For example, a tall stake with regular height interval markings that will

be visible in a photograph should be placed in the substrate or held by an assistant monitor at the head of

each transect line and photographed. This should be done for all pairs of transect ends at the restoration

site. Also, a location that provides an overview photograph or photographs of the entire restoration site

should be identified and consistently used for the durationofphotomonitoring. All photographs should be

takenat lowtide (avoiding spring tide and fullmoonperiods) and should be labeled with the locationcode,

the direction of view, the date, the time, and the tide ifambiguous. All photographs should be in the form

of prints no smaller than 4" x 6", and must be in color.

C Quadrats (optional): A 25 (twenty-five) m2 quadrat (a square 5 meters on a side) maybe placed along

each transect if the density of the Phragmites stand permits. This may be accomplished using a tape

measure and 4 temporary stakes. The tape measure can be wrapped around the first stake, from where

the monitor walks in a straight line for 5 meters, places a second stake wrapping the tape measure around

thisstake, walks again for 5 meters in a straight line perpendicularto the original5 meterline, places a third

stake wrapping the tape measure around this stake, turns and walks another 5 meters in a straight line

perpendicular to the second 5 meters and parallel with the original 5 meters, etc., until a square 5 meters
70

ona side (25 m2) is formed. The quadratshould be intersected bythe transect line (placed within 5 meters

ofthe transect line on either side) and the location along the transectfromdistance zero noted (e.g., upper

boundaryat 8 meters, lower boundaryat 13 meters). This should be done for all quadrats placed along all

transects at the restoration site.

C Video monitoring (optional): Use of video monitoring is encouraged to supplement photomonitoring

and provide additional qualitative information that cannot be provided by standard photographs. This

includes close-up images of vegetation, benthic epifauna, and substrates; a panorama of the site is also

easily filmed. The restoration site should be walked by the video monitor, using the transect lines as guides.

Cards may be filmed, or voice may be used, to give the required information, suchaslocationcode, date,

time of day, direction of view, and tide. At each transect end the location code and direction of view

should be identified. Close up viewsshould be filmed of allvegetationzones occurring along the transects.

CAerial infrared photography (optional): Aerial IR photography, if available, is useful for assessing

vegetation, both pre- and post-project, for large project areas.

4) Pre-Restoration Monitoring Activities:

All required parameters described below under “Post-Treatment Monitoring--Annual for > 5 Years”

should be monitored once prior to the first eradication/control treatment, at both the restoration site and

the reference sites. This should occur during the last week in August or first three weeks of September,

or immediately prior to the first treatment.

5) Post-Treatment Monitoring (Four to Five Weeks Post-Treatment):

C The restorationsite should be walked bythe RP, the Ecologist, and/or the Regulator(s) 4-5 weeks posttreatment to assess compliance with submitted work plans and initial effects of the treatment.

C Permanent fixed-point photo stations—A set of color photographs should be taken at this time at all

permanent, fixed-point photo stations articulated above, forthe restorationsite and the reference site. All

photographs should be takenat lowtide (avoiding spring tide and fullmoonperiods) and should be labeled

with the location code, the direction of view, the date, the time, and the tide ifambiguous. It is particularly

important thatsome standard height reference marker be included in all photographs taken for the purpose

ofmonitoring a commonreed eradication or controlproject, during everymonitoring visit to the site forthe

duration of the monitoring period. All photographs should be inthe formofprints no smaller than 4" x 6",

and must be in color.

C The RP will determine, based on the 4-5 week post-construction assessment, whether any additional

work is required to achieve work plancompliance, and above and beyond any standard regulatoryreview

associated with the project.
71

6) Post-Treatment Monitoring (Annual for > 5 Years):

a) Vegetation along transects

The following parametersshould be monitored once annually for > 5 years, during the last week in August

or the first three weeks in September, at the restoration site and the reference sites.

< Vegetation Zones: Walk along the measuring tape that demarcates the transect line starting at

the upland transect end. Note the distance marked on tape measure at the transition between

different vegetation zones, and the dominant species composition of these zones. The location of

the seaward front of the Phragmites stand should be recorded as precisely as possible in order

to track dieback over time and with continued treatments. In areas where plant species diversity

is low, the presence of all plant species other than Phragmites encountered along the transect

should be recorded.

< Signs of disease, predation, orotherdisturbance should be monitored along the length of the

transect, recording observations as necessary.

b) Fixed-point photo stations

Allphotomonitoring should be done for all transects at the restoration site. Color photographs should be

takenfromalldesignated locations once annually for > 5 years at the time of vegetation monitoring (during

the last week inAugust or first three weeks in September), for the restoration site and the reference sites.

The permanent and temporary transect markerstakes(upland end and seaward end, respectively) should

be used as photo stations for the photographic monitoring. Photographs should be taken facing the

seaward transect marker fromthe upland transect marker, and facing the upland transect marker from the

seaward transect marker. It is particularly important that some standard height reference marker be

included inallphotographs takenforthe purposeofmonitoring a commonreed eradication/controlproject,

during every monitoring visit to the site for the duration of the monitoring period (~ 5 years; see detail

above). Also, an overview photograph or photographs of the entire restoration site should be consistently

used in all photomonitoring. Photographs should be taken at low tide (avoiding spring tide and full moon

periods) and should be labeled withthe locationcode, the direction ofview, the date, the time, and the tide

ifambiguous. All photographs should be in the form of prints no smaller than 4" x 6", and must be in color.

Video monitoring, if used, should also occur at the time of vegetation monitoring, annually for > 5 years.

c) Vegetation in 25 (twenty-five) m2 quadrats

The following parameters are optional. If they are included, these parameters should be monitored once

annually for > 5 years, during the last week in August or first three weeks in September. In general,

quadrat monitoringwillbe most informative inthosesiteswherethere issome diversityofplant species(i.e.,
72

the site is not a Phragmites australis monoculture). Alternatively, the parameters below will provide a

more quantitative Phragmites australis data set that can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of different

control strategies or other hypotheses associated with the eradication/control project.

< Percent cover: The percent coverage by all plant species present in the entire 25 (twenty-five)

m2 quadrat should be estimated visually according to the basal area occupied by the plants (and

not the overall aboveground area).

< Stemdensity: Alllive stems ofPhragmites australisina 1.5625 m2sectionof each 25 (twentyfive) m2

 quadrat should counted. Divide each 25 m2 quadrat into four 6.25 m2sections (1/4 of the

total quadrat area). Then divide one of these 6.25 m2 sections into four subsections (1.5625 m2

sections). The 1.5625 m2 subsections represent 1/16 of the total quadrat area. Randomly select

one 1.5625 m2subsection for the stem density count. Use the same 1.5625 m2 subsection for

plant height measurements; see below.

< Plant Height: Alllive stems ofPhragmites australisina 1.5625 m2 section of each25 (twentyfive) m2

 quadrat are measured from the base of the plant to the top ofthe steminmeters. Use the

same 1.5625 m2section of the quadrat for height measurements as was used for stem density

count; see above.

7) Monitoring Reporting Requirements:

Annual monitoring reports should be submitted (by a mutually agreed upon date) to the applicable

Regulator(s) and/or some other pre-designated, central repositorybeginning after the first post-treatment

growing season. Include data and all photographs, labeled as described above, should be included, as well

as a briefsummaryofthe collected data. Length measurements should be reported using the metric system.

The monitoring reporting deadline for this project is _______________________________.

8) Recommended Monitoring after 5 Years:

It is recommended that photomonitoring for all restoration sites continue for an additional 3-5 years

following the conclusionofthe initialrequired5-yearmonitoringperiod. Photomonitoring during years 5-10

should occur at a minimumonce annually during the last week ofAugust or first three weeks ofSeptember,

and consist ofphotographs ofthe same overview site and from the same permanent transect photostations

used during the initialmonitoring period. The additional 3-5 years of photomonitoring records should also

be labeled, stored, and distributed in the same manner as occurred during the initial 5-year monitoring

period.
73

 Figure 16. Diagram of hypothetical placement of transects and quadrats for monitoring a Phragmites control project.
Figure 17. Diagram of the recommended quadrat and associated monitoring variables

for a Phragmites australis control project.

Figure 18. Reporting vegetation and other features along a transect.
77

9. SALT MARSH BIBLIOGRAPHY

The reference list that follows is comprehensive for salt marsh restoration and ecology in the northeast

United States. Other bibliographies of salt marsh restoration literature have been compiled and may be of

use for additional research (Matthews and Minello, 1994; and see their references). These bibliographies

are comprised of a greatdealofhard-to-retrieve conferenceproceedings and greyliterature. An effort was

made with the references below to rely more heavily on peer-reviewed literature drawn from scientific

journals that canbe found ina good science library(e.g., the State UniversityofNew York-Albany library

and the New York State Library were the primarysources for articles listed below. Most grey and other

literature included below were available through the New York State Library). Most ofthese references

are now housed in the New York State Coastal Management Program habitat library.

An “additional bibliographic materials” section follows the reference list below. This second section

documents literature not cited in the Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines, that may

nonetheless be useful for those readers with more targeted needs or interested in conducting additional

research.

References

AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE). 1998. Tide gates help restore salt marsh. Civil Engineering

68(7): 87.

Beare, P.A. & J.B. Zedler. 1987. Cattail invasion and persistence in a coastal salt marsh: the role of

salinity reduction. Estuaries 10(2): 165-170.

