FINAL 

National Review of Innovative 

and Successful Coastal Habitat 

Restoration 

A.B. Borde 

L.K. O’Rourke 

R.M. Thom 

G.W. Williams 

H.L. Diefenderfer 

Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 

Sequim, Washington 

January 2004 

Prepared for: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Services Center 

Prepared by: 

Battelle Memorial Institute 

Contract EA1330-02-RQ-0029 

Battelle Contract 44188 

South Florida Water Management District

South Florida Water Management District

Marine Resources, Inc. California Coastal Conservancy
FINAL

NATIONAL REVIEW OF INNOVATIVE AND SUCCESSFUL 

COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION 

A.B. Borde 

L.K. O’Rourke 

G.W. Williams 

R.M. Thom 

H.L Diefenderfer 

Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 

Sequim, Washington 

January 2004 

Prepared for 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Services Center 

Contract EA1330-02-RQ-0029 

Battelle Contract 44188 

Battelle Memorial Institute 

397 Washington St. 

Duxbury, Massachusetts, 02332 
 Table of Contents 

Battelle ii Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background....................................................................................................................1 

1.1.1 Policy Framework..............................................................................................2 

1.1.2 Historical Overview...........................................................................................2 

1.1.3 Limitations of this Review.................................................................................3 

2.0 Methods...................................................................................................................................4 

3.0 Results.....................................................................................................................................5 

3.1 Restoration Research .....................................................................................................5 

3.1.1 Research Organizations and Programs ..............................................................5 

3.1.2 Salt-marsh Research...........................................................................................6 

3.1.3 Seagrass Research............................................................................................12 

3.1.4 Reef Research ..................................................................................................13 

3.1.5 Mangrove Research .........................................................................................14 

3.2 Funding and Partnerships.............................................................................................15 

3.3 Planning .......................................................................................................................18 

3.3.1 Planning Restoration in Urban Settings...........................................................19 

3.3.2 Goal Setting and Success Criteria....................................................................20 

3.3.3 Modeling..........................................................................................................21 

3.3.4 Site Selection ...................................................................................................22 

3.4 Innovative Methods and Techniques ...........................................................................26 

3.5 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................31 

3.5.1 Pre-Restoration Monitoring .............................................................................31 

3.5.2 Standard Monitoring Protocols........................................................................31 

3.5.3 Functional Assessment.....................................................................................32 

3.5.4 Long-term monitoring......................................................................................32 

3.6 Adaptive Management.................................................................................................33 

3.7 Dissemination of Information......................................................................................35 

3.7.1 Use of the Internet............................................................................................35 

3.7.2 Other Innovative Dissemination Methods .......................................................36 

3.8 Community Involvement and Education .....................................................................36 

3.8.1 Public Outreach................................................................................................37 

3.8.2 Volunteers........................................................................................................37 

3.8.3 Education .........................................................................................................38 

4.0 Discussion.............................................................................................................................39 

5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................42 

6.0 Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................42 

7.0 References.............................................................................................................................43 

7.1.1 Published Materials..........................................................................................43 

7.1.2 Sources of Unpublished Materials...................................................................53 

List of Tables 

Table 1. An example of Funding Programs and Sources for Coastal Habitat Restoration.......... 16 

Table 2. Examples of evaluation criteria for use in selecting restoration sites............................ 25 

Table 3. Innovative Coastal Restoration Techniques .................................................................. 27 
 Introduction 

Battelle 1 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

ABSTRACT 

Coastal habitat restoration is a burgeoning science, with numerous organizations participating in 

an increasing number of projects and programs across the country. Examples of innovative and 

successful components of these efforts are summarized in this review. The information on 

projects and programs was collected through expert interviews and through a nationwide review 

of scientific literature, restoration plans, and Internet sources. The examples provided cover 

many coastal habitat types from the four coasts of the United States. The review provides 

information on restoration research and the innovative and successful components of funding, 

partnerships, planning, restoration methods and techniques, monitoring, adaptive management, 

information dissemination, and community involvement. The lessons learned from the 

experiences of the many sources noted in this review are summarized at the end of the paper. 

Through this work we hope to contribute toward the success of future restoration efforts. 

1.0 Introduction 

The document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (RAE and NOAA 

2002), acknowledges that “coastal areas have much to offer one another in terms of innovative 

and successful approaches to restoration” and stresses the importance of distributing information 

and lessons learned to others involved in restoration. To that end, the objectives of this review 

were to find examples of innovative and successful coastal restoration, spanning both the broad 

geographic area of the coastal United States (U.S.) and the range of coastal habitat types, and to 

summarize the findings for use by restoration practitioners. This review is part of a larger effort 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to characterize coastal 

habitat restoration (see also Diefenderfer et al. 2003). 

The Strategy discussed above (RAE and NOAA 2002) also puts forth the following seven critical 

elements for restoring functions to coastal and estuarine habitats: 1) Habitat Restoration; 2) 

Restoration Partnerships; 3) Restoration Planning and Priority-Setting; 4) Science and 

Technology; 5) Evaluation and Monitoring; 6) Outreach and Education; and 7) Funding. The 

topics of this review are similar to those subjects, with two additional subjects discussed, 

Adaptive Management and Dissemination of Information, drawing from the systematic approach 

put forward by Diefenderfer and others (2003). In addition, Table 3 of this review provides a 

summary of innovative and successful restoration methods and techniques. The key findings of 

this review are provided in the Discussion. 

1.1 Background 

Coastal habitats are among the most productive and diverse habitats in the world. Types of 

coastal habitats vary widely across the U.S. and include salt marshes, tidal freshwater wetlands, 

seagrass meadows, mangroves, unvegetated flats, reefs, and lacustrine marshes (in the Great 

Lakes area). The loss of these resources has increased tremendously in the past century as a 

result of direct and indirect human impacts, such as increased development pressures, conversion 

to agriculture, hydrologic alterations, water quality degradation, global climate change, sea level 

rise, subsidence, sedimentation, and erosion (Watzin and Gosselink 1992; Hemminga and Duarte 
 Introduction 

Battelle 2 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

2000; Turgeon et al. 2002; Lewis III 2003a). Restoration efforts in turn have increased in 

number, scope, scale, and cost. An extreme example is in Louisiana, where over 1500 square 

miles of coastal wetlands have been lost since 1930 and the costs to implement all the proposed 

restoration strategies is estimated at $14 billion (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation & 

Restoration Task Force & Wetlands Conservation & Restoration Authority 1998). Myriad other 

cases exist throughout U.S. coastal areas with varying degrees of habitat loss and levels of 

restoration effort. 

1.1.1 Policy Framework 

Coastal habitat restoration has been enabled by numerous federal measures. Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act requires mitigation for permitted development actions that affect habitat when 

adverse effects cannot be avoided ( 2001). Compensatory mitigation can include restoration of 

degraded habitats. In 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed and a 

partnership between federal, state, and local governments was developed to try to balance the 

often competing and conflicting uses of coastal areas