Benoit, L. 1997. Impacts of Phragmites ontidalmarshbirds. Abstract, Phragmites workshop, Institute

of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY. April 29, 1997.

Benoit, L.K. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution ofbirdsinConnecticut tidal

marshes. In: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Greater New England symposium on

the ecology of invasive species: Presentations, posters, and discussion of current scientific research on

invasive animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Bertness, M.D. 1992. The ecology of a New England salt marsh. American Scientist 80: 260-268.

Bertness, M.D. 1984. Ribbed mussels and Spartina alterniflora production in a New England salt

marsh. Ecology 65: 1794-1807.

Bertness, M.D. & A.M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant

community. Ecol. Monogr. 57: 129-147.
78

Besitka, M.A.R. 1996. An ecological and historical study of Phragmites australis along the Atlantic

coast. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Drexel University,

Philadelphia, PA.

Broome, S.W. 1990. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States. Pp.

37-72 in Kusler,J.A. &M.E. Kentula,eds.,Wetland Creationand Restoration: The Status ofthe Science.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca & W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1983. The effects of source, rate and placement

ofnitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers on growth of Spartina alterniflora transplants in NorthCarolina.

Estuaries 6: 212-226.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca & W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1986. Long-term growth and development of

transplants of the salt marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 9: 63-74.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca & W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1988. Tidal marsh restoration. Aquat. Bot. 32:

1-22.

Burdick, D.M. 1996. Assessing salt marsh restoration projects. Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, Durham,

NH. Unpublished. 

Burdick, D.M., M. Dionne,R.M.Boumans&F.T. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restorations

of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4(2): 129-144.

Casagrande,R.A. 1997. Potential of European insects to control North American Phragmites. Abstract,

Phragmites workshop, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY. April 29, 1997.

Clarke, J., B.A. Harrington, T. Hruby, & F.E. Wasserman. 1985. The effect of ditching for mosquito

controlonsalt marsh use by birds in Rowley, Massachusetts. Journal of Field Ornithology 55: 160-180.

Coastal America. 1996. Coastal Restoration and Protection: Lessons Learned. Coastal America

Technology Transfer Report. January, 1996.

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). 1998a. Glyphosate. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

PesticideInformation Profile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). 1998b. Amitrole. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

PesticideInformationProfile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.
79

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). 1998c. Dalapon. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

Pesticide Information Profile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.

Cross, D.H. & K.L. Fleming. 1989. Control of Phragmites or common reed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Waterfowl Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12.

Eastman, J. 1995. The Book of Swamp and Bog: Trees, Shrubs, and Wildflowers of Eastern Freshwater

Wetlands. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. 237 pp.

EPA Global Warming Site. September 21, 1998. Impacts: Coastal. Web page address:

http://www.epa.gov/ globalwarming/impacts/coastal/index.html

Environmental Concern, Inc. 1998. Nursery Catalog. 210 West Chew Avenue, P.O. Box P, St.

Michaels, MD, 21663.

Erwin, K.L. 1990. Wetland evaluation for restoration and creation. Pp. 429-458 in Kusler,J.A. & M.E.

Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington,

D.C.

Fee, R. 1993. Shrimpers can expect a decline as Louisiana marshland recedes. National Fisherman

73(11): 18-19.

Freese,J.H. & F.H. Kulhawy. 1983. General planning considerations forsmall-scale coastalstructures.

Report to New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, New York, by School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. December, 1983.

Garbisch, E.W., Jr., P.B. Woller & R.J. McCallum. 1975. Salt marsh establishment and development.

TechnicalMemorandum52(114). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,

Fort Belvoir, VA.

Herke, W., E. Knudsen, P. Knudsen, & B. Rogers. 1992. Effect of semi-impoundment on fish and

crustacean nursery use and export. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 12: 151-160.

Howe, M.A., R.B. Clapp & J.S. Weske. 1978. Marine and coastal birds. Marine EcoSystems Analysis

(MESA) Program, MESANew York Bight Atlas Monograph31, New York Sea GrantInstitute,Albany,

NY. 87 pp.

Hruby, T. 1990. Long Island region tidal wetlands management manual. Part III: Management plan

development. Seatuck Research Program, Islip, NY. 42 pp.
80

Kearney, V., Y. Segal& M.W. Lefor. 1983. The effects of docks on salt marsh vegetation. Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection, Water Resources Unit, Hartford, CT. 22 pp.

Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman & J.C. Sifneos. 1993. An

approachto improving decisionmaking inwetland restorationand creation. Edited by A.J. Hairston. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Kraus, M.L. & J.H. Crow. 1985. Substrate characteristics associated with the distributionofthe ribbed

mussel, Geukensia demissa (Modiolus demissus), on a tidal creek bank in southern New Jersey.

Estuaries 8: 237-243.

Kruczynski, W.L. 1990. Mitigation and the Section 404 program: a perspective. In: Kusler, J.A. and

M.E. Kentula, eds. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington,

D.C.

Kusler, J.A. & M.E. Kentula. 1990. Executive summary. Pp. xvii-xxv in Kusler, J.A. & M.E. Kentula,

eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lagna, L. 1975. The relationship of Spartina alterniflora to meanhighwater. Prepared for New York

SeaGrantInstitute,State UniversityofNew York and Cornell University, NYSSGP-RS-75-002,January

1975.

Langis, R., M. Zalejko, and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessment in a constructed and a natural salt

marsh of San Diego Bay. Ecological Applications 1: 40-51.

Lefor, M.W., W.C. Kennard & D.L. Civco. 1987. Relationships of saltmarsh plant distribution to tidal

levels in Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management 11(1): 61-68.

Lent, R.A., T. Hruby, D.P. Cowan & T.S. Litwin. 1990. Open Marsh Water Management on Great

South Bay, Islip, NY: Final report. Seatuck Research Program, Islip, NY. 101 pp.

Lewis, R.L. 1990. Wetland restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: Suggestions for

standardization. Pp. 417-422 in Kusler, J.A. & M.E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration:

The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Magee, D.W. 1981. Freshwater wetlands: A guide to common indicator plants of the northeast. The

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 245 pp.

Matsil, M.A. & M.J. Feller. 1996. Natural areas restoration in New York City: A bite of the apple.

Restoration and Management Notes 14(1) 5-14.
81

Matthews, G.A. & T.J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation, and

Enhancement of Spartina alterniflora marshes in the United States. Vol. 1--Executive Summary and

Annotated Bibliography. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 2. NOAA

Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.

McKee, K.L. & W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1988. The relationship ofsmooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)

to tidal datums: a review. Estuaries 11(3): 143-151.

Monastersky, R. 1994. Water habits on land cause oceans to swell. Science News 145(2): 21.

New Hampshire Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1998. Salt Marsh Restoration in

New Hampshire. http://nh.nrcs.usda.gov/saltrest.html, July 24, 1998.

New Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP). 1998. Draft monitoring requirements for salt marsh

restoration projects. State of New Hampshire Office of State Planning, September 1998.

New York Sea Grant Institute (NYSGI). 1993. Estuarine resources of the Fire Island National Seashore

and vicinity. New York Sea Grant Institute. Stony Brook, NY.

New York State Department ofEnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC). 1992. The SEQR Handbook.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Draft wetlands

conservationinNew York State:a strategy for the future. New York State Department ofEnvironmental

Conservation, Albany, NY.

New York State Department of State. 1990. Hudson River Significant Tidal Habitats: A Guide to the

Functions, Values, and Protection of the River’s Natural Resources. Prepared by the New York State

Department of State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization and The Nature

Conservancy, March 1990.

New York State Office of Planning Services. 1972. Long Island Marine Wetlands: Status, Value, and

Preservation Potentials. Prepared by the Metropolitan New York District Office, Office of Planning

Services. Published by the State of New York, Office of Planning Services, Albany, NY. 60 pp.

Nicholls,R.J. & S.P. Leatherman. 1996. Adapting to sea-levelrise:Relative sea-leveltrendsto 2100 for

the United States. Coastal Management 24: 301-324.

Niering, W.A. & R.S. Warren. 1980. Vegetationpatterns and processes in New England salt marshes.

BioScience 30: 301-307.
82

Nixon, S.W. 1982. The ecology of New England high salt marshes:A community profile. Prepared for

national Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

DOI, Washington, D.C., Report FWS/OBS-81/55, March, 1982.

Nordby, C.S. & J.B. Zedler. 1991. Responses of fish and macrobenthic assemblages to hydrologic

disturbances in Tijuana Estuary and Los Penasquitos Lagoon, California. Estuaries 14(1): 80-93.

NormandeauAssociates, Inc. 1992. A manual for monitoring mitigation and restoration projects on New

Hampshire’s salt marshes. Prepared for Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program,

Concord, NH, June 1992.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd Edition. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.

Office ofLong Island Sound Programs(OLISP). 1998. Tidal Wetlands. Draft characterization document

for the Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration Plan. Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection, Hartford, CT.

Orson, R.A., R.S. Warren& W.A. Niering. 1987. Development of a tidal marsh in a New England river

valley. Estuaries 10(1): 20-27.

Oviatt, C.A., S.W. Nixon & J. Garber. 1977. Variation and evaluation of coastal salt marshes.

Environmental Management 1: 201-211.

Pacific Estuarine ResearchLaboratory(PERL). 1990. A manual for assessing restored and natural coastal

wetlands, withexamplesfromSouthernCalifornia. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021, La

Jolla, California.

Peck, M.A., P.E. Fell, E.A. Allen, J.A. Gieg, C.R. Guthke & M.D. Newkirk. 1994. Evaluation of tidal

marshrestoration:Comparisons ofselected macroinvertebrate populations ona restoredimpoundedvalley

marsh and an unimpounded valley marsh within the same salt marsh system in Connecticut, USA.

Environmental Management 18: 283-293.

Peterson, C.H. & N.M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina:A community

profile. Prepared for national Coastal Ecosystems Team, Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. DOI, NASA-Slidell Computer Complex, Slidell LA, November 1979.

Pinelands Nursery. 1998. Wholesale Catalog. Pinelands Nursery, Inc., 323 Island Road, Columbus, NJ,

08022.

Portnoy, J.W. 1991. Summer oxygen depletion in a diked New England estuary. Estuaries 14: 122-129.
83

Reimold, R.J. & S.A. Cobler. 1986. Wetlands mitigation effectiveness. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Contract No. 68-04-0015. Boston, MA.

Richter, K.O. 1997. A simple gauge for water-level maxima and minima. Restoration and Management

Notes 15(1): 60-63.

Rilling, C. 1998a. Tidal wetland restoration--Use of the herbicide Rodeo to control common reed.

Technicalreport ofthe Connecticut Department ofEnvironmentalProtection, Office ofLong Island Sound

Programs, April 17, 1998.

Rilling, C. 1998b. Tidal wetland restoration--Use of a surfactant with herbicide Rodeo to control common

reed. Technical report of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island

Sound Programs, June 15, 1998.

Roman, C.T., W.A. Niering & R.S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal

restriction. Environmental Management 8: 141-150.

Rozsa, R. 1995. Human impacts on tidal wetlands: history and regulations. In: Tidal Marshes of Long

Island Sound: Ecology, History, and Restoration. Dreyer, G.D. & W.A. Niering, eds. The Connecticut

College Arboretum, Bulletin No. 34, New London, CT. December, 1995.

Sahagian, D. & F.W. Schwartz. 1994. Direct anthropogenic contributions to sea level rise in the twentieth

century. Nature 367(6468): 54-57.

Seneca, E.D., S.W. Broome & W.W. Woodhouse. 1985. The influence of duration-of-inundation on

development of a man-initiated Spartina alterniflora Loisel. marshinNorthCarolina. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.

Ecol. 94: 259-268.

Shisler, J.K. 1990. Creation and restoration of the coastal wetlands of the northeastern United States.

Pp. 143-170 in Kusler, J.A. & M.E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the

Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Shisler, J.K. & D.J. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of Artificial Salt Marshes in New Jersey. New Jersey

Agricultural Experiment Station Publication Number P-40502-01-84.

Silverberg, S.M. & M.S. Dennison. 1993. Wetlands and coastal zone regulationand compliance. John

Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Simenstad,C.A. &R.M.Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te

estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6(1): 38-56.
84

Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren& W.A. Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh

in New England. Estuaries 13: 25-30.

Stumpf, R.P. 1983. The process of sedimentation on the surface of a salt marsh. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.

17: 495-508.

Suffolk County Planning Department (SCPD). 1985. Analysis of dredging and spoil disposal activity

conducted bySuffolk County: Historicalperspective and a look to the future. Prepared by Suffolk County

Planning Department, Hauppauge, NY, October, 1985.

Sullivant, R. 1994. Draining the earth to fill the ocean. Sea Frontiers 40(2): 11-12.

Swanson, R.L. 1976. Tides. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program, MESA New York Bight

Atlas Monograph 4, New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 34 pp.

Talmage Farm. 1998. Spring ’98 Catalog. H.R. Talmage & Son, 2975 Sound Avenue, Riverhead, NY,

11901.

Taylor, J. 1998. Guidance for Meeting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Trust Resource Needs When

Conducting Coastal Marsh Management for Mosquito Control On Region 5 National Wildlife Refuges.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Newington, NH. 20 pp.

Teal, J.M. 1986. The ecology of regularly flooded salt marshes of New England: A community profile.

Prepared for the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Division of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, June 1986.

Teal, J. & M. Teal. 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Ballantine Books, New York, NY.

Thom, Ronald M. 1998. From Advanced Habitat Restoration Training materials, presented at Norrie

Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY, June 1998.

Thom, R. M. & K.F. Wellman. 1996. Planning aquatic ecosystem restoration monitoring programs.

Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute forWater Resources, Alexandria, Virginia and

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. IWR Report 96-R-23, December, 1996.

Tiner,R.W.,Jr. 1987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Northeastern United States. The

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.

Tiner, R. 1998. Managing common reed (Phragmites australis) in Massachusetts: An introduction to

the species and control techniques. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for Massachusetts

Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA,

December 1998.
85

Titus,J.G. 1991. Greenhouse effect and coastal wetland policy: How Americans could abandon an area

the size of Massachusetts at minimum cost. Environmental Management 15: 39-58.

Titus,J.G., R.A. Park, S.P. Leatherman, J.R. Weggel, M.S. Greene, P.W. Mausel, S. Brown, C. Gaunt,

M. Trehan, & G. Yohe. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea level rise: The cost of holding back the sea.

Coastal Management 19: 171-210.

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI). 1989. National wetlands priorityconservationplan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Warren, R.S. 1995. Evolution and development of tidal marshes. In:TidalmarshesofLong Island Sound:

ecology, history and restoration. Dreyer, G.D. & W.A. Niering, eds. The Connecticut College

Arboretum, Bulletin No. 34, New London, CT. December, 1995.

Weinstein, M.P. 1996. Restoration of degraded salt marshes: The use of Rodeo for initial Phragmites

control. Prepared for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company Estuary Enhancement Program, New

Jersey, July 10, 1996.

Weis, J.S., J.Tan, C. Cherilus, L. Dounacvskaia, & C. Peterman. 1999. Phragmites or Spartina as

habitat: do the estuarine species care? In: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Greater

New England symposium on the ecology of invasive species: Presentations, posters, and discussion of

current scientific research on invasive animals and plants of the New England region, February27, 1999.

Wilber, P. & J. Titre. 1996. Introduction. Pp. 1.1-1.5 in:Planning and EvaluatingRestorationofAquatic

Habitats from an Ecological Perspective. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. Evaluation of

Environmental Investments Program IWR Report 96-EL-4, September 1996.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 1995. Statewide wetland strategies: a guide to protecting and managing

the resource. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Yozzo, D.,J. Titre,& J. Sexton. 1996. Planning and Evaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitats from an

Ecological Perspective. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, MS and Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. Evaluation of Environmental

Investments Program IWR Report 96-EL-4, September 1996.
86

Additional bibliographic material

Anderson, F. 1986. Influence of Spartina detritus enrichment onexchange ofnutrients betweensediment

and water in an intertidal area of Bay of Fundy. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29: 7-14.

Barrett, N.E. & W.A. Niering. 1993. Tidal marsh restoration: Trends in vegetation change using a

geographical information system (GIS). Restoration Ecology 1(1): 18-28.

Bertness,M.D. 1985. Fiddler crab regulation of Spartina alterniflora productionona New England salt

marsh. Ecology 66: 1042-1055.

Bertness, M.D. & T. Miller. 1984. The distribution and dynamics of Uca pugnax burrows in a New

England salt marsh. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 83: 211-237.

Bliven, S. & A.L. Hankin (eds.). 1985. Salt Ponds and Tidal Inlets: Maintenance and Management

Considerations. Proceedings of a Conference. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth,

MA, Publication No. 2-85. 130 pp.

Bowen, M. & M. Small. 1992. Identification and evaluationof coastalhabitat evaluation methodologies.

TechnicalReportEL-92-21. Prepared by Normandeau Associates for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Boesch, D.F. & R. E. Turner. 1984. Dependence offisheryspecies onsalt marshes:The role offood and

refuge. Estuaries 7(4A): 460-468.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Waterways Experiment Station, WetlandsResearchProgram Technical Report WRP-DE-4, April 1993.

Brinson, M.M. & R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and

mitigation. Ecological Applications 6(1): 69-76.

Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating constructed wetlands through comparisons with natural wetlands. EPA600-3-91-058. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.

Bryan, R.R., M. Dionne, R.A. Cook, J. Jones, & A. Goodspeed. 1997. Maine citizens guide to

evaluating, restoring, and managing tidalmarshes. Published by the Maine Audubon Society, April 1997.

Burdick, D.M. & I.A. Mendelssohn. 1987. Waterlogging responses in dune, swale and marsh populations

of Spartina patens under field conditions. Oecologia 74: 321-329.

Burdick, D.M. & M. Dionne. 1994. Comparison of salt marsh restoration and creation techniques in

promoting native vegetation and functional values. Office of State Planning. Concord, NH. 65 pp.
87

Buschbaum, R. & M. Hall. 1991. Draft: An inventory of the biota of a Belle Isle marsh in a tidally

restricted area. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA. 46 pp.

Crabtree, A., E. Day, A. Garlo & G. Stevens. 1990. Evaluation of wetland mitigation measures. Final

report: Volume 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No.

FHWA-RD-90-083. Washington, D.C.

Craft, C.B., S.W. Broome & E.D. Seneca. 1988. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon pools in

natural and transplanted marsh soils. Estuaries 11: 272-280.

Craft,C.B.,E.D. Seneca&S.W. Broome. 1991. Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh soils.

J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 152: 187-200.

Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca & S.W. Broome. 1991. Loss onignitionand Kjeldahl digestion for estimating

organic carbonand totalnitrogeninestuarine marshsoils:Calibrationwithdrycombustion. Estuaries 14(2):

175-179.

Cranford, P.J., D.C. Gordon, & C.M.Jarvis. 1989. Measurements of cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora,

in a macrotidal estuary, Bay of Fundy. Estuaries 12: 27-34.

Crawford, H. & P. Van Patten. 1991. Coastal habitat restoration: Can the damage be undone?

Nor’Easter, Spring 1991: 38-42.

Cundy, A.B., I.W. Croudace, J. Thomson, & J.T. Lewis. 1997. Reliability of salt marshes as

“geochemical recorders” of pollution input: A case study from contrasting estuaries in southern England.

Environmental Science and Technology 31: 1093-1101.

Earhart, H.G. & E.W. Garbisch, Jr. 1983. Habitat development utilizing dredged material at Barren

Island, Dorchester County, Maryland. Wetlands 3: 108-119.

Eleuterius, L.N. & J.I. Gill. 1981. Long-termobservations on seagrass beds and salt marsh established

fromtransplants. Pp. 74-86 in Stovall, R.H., ed., Proceedings ofthe eighthannualconferenceonwetlands

restoration and creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

Faber, P.M. 1991. The Muzzi marsh, Corte Madera, California: Long-term observations of a restored

marsh in San Francisco Bay. Pp. 424-438 in Bolton, H.S., ed., CoastalWetlands. American Society of

Civil Engineers, New York.

Fleisher, S., L. Steibe & L. Leonardson. 1991. Restoration of wetlands as a means ofreducing nitrogen

transport to coastal waters. Ambio: A journal of the human environment 20(6): 271-272.
88

Gallagher, J.L., G.F. Somers, D.M. Grant & D.M. Seliskar. 1988. Persistent differences in two forms

of Spartina alterniflora: A common garden experiment. Ecology 69(4): 1005-1008.

Gallagher, J.L., H.V. Kibby & K.W. Skirvin. 1984. Detritus processing and mineralcycling in seagrass

(Zostera) litter in an Oregon salt marsh. Aquatic Botany 20: 97-108.

Garcia, R. 1983. Mosquito management: Ecological approaches. Environmental Management 7(1): 73-

78.

Gleason, M.L. & J.C. Zieman. 1981. Influence of tidal inundation on internal oxygensupply ofSpartina

alterniflora and Spartina patens. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 13:47-57.

Graneli, W. 1989. Influence of standing litter on shoot production in reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.)

Trin. Ex. Steudel. Aquatic Botany 35: 99-109.

Gross, M.F., M.A. Hardisky, P.L. Wolf & V. Klemas. 1991. Relationship between aboveground and

belowground biomass of Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Estuaries 14(2): 180-191.

Gwin, S.E. & M.E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating design and verifying compliance of wetlands created under

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. EPA-600-3-90-061. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Haltiner, J., J.B. Zedler, K.E. Boyer, G.D. Williams & J.C. Callaway. 1997. Influence of physical

processes on the design, functioning, and evolution of restored tidal wetlands in California (USA).

Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 73-91.

Havens, K.J., L.M. Varnell & J.G. Bradshaw. 1995. An assessment of ecological conditions in a

constructed tidalmarshand two natural reference tidalmarshesincoastalVirginia. Ecological Engineering

4: 117-141.

Holloway, M. 1994. Nurturing nature. Scientific American (April 1994): 98-108.

Holt, E.R. & R. Buchsbaum. 1999. Bird use of Phragmites australis in coastal marshes of northern

Massachusetts. In:Yale SchoolofForestryand EnvironmentalStudies, GreaterNewEngland symposium

on the ecology of invasive species: Presentations, posters, and discussionof current scientific research on

invasive animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Horner, R.R. & K.J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide for wetland mitigation project monitoring. Res. Proj.

GC8286, Task 6, Washington State Transportation Commission, Seattle, WA.

Hruby, T. & W.G. Montgomery. 1988. Open marsh water management for open tidal marshes in the

northeast: A manual of methods. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Gloucester, MA.
89

Institute for EcosystemStudies. 1997. Compendium of Phragmites abstracts. Phragmites workshop,

Millbrook, NY, April 29, 1997.

Jackson, A. & J.H. Pardue. 1997. Seasonal variability of crude oil respiration potential in salt and fresh

marshes. Journal of Environmental Quality 26: 1140-1146.

Joyce, A.A. & S. B. Weisberg. 1986. The effects of predation by the mummichog, Fundulus

heteroclitus(L.), onthe abundance and distribution of the salt marsh snail, Melampus bidentatus(Say).

J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 100: 295-306.

Josselyn, M. (Ed.) 1982. Wetland restoration and enhancement in California. Proceedings of a workshop

held February 1982, California State University, Hayward. A California sea Grant College Program

Publication, Report Nol T-CSGCP-007, December 1982.

Josselyn, M. & S. Chamberlain. 1994. Wetland restoration by the Coastal Conservancy: A status report.

California Coast and Ocean, Winter/Spring 1994: 26-31.

Kennedy, V.S. (Ed.) 1980. Estuarine Perspectives. Academic Press, New York.

King, D.M. Economics: Costing out restoration. Restoration & Management Notes 9(1): 15-20.

Kneib, R.T. 1984. Patterns ofinvertebrate distributionand abundance inthe intertidalsalt marsh: Causes

and questions. Estuaries 7(4A): 392-412.

Knutson, P.L. & W.W. Woodhouse,Jr. 1983. Shore stabilization with salt marsh vegetation. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Special Report No. 9,

January 1983.

Levin, L.A., D. Talley & G. Thayer. 1996. Succession of macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 141: 67-82.

Lewis, R. R. 1990. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: Suggestions for

standardization. Pp. 417-422 in Kusler, J.A. & M.E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration:

The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Linthurst, R.A. & E.D. Seneca. 1980. The effects of standing water and drainage potential on the

Spartina alterniflora substrate complex in a North Carolina salt marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Marine

Science 11: 41-52.

Louis Berger &Associates,Inc. 1997. Costs for wetland creation and restoration projects in the glaciated

northeast. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I. EPA Contract No. 68-D5-

0171. 56 pp.
90

Luckenbach, M.W., R.J. Diaz, E.C. Zobrist & C.H. Hutton. 1990. Evaluation of the benthic resource

value of impounded and nonimpounded tidal creeks in Virginia, USA. Ocean & Shoreline Management

14: 35-50.

Malchoff, M. 1996. Methods to evaluate constructed and restored wetlands as finfish nursery habitats.

SouthShoreEstuaryReserve EarlyActionProposalReport,New York Sea Grant,Riverhead, New York,

March 1996.

McIvor, C.C. & W.E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish

assemblage. Ecology 69(5): 1341-1351.

Mendelssohn, I.A. & E.D. Seneca. 1980. The influence of soil drainage on the growth of salt marsh

cordgrass Spartina alterniflora in North Carolina. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 11: 27-40.

Minello, T.J. &J.W. Webb,Jr. 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by

fisheryspecies and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 151:165-

179.

Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural riparian wetlands in

controlling nonpoint source pollution. Ecological Engineering 1: 27-47.

Mitsch, W.J. & J. G.Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands (second edition). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Mitsch, W.J. & R.F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with knowhow, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6(1): 77-83.

Montague, C.L., A.V. Zale & H.F. Percival. 1987. Ecological effects of coastal marsh impoundments:

A review. Environmental Management 11: 743-756.

Moy, L.D. & L.A. Levin. 1991. Are Spartinaalterniflora marshes a replaceable resource? A functional

approach to the evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14: 1-16.

Munro,J.W. Undated. Wetland restoration in the mitigation context. Restoration and Management Notes

9(2): 80-86.

Ninivaggi, D. 1989. Managing New York’s mosquito coast. The Conservationist July-August 1989.

O’Brien, A.L. 1988. Evaluating the cumulative effects of alternation on New England wetlands.

Environmental Management 12(5).

Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 262-269.
91

Race, M.S. & M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: What will it take? Ecological

Applications 6(1): 94-101.

Rader, D.N. 1984. Salt-marsh benthic invertebrates: Small-scale patterns of distribution and abundance.

Estuaries 7(4A): 413-420.

Reed,D.J.&D.R. Cahoon. 1992. The relationship between marsh surface topography, hydroperiod, and

growth of Spartina alterniflora in a deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh. J. Coast. Res. 8: 77-87.

Rozsa,R. 1988. An overview of wetland restoration projects in Connecticut. Pages 1-12 in M.W. Lefor

& W.C. Kennard, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth Wetlands Conference: Wetlands Creation and

Restoration. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Rozsa, R. Undated. Common reed (Phragmites australis)--Invasive species profile. Office of Long

Island Sound Programs, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Unpublished.

Rulifson, R.A. 1991. Finfish utilization of man-initiated and adjacent natural creeks of South Creek

Estuary, North Carolina using multiple gear types. Estuaries 14(4): 447-464.

Steinke, T.J. 1986. Hydrologic manipulation and restoring wetland values: Pine Creek, Fairfield,

Connecticut. Pp. 377-383 in Kusler, J.A., M.L. Quammen & G. Brooks, eds., National wetland

symposium:Mitigationofimpacts and losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, New Orleans, LA.

Talbot, C.W. & K.W. Able. 1984. Composition and distribution of larval fishes in New Jersey high

marshes. Estuaries 7(4A): 434-443.

Thayer, G.W. (ed.) 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College

Park, MD.

Thompson, D.J. & J.M. Shay. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh,

Manitoba. Can. J. Bot. 63: 1864-1869. 

Thompson, D.J. & J.M. Shay. 1989. First-year response of a Phragmites marsh community to seasonal

burning. Can. J. Bot. 67: 1448-1455.

Tiner, R. 1998. Managing common reed (Phragmites australis) in Massachusetts: An introduction to

the species and controltechniques. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Massachusetts

Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston,

Massachusetts, December 1998.

U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers. 1995. Massachusetts wetlands restoration study: Site identification and

evaluation report. USACE, New England Division, Waltham, MA.
92

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Cape Cod wetlands investigation. USACE, New England

Division, Waltham, MA.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 1994. Evaluation of restorable salt marshes in New Hampshire. USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Durham, NH. 32 pp.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency. 1997. Climate change and New York. Office of Policy, Planning

and Evaluation, EPA 230-F-97-008ff, September 1997.

Valiela, I. & J.M. Teal. 1979. The nitrogen budget of a salt marsh ecosystem. Nature 280: 652-656.

Varnell, L.M. & K.J. Havens. 1995. A comparison of dimension-adjusted catch data methods for

assessment of fish and crab abundance in intertidal salt marshes. Estuaries 18(2): 319-325.

Varnell, L.M., K.J. Havens & C.Hershner. 1995. Daily variability in abundance and population

characteristics of tidal salt-marsh fauna. Estuaries 18(2): 326-334.

Vittor,B. & D. Yozzo. 1996. Estuarine and coastal wetlands. Pp. 5C-1—5C-51 in Yozzo, D.,J. Titre

& J. Sexton, eds., Planning and EvaluatingRestorationofAquatic HabitatsfromanEcologicalPerspective.

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers-Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, IWR Report 96-EL-4,

September, 1996.

Webb,J.W.,Jr. & J.D. Dodd. 1983. Wave-protected versus unprotected transplantings on a Texas bay

shoreline. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38: 363-366.

Weisner, S.E.B. & W. Graneli. 1989. Influence of substrate conditions on the growth of Phragmites

australis after a reduction in oxygen transport to below-ground parts. Aquatic Botany 35: 71-80.

Wheelwright, M.C. 1996. Post Island marsh restoration: A rubric of reclamation. City of Quincy,

Department of Public Works, Quincy, MA. 11 pp.

Whitlatch, R.B. 1982. The ecology of New England tidal flats: a community profile. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 125 pp.

Wilsey, McKee, & Mendelssohn. Effects of increased elevation and macro- and micronutrient additions

onS. alterniflora transplant successinsalt marshdieback areasinLouisiana. Environmental Management

16: 505-511.

Wolaver, T.G., J. Zieman, & B. Kjerfve. 1986. Factors affecting short-term variability in sediment pH

as a function of marsh elevation in a Virginia mesohaline marsh. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 101: 227-237.
93

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. 1999. Greater New England symposium on the

ecology ofinvasive species:Presentations, posters, and discussionof current scientific researchoninvasive

animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted cordgrass marshes: Selecting habitat

evaluation criteria. Ecological Applications 3(1) 123-138.

Zedler, J.B. & B. Nyden. 1995. Innovative management of California wetlands. Forum for Applied

Research and Public Policy 10 (Summer 1995): 93-97.

Zedler, J.B. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southernCalifornia:The need for a regional restoration strategy.

Ecological Applications 6: 84-93.

95

10. COMMON REED CONTROL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Besitka, M.A.R. 1996. An ecological and historical study of Phragmites australis along the Atlantic

coast. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Drexel University,

Philadelphia, PA.

Benoit, L. 1997. Impacts of Phragmites ontidalmarshbirds. Abstract, Phragmites workshop, Institute

of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY. April 29, 1997.

Benoit, L.K. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites onthe distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal

marshes. In: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Greater New England symposium on

the ecology of invasive species: Presentations, posters, and discussion of current scientific research on

invasive animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Bontje, M.P. 1988. The application of science and engineering to restore a salt marsh, 1987. In: F.J.

Webb (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation,

Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

Boone, J., E. Furbish, and K. Turner. 1987. Control of Phragmites communis: Results of burning,

cutting, and covering with plastic in a North Carolina marsh. National Park Service, U.S. Department of

the Interior. CPSU Technical Report No. 41.

Casagrande, R.A. 1997. Potential of European insects to control North American Phragmites. Abstract,

Phragmites workshop, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY. April 29, 1997.

CornellCooperative Extension(CCE). 1998a. Glyphosate. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

PesticideInformationProfile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). 1998b. Amitrole. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

PesticideInformationProfile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). 1998c. Dalapon. Extoxnet (Extension Toxicology Network)

PesticideInformation Profile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/. Cornell Cooperative Extension

Offices of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. September 30, 1998.

Cross, D.H. & K.L. Fleming. 1989. Control of Phragmites or common reed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Waterfowl Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12.

Eastman, J. 1995. The Book ofSwamp and Bog:Trees, Shrubs, and Wildflowers ofEasternFreshwater

Wetlands. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. 237 pp.
96

Graneli, W. 1989. Influence of standing litter on shoot production in reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.)

Trin. Ex. Steudel. Aquatic Botany 35: 99-109.

Hellings, S.E. & J.L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. J.

Applied Ecol. 29: 41-49.

Holt, E.R. & R. Buchsbaum. 1999. Bird use of Phragmites australis in coastal marshes of northern

Massachusetts. In:Yale SchoolofForestryand EnvironmentalStudies, GreaterNewEngland symposium

on the ecology of invasive species:Presentations, posters, and discussion of current scientific research on

invasive animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Institute for EcosystemStudies. 1997. Compendium of Phragmites abstracts. Phragmites workshop,

Millbrook, NY, April 29, 1997.

Jontos, R., Jr. & C.P. Allan. 1984. Test salt to control Phragmites in salt marsh restoration

(Connecticut). Restoration and Management Notes 2: 32.

Magee, D.W. 1981. Freshwater Wetlands:A Guide to CommonIndicator Plants ofthe Northeast. The

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 245 pp.

Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis). Threats,

management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294.

Rilling, C. 1998a. Tidal wetland restoration--Use of the herbicide Rodeo to control common reed.

Technicalreport ofthe Connecticut Department ofEnvironmentalProtection, Office ofLong Island Sound

Programs, April 17, 1998.

Rilling, C. 1998b. Tidal wetland restoration--Use of a surfactant with herbicide Rodeo to control common

reed. Technical report of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island

Sound Programs, June 15, 1998.

Rozsa,R. 1995. Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, History, and Restoration. Dreyer, G.D.

& W.A. Niering, eds. Bulletin No. 34 of the Connecticut College Arboretum. December, 1995.

Rozsa, R. Undated. Common reed (Phragmites australis)--Invasive species profile. Office of Long

Island Sound Programs, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Unpublished.

Thompson, D.J. & J.M. Shay. 1989. First-year response of a Phragmites marshcommunityto seasonal

burning. Can. J. Bot. 67: 1448-1455.

Thompson, D.J. & J.M. Shay. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh,

Manitoba. Can. J. Bot. 63: 1964-1969.
97

Tiner,R.W.,Jr. 1987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Northeastern United States. The

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.

Tiner, R. 1998. Managing common reed (Phragmites australis) in Massachusetts: An introduction to

the species and control techniques. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for Massachusetts

Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA,

December 1998.

Vander Toorn, J. & J.H. Mook. 1982. The influence of environmental factors and management of stands

ofPhragmites australis. I. Effects of burning, frost, and insect damage on shoot densityand shootsize.

J. Applied Ecol. 19: 477-499.

Weinstein, M.P. 1996. Restoration of degraded salt marshes: The use of Rodeo for initial Phragmites

control. Prepared for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company Estuary Enhancement Program, New

Jersey, July 10, 1996.

Weis, J.S., J.Tan, C. Cherilus, L. Dounacvskaia, & C. Peterman. 1999. Phragmites or Spartina as

habitat: do the estuarine species care? In: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Greater

New England symposium on the ecology of invasive species: Presentations, posters, and discussion of

current scientific research oninvasive animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

Weisner, S.E.B. & W. Graneli. 1989. Influence of substrate conditions on the growth of Phragmites

australis after a reduction in oxygen transport to below-ground parts. Aquatic Botany 35: 71-80.

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. 1999. Greater New England symposium on the

ecology ofinvasive species:Presentations, posters, and discussionof current scientific researchoninvasive

animals and plants of the New England region, February 27, 1999.

99

APPENDIX A

FIELD AND REPORTING FORMS FOR RECOMMENDED SALT MARSH

RESTORATION MONITORING PROTOCOL

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name

Project Code

Project Location

Project Description

(project rationale, work planned)

Responsible Party

Affiliation

Contact Information Address:

Telephone # :

Fax # :

Other Involved Parties

(name, affiliation, telephone)

Please attach a site map showing photo stations, transects, quadrats, and bird observation

location(s) labeled with their assigned codes.
MONITORING INFORMATION

Date of Monitoring

Time of Monitoring Began:_______________

Concluded:_______________

Tide

(please circle one)

High Tide / Ebbing / Low Tide / Flooding

Predicted low and high tides:

Time of tidal measurements: 

Nearest tidal station: 

Weather

(temperature, wind, precipitation)

Monitor(s)

(name, affiliation)

Type of Monitoring 

(please circle one)

Pre-Construction

As-built (4-5 weeks)

Annual Post-Construction: Year 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5

Parameters Measured

(please circle all that apply)

Vegetation

Sediment

Benthic Invertebrates

Birds

Other (please describe):

Photo Monitoring Conducted?

(please indicate station codes)

Yes / No

Video Monitoring Conducted?

(please provide brief description)

Yes / No
MONITORING PARAMETERS: QUADRATS

Quadrat 1a

(______)

Quadrat 1b

(______)

Quadrat 1c

(______)

Stem Density

Mean Plant Height

Sediment Core Codes

Ribbed Mussel Count

Fiddler Crab Burrows

Other 

(please describe):

Quadrat 2a

(______)

Quadrat 2b

(______)

Quadrat 2c

(______)

Stem Density

Mean Plant Height

Sediment Core Codes

Ribbed Mussel Count

Fiddler Crab Burrows

Other 

(please describe):

Quadrat 3a

(______)

Quadrat 3b

(______)

Quadrat 3c

(______)

Stem Density 

Mean Plant Height

Sediment Core Codes

Ribbed Mussel Count

Fiddler Crab Burrows

Other 

(please describe):

Please attach sediment core analyses when lab work has been completed.
MONITORING PARAMETERS: TRANSECTS

Transect 1 (_______)

seaward landward

 

distance ____ distance 0

Notes:

Transect 2 (_______)

seaward landward

distance ____ distance 0

Notes:

Transect 3 (_______)

seaward landward

distance _____ distance 0

Notes:
MONITORING PARAMETERS: BIRD OBSERVATION

Species Abundance Location Activity Duration of Stay

Notes:
FIELD NOTES
107

APPENDIX B

WORLD WIDE WEB RESOURCES RELEVANT FOR SALT MARSH RESTORATION

109

1. New York State Department ofEnvironmentalConservation(NYS DEC)RegulatoryInformation

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/permits_level2.html

Information and application materials for NYS DEC permits can be found at this address. Tidal

wetlands permit information is found in the Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permits section.

2. New York State Assembly Consolidated Laws: Environmental Conservation

http://assembly.state.ny.us/cgi-bin/claws?law=37

Linksto text ofArticles 1-72 and associated Titles ofNew York State Consolidated Law. Article

25 is the Tidal Wetlands Act.

3. New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cstl/cstlwww.html

Information on New York’s Coastal Management Program Policies, Local Waterfront

Revitalization Programs (LWRPs), and the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) is available at

this address.

4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watersheds (OWOW)

http://www.epa.gov/owow/

This site contains information on wetland restoration, volunteer monitoring, water quality,

watersheds, marine pollution and debris, and a variety of other topics.

5. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Division of Habitat Conservation National

Wetlands Inventory

http://www.nwi.fws.gov/

The NWIsite provides downloadable data, map coverage and availability, and otherinformation.

6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS)

Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS)

http://www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/

This site provides tables of tide predictions, water level observations, and other data.
110

7. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Habitat Conservation

http://www.nmfs.gov/habitat/index.html

This page links to the Habitat Restoration Center and to information on Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH), wetlands, and other topics.

8. Coastal America Partnership National Web Site

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastalamerica/

This site provides habitat restoration project summaries and contact information for regional

Coastal America partners.

9. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) Wetland Science Institute

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/wli/

The WLI site has national practice standards and technical notes for wetland restoration, and

information on wetland assessment, delineation, and training.

10. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Waterways Experiment Station (WES)

Environmental Laboratory

http://www.wes.army.mil/el/homepage.html

Under “Research Areas and Programs” there are links to USACE pages on environmental

restoration, wetlands, dredged materials management, and other topics.

11. USDA NRCS New Hampshire

http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov/what_rest.htm

Under“EcosystemRestoration”, thereisgoodbackground information,withpictures, onsalt marsh

impacts, as well as project profiles, a report on evaluating restorable salt marshes, and other

information.

12. Parker River Clean Water Association (Byfield, MA) Tidal Crossing Handbook

http://www.parker-river.org/tides/Handbook/
111

This is a manual guiding volunteer-based tidal restriction assessment programs, containing good

background information and pictures.

13. National Estuarine Research Reserve Estuary-Net Project

http://inlet.geol.sc.edu/estnet.html

This site is mainly about volunteer-based nonpoint pollution monitoring, but contains good

background information on estuarine ecology, lists of monitoring equipment, and field data

collection forms.

14. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Weeds Management and Research Program

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/phraaust.html

This site provides pictures and HTML, Adobe, and Word versions of the Phragmites australis

Element Stewardship Abstract.

15. Environment Canada Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network 

http://www.cciw.ca/eman-temp/research/protocols/marine/

This site documents marine and estuarine biodiversity monitoring protocols used by Environment

Canada to assess fishes, phytoplankton, benthic organisms, seabirds, and other parameters.

16. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Wetland Ecology and Assessment Website

http://www.state.ma.us/czm/wastart.htm

The MCZM site provides information on wetland ecology and function, habitat assessment, and

ecological indicators. 

113

APPENDIX C

RESTORATION PROJECT TIMELINE

115

Hypothetical Timeline for a Restoration Project

Project Planning (Months 1-6)

< Define goals and objectives of the restoration project, and articulate site constraints. 

< Contactknowledgable groups(e.g.,NationalEstuaryPrograms)and State agenciesforinformation

about restoration planning in the project area. 

< Research the history of the proposed restoration site through aerial photography, historical

photography, tax map records, and other resources.

< Develop a draft restoration plan and appropriate monitoring protocol.

Permit Applications (Months 3-7)

< Contact permit staff in the proposed project area for pre-application assistance, including

representatives of:

C New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

C United States Army Corps of Engineers

C New York State Department of State Coastal Resources.

< Apply for required permits and approvals, including but not necessarily limited to: 

C Article 25 Tidal Wetlands

C Clean Water Act Section 404

C Federal Consistency Certification.

Project Design (Months 5-9)

< Conduct site surveys, including elevations, hydrology, soilsampling, vegetation, wildlife and other

parameters as appropriate.

< Draw sitemapsshowing vegetation zones and locations and codesfortransects, quadrats, wildlife

observation points, and photostations.

< Develop final restoration plan and construction documents.

Funding applications (Months 1-9)

< Apply for project planning or implementation funding if applicable.

Project Implementation (Months 9-12)

< Conduct pre-project monitoring prior to site manipulation or construction (see Monitoring

timeline).

< Conduct implementation tasks as specified in the restoration plan.
116

Monitoring

Pre-Project Monitoring (within one year prior to project implementation)

Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Aug* Sep Oct Nov De

Vegetation

Soil

Benthos

Waders

Waterfowl

Photo

Conting.

* August/September parameters need to be monitored once during this period, i.e., in either late August

or early September

As-Built Monitoring (four to five weeks after site manipulation or construction)

Photos should be taken at all photomonitoring stations. Additional parameters may be assessed at the

discretion of the Responsible Party or Regulator. Corrective measures may be developed.

Post-Project Monitoring (annually for five years after site manipulation or construction)

Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Aug* Sep Oct Nov De

Vegetation

Soil

Benthos

Waders

Waterfowl

Photo

Conting. **

* August/September parameters need to be monitored once during this period, i.e., in either late August

or early September

** Contingency monitoring should be conducted once during March/April, and as often as necessary

throughout the year, e.g., after winter storms, hurricanes, or other natural disasters
117

APPENDIX D

FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

RELATED TO WETLAND RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT

119

FEDERAL

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Act established a program for reviewing the

environmentalimpacts of activitiesthatfallwithin the jurisdiction of any federal agency. Under NEPA, the

review of agency actions can require the drafting of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These documents are the tools bywhichpotential environmental

effects of actions are identified and alternatives to the proposed actions evaluated (Silverberg and

Dennison, 1993).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA administers and enforces federal

environmental laws including NEPA, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972,

more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). § 404 of the FWPCAwas enacted to control

pollutionfromdischarges ofdredged or fill materials into waters of the United States(Kruczynski, 1990).

Wetlands are protected because they are defined as waters of the U.S.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Most New York State salt marshes are within USACE New

York District jurisdiction. The USACE implements § 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 (RHA).

Generally, the RHA requires that a landowner secure a § 10 permit from the USACE before building a

wharf, pier or other structure in any water of the United States outside established harbor lines. 

Underthe § 404 program, the USEPA and the USACE have concurrent authority over the dredging and

fillingofwatersofthe U.S., includingwetlands(Silverbergand Dennison, 1993). The USACE is the permit

authorityforthe programwhile the USEPAisresponsible for developing the environmentalguidelines used

by the USACE in its permit decisions.

To implement objectives of the CWA, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA and

the Department ofthe Army describesthe sequence ofimpact avoidance, minimization, and compensation

necessary to demonstrate compliance with § 404 guidelines. The MOA is a directive for USACE and

USEPAstaff and must be adhered to whenconsideringmitigationrequirementsfor permitted activitiesthat

will adversely affect wetlands.

National Park Service (NPS). The NPS manages a number of federal facilities that are within the marine

and estuarine districts ofNew York State, including theGatewayNationalRecreationArea and Fire Island

National Seashore. The NPS is formulating a technically-sound, habitat-specific monitoring and

management plan for the Fire Island National Seashore (NYSGI, 1993).

U.S. FishandWildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS has the regulatory authority, derived from Title

50 of the Code ofFederalRegulations, to controlmost activities within the boundaries ofNationalWildlife

Refuges. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 charged the USFWS to develop a National

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan to identify wetlands that should be acquisition priorities. It also

directs the USFWS to continue the NWI mapping project (USDOI, 1989).
120

The Cortland, New York, field office of the USFWS reviews projects within the marine and estuarine

districts of New York State requiring USACE permits. If it is determined that a proposed action will

impact wildlife,endangeredspecies,or habitat, the USFWS canrecommend mitigationmeasuresto ensure

the continued existence and protection of the resource.

NationalMarine FisheriesService (NMFS). This research and applied science agency is charged with

the protection and enhancement of fishery resources and their habitats. Responsibilities for wetlands

include review and analysis of proposed activities seaward of the high tide line and special projects

involving headwaters. 

In 1986, the U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USFWS, and the U.S. Department of

Commerce, through the NMFS, established procedures to ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize

endangered or threatened species, or modify or destroy their habitat. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance

Program. The program benefits wetlands by designating "floodways", by that means restricting

development within these areas, and by encouraging the preservation of openspace byoffering favorable

flood insurance rates (WWF, 1995). 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). The U.S. Congress enacted the CZMA, and its

subsequent amendments, to address coastal environmentalproblems, including the degradationofwetland

values and functions. While recognizing a need for development, the CZMA encouragesstate regulation

of activitiesinthe coastalzone,and usesfinancialaid and federalconsistencyasincentivesto merge national

goals into state programs (Silverbergand Dennison, 1993). The main focus of the CZMA is for each state

to resolve for its own area the basic choices among competing usesforfinite resources; in other words, to

draft its own coastal zone management (CZM) plan. A draft CZM must be approved by the secretary of

commerce. New York State has an approved CZM plan. CZMA Reauthorization Amendments require

each state with a federally approved coastal zone management (CZM) program to develop a Coastal

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program to implement coastal land use management measures for controlling

nonpoint source pollution (Silverberg and Dennison, 1993).

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA). This program uses the denial of federal assistance

essentially as a scheme to discourage new development in ecologically significant coastal areas. Wetlands

benefit because protected barrier beaches buffer them from destructive storms.

NEW YORK STATE 

State Environmental Quality ReviewAct (SEQR). Through SEQR, New York State has established

a process that requires the consideration of environmental factors early inthe planning stages ofproposed

actions involving local, regional and state agencies (NYSDEC, 1992). Like many other states, the law

closely follows the provisions of NEPA (Silverberg and Dennison, 1993), and it is possible to jointly

coordinate SEQR and NEPA reviews.
121

Just about all agencies of government are independently responsible to ensure that their discretionary

decisions are consistent with the Act. Actions involving wetlands alteration, regulation, or adjacent land

use may be subject to SEQR. The regulations have been amended to require agency actions to be

consistent with coastal policies. Specific actions in the coastal area must comply with standards of New

York State's Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). This agency protects

freshwater and tidal wetlands in New York State through its regulatory, management, and acquisition

programs. It is important to recognize that the freshwater wetland (FW) program and the tidal wetlands

(TW) program are separate and distinct. Each is empowered by unique legislation and regulation, and

program goals do differ. The FW program seeks no net loss ofwetlands, while the TW program desires

to achieve a net increase of tidal wetlands.

The TW program hasinventoried and mapped alltidal wetlands within New York State's Marine District

and instituted a regulatory scheme to protect and conserve them. The NYSDEC governs activities

conducted within or adjacent to tidal wetlands according to the provision of the TidalWetlands Land Use

Regulations. Jurisdiction can extend as much as 300 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. 

The FW program has inventoried and mapped Long Island's freshwater wetland resource. And like the

TW program, the NYSDEC protects the resource through a permit program. Unlike the TW program,

a procedure existsthat allowslocalgovernment to assume responsibilityforthe protectionofitsfreshwater

wetlands.

In1990, the New York State Legislature amended Articles 24 and 25 ofthe EnvironmentalConservation

Law, enabling the NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands programs to create the Adopt-A-Wetland

stewardship program. Interested parties can adopt a state owned wetland and perform management,

stewardship, or education activities. Only two adoptions have taken place to date (NYSDEC, 1995).

Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Program (CEHA). New York State regulations have been adopted

to control certain activities and development in mapped coastal erosion hazard areas. Implemented by

NYSDEC, their regulatoryauthoritymaybedelegatedtomunicipalitiesthatdevelopcomparable programs.

Within coastal erosion hazard areas, construction or placement of a structure, or any action or use of the

land which would materially alter its condition, requires a permit from the NYSDEC, or in the case of

program delegation, county or local government. CEHA's include natural protective features such as

beaches and dunes,sandbars and spits, barrierbays and islands, and wetlands, including associated natural

vegetation. 

Use and Protection of Waters Program. Also known as the Stream Protection Program. Article 15

ofNew YorkState'sEnvironmentalConservationLaw (ECL) providesisthe legislative basis forregulating

the constructionor repair ofwater impoundment structures, and any disturbance of a streambed,its banks,

or any excavationor fill of navigable waters. Regulated activities include the construction and placement
122

of docks and moorings, the maintenance ofdams, and the placing of piles and piers. Jurisdiction includes

navigable waters and extends to waters that have been classified according to their best use. The

excavation or filling of areas within jurisdiction requires a permit. Wetlands and areas adjacent are

protected.

State Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem(SPDES). NYSDEC regulates discharges into surface

and ground waters from industrial, commercial, and municipal users, and those of certain residential

subdivisions as well. Discharges are reviewed in light of the existence ofwetlands. NYSDEC's technical

operational guidance states that it is generally unacceptable to discharge untreated stormwater to naturally

occurring wetlands.

WaterQuality CertificationProgram. § 401 of the CWA gave the states the prerogative and authority

to regulate water quality within their borders. The NYSDEC is normally the approving authority in New

York State. § 401 requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that

may result in any discharge into navigable waters must obtain a water qualitycertificationfromthe state in

which the discharge will originate. So, actions requiring a § 404 permit will first need § 401 certification.

Water Quality Certifications are usually tied to Protection of Water permits, TidalWetlands permits, and

Freshwater Wetland permits. 

NYSDEC has received an Environmental Protection Agency grant to develop water quality standards

which would provide greater protection to wetlands. NYSDEC began drafting these standards in late

1995. They will be incorporated into New York State's water quality certification program when finalized.

Flood Control Program. The Flood Control Program is designed to achieve the reduction of flood

damages to public and natural resources. The program preserves areas which benefit water quality or

maintain biota, protects natural integrity of water bodies and drainage systems, and limits destruction of

naturalconveyance systems, ifsuchareas coincide withflood controlprojects designed primarily for flood

protection. Restrictions placed on development in flood plains offer a degree of protection to wetlands.

The program is administered by the NYSDEC. 

EndangeredSpeciesProgram. The program is administered by the NYSDEC, and pursuant to the State

Endangered Species Act,isresponsible forprotectionoffederaland state listed endangered and threatened

species. A large number of these species are associated with wetlands.

Natural Heritage Program. Established by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and now jointly funded by

themand the NYSDEC, the program's major purpose is to inventory the rare plants, animals, and natural

communities ofNew York State. A database of occurrences is maintained and the informationis used by

NYSDEC and other agencies in permit application review. 

Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System. The program applies to land use, development, or

subdivision of private lands, within designated wild, scenic and recreational river areas. A river area
123

includes the river and the land area in the river's immediate environs, not exceeding the width of one-half

mile from each bank of the river. Rivers and their immediate river area possessing outstanding natural,

ecological, recreational, aesthetic, cultural, archeological and scientific values, are eligible for special

protection under this program.

NewYork State Department of State (NYSDOS). New York State's CoastalManagement Program

(CMP) is administered by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources. The CMP was developed

pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and approved in 1982. State Executive Law

Article 42 declares that it is the public policyofthe State within its coastal area to "...conserve and protect

fish and wildlife and their habitats...preventing permanent adverse changes to ecological systems...." The

CMP ties together the numerous programs of State agencies including the protection and use of coastal

resources to ensure, in part, that all State and federal actions in the coastal area comply with enforceable

policies and purposes of the CMP.

Whenever anactivityissubjecttoState or federalconsistencywiththe CMP, the effects ofthe activitymust

be evaluatedagainst the preservationand protectionoftidaland freshwater wetlands and their benefits,and

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH). Based on a quantitative evaluation of

ecological factors, significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats are designated and mapped by NYSDOS.

Activities within and outside a SCFWH are held to strict standards to prevent impairments to their

important habitat functions or values. Approximately 120 SCFWH's have been designated in the marine

and estuarine districts of New York State. The CMP SCFWH policy states that significant coastal fish

and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so as to maintain their

viability as habitats.

NewYork State Office of General Services (OGS). OGS manages all state-owned underwater lands

and formerly underwater lands to the last known location of mean high water. Under the Public Lands

Law, most private uses of State land requires a grant, easement, or lease from OGS. Most underwater

lands, and lands formerly underwater to the last known location of mean high water, along the Atlantic

Ocean, in New York City, in Long Island Sound, and in the Peconic Bays are owned by the State, while

onLong Island most underwaterlands within harbors and inshore bays are owned by towns. Many of the

underwater lands managed by OGS are seaward of tidal wetlands. OGS can play an important role in

wetland protection by limiting coveyances of underwater lands for uses that will maintain their biological

productivity.

125

APPENDIX E

KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS

127

New York State Agencies

Department of State

Division of Coastal Resources

New York State Department of State

41 State Street, 8th Floor

Albany, NY 12231

telephone: 518-474-6000

internet: http://dos.state.ny.us/cstl/cstlwww.html

Department of Environmental Conservation

Bureau of Marine Resources Headquarters 

New York State Department of State

205 North Belle Mead Road, Suite 1

East Setauket, New York 11733

telephone: 631-444-0430 

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/marine/index.htm

Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources-Headquarters

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, NY 12233 

telephone: 518-457-5690

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/xoa1e.htm#central

Division of Environmental Permits-Headquarters

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

50 Wolf Road, Room 423 

Albany, NY 12233

telephone: 518-457-6180

Region One-Nassau and Suffolk Counties

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

SUNY-Building 40

Stony Brook, NY 11790

telephone: 631-444-0354

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/reg1/index.html
128

Regional Permit Administrator, Region One

Division of Environmental Permits 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

SUNY at Stony Brook Campus 

Loop Road 

Building 40, Room 121 

Stony Brook NY 11790

telephone: 516-444-0365

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/EP_REGIONS/region1.html

Region Two-Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

One Hunter’s Point Plaza

47-40 21st Street

Long Island City, NY 11101

telephone: 718-482-4900

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/reg2/index.html

Regional Permit Administrator, Region Two

Division of Environmental Permits

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

One Hunter’s Point Plaza

47-40 21st Street

Long Island City, NY 11101

telephone: 718-482-4997 

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/EP_REGIONS/region2.html

Region Three-Sullivan, Ulster, Orange, Dutchess, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

21 South Putt Corners Road

New Paltz, NY 12561

telephone: 914-256-3000

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/reg3/index.html

Regional Permit Administrator, Region Three

Division of Environmental Permits

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

21 South Putt Corners Road

New Paltz, NY 12561

telephone: 914-256-3054 

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/EP_REGIONS/region3.html
129

Federal Agencies

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Southern New England-New York Bight

Coastal Ecosystems Program 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Shoreline Plaza, Route 1A 

P.O. Box 307 

Charlestown, RI 02813 

telephone: 401-364-9124 

internet: http://www.fws.gov/r5snep/snep1.htm

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 21

21 Smith Road (Express Mail Only)

Shirley, NY 11967

telephone: 516-286-0485

internet: http://northeast.fws.gov/

Long Island Field Office

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 608

Islip, NY 11751

telephone: 516-581-2941

internet: http://northeast.fws.gov/

National Wetlands Inventory-Region 5

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

telephone: 413-253-8620

internet: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA Restoration Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

F/HC3 1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

telephone: 301-713-0174 

internet: http://www.nmfs.gov/habitat/restoration/nspage.html
130

Habitat Conservation Division

Northeast Regional Office

NOAA Restoration Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

telephone: 978-281-9251

internet: http://www.wh.whoi.edu/ro/doc/nero.html

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2-New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

United States Environmental Protection Agency

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007

telephone: 212-637-3000

internet: http://www.epa.gov/Region2/index.html

United States Department of Agriculture

Riverhead Service Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Riverhead County Center

Room N-210

Riverhead, NY 11901

telephone: 631-727-2315

internet: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

Highland Service Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Department of Agriculture

652 Route 299

Highland, NY 12528

telephone: 914-883-7162

internet: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

Millbrook Service Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Farm & Home Center Route 44

Millbrook, NY 12545

telephone: 914-677-3952

internet: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
131

National Estuary Programs

Long Island Sound Study

EPA LIS Office-New York

Marine Science Research Center

SUNY Stony Brook

Stony Brook, NY 11794

telephone: 631-632-9216

internet: http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/

EPA LIS Office-Connecticut

Stamford Government Center

888 Washington Boulevard

Stamford, CT 06904

(203) 977-1541

internet: http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program

US EPA Region 2 

290 Broadway 24th Floor 

New York, NY 10007

telephone: 212-637-3809

internet: http://www.hudsonriver.org/hep/

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Watershed Management

P.O. Box 418

Trenton, NJ 08625-0418

telephone: 609-633-7242

internet: http://www.hudsonriver.org/hep/

Peconic Estuary Program

Office of Ecology

Suffolk County Department of Health Services

Riverhead County Center

Riverhead, NY 11901

telephone: 631-852-2077

internet: http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/health/pep/
132

New York State Estuary Programs

Hudson River Estuary Program

Region 3-Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester Counties

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

21 South Putt Corners Road

New Paltz, New York 12561 

telephone: 914-256-3016

internet: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/hudson/hrep.html

South Shore Estuary Reserve

Division of Coastal Resources

New York State Department of State

41 State Street 

Albany, NY 12231

telephone: 518-474-6000

internet: http://dos.state.ny.us/cstl/cstlwww.html

South Shore Estuary Reserve Council

225 Main Street, Suite 2

Farmingdale, NY 11735

telephone: 631-470-BAYS (2297)

National Estuarine Research Reserves

Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 

c/o Bard College Field Station 

Annandale, NY 12504

telephone: 914-758-5193

internet: http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/reserves/nerrhudsonriver.html

Miscellaneous Contacts

New York City Parks and Recreation Department

Natural Resources Group

New York City Parks and Recreation

Arsenal North, 1234 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10029

telephone: 212-360-1417

internet: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dpr/html/boomer.html
133

Cornell Cooperative Extension

Cornell Cooperative Extension Marine Program

3690 Cedar Beach Road

Southold, NY 11971

telephone: 631-852-8660

internet: http://www.cce.cornell.edu/suffolk/index.html

New York Sea Grant

New York Sea Grant Extension Program

Cornell University

348 Roberts Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853

telephone: 607-255-2832

internet: http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/

New York Sea Grant

SUNY at Stony Brook

146 Suffolk Hall

Stony Brook, NY 11794-5002

telephone: 631-632-8730

internet: http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/

New York Sea Grant

Cornell University Laboratory

3029 Sound Avenue

Riverhead, NY 11901

telephone: 631-727-3910

internet: http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/

New York Sea Grant

10 Westbrook Lane

Kingston, NY 12401

telephone: 845-340-3983

internet: http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/

135

APPENDIX F

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals contributed to the development ofthe Salt MarshRestorationand Monitoring Guidelines

and their assistance has been greatly appreciated. I offer a profound thank youto everyone listed on this

page.

Lisa Holst, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and

MarineResources,contributedtoand carefully reviewed severalversions ofthisdocument and coordinated

all DEC staff comments. Her efforts and input were criticalto the successful completionof the Salt Marsh

Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines. A number of other DEC staff were helpful inthe development of

these guidelines: Karen Chytalo, Central Office, East Setauket; Steve Zahn, Region Two; and Karen

Graulich, Region One.

Andrew Bergen and Carl Alderson, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Natural

Resources Group, developed and provided the originalmonitoringprotocol, uponwhichthe current version

is based.

Substantial input was provided by several individuals, including: Chris Pickerell, Cornell Cooperative

ExtensionMarine Program;ChrisRilling, Connecticut Department ofEnvironmentalProtection; Ted Diers,

New Hampshire Coastal Program; Dr. Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program; and

GregoryCapobianco, New York State Department ofState DivisionofCoastalResources. Several other

Division of Coastal Resourcesstaff provided a thorough review of early drafts of this document, including:

William Barton, Walter Meyer, Vance Barr, Michael Corey, Jeffrey Zappieri, Sally Ball, Steven Resler,

and Thomas Hart.

A number of others offered extremely useful suggestions and editorial commentary on the Review Draft,

including: Dr. William Wise, Marine SciencesResearchCenter, SUNY Stony Brook; Stephen Seymour,

Lawler,Matuskyand SkellyEngineers;MichaelDonnelly, Ecology and Environment,Inc.;Robert Alpern,

New York City Department of Environmental Protection; Bernard Blum, Friends of Rockaway; Janith

Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Newington, NH; Marilyn

Jordan, The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Chapter; and Richard Groh, Town of Babylon, NY.

Expressions of support regarding the Review Draft from Marc Matsil, New York City Department of

Parks and Recreation Natural Resources Group; Omie Medford-Ryan, New York City Department of

CityPlanning; KevinBurns, New York State Office ofParks,Recreationand Historic Preservation; David

Stilwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY; and James Byrne and Karl Leupold, Department

of Public Works, Town of Oyster Bay, NY were also appreciated.

General thanks to all New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources staff for their

assistance and support during the 1997-1999 CoastalManagement Fellowship; to Jan Kucklick and Paul

Scholz at NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC for ongoing participation in Fellowship

activities; and to Stefanie Massucci and other staff at New York Sea Grant, SUNY Stony Brook for

administration of the Fellowship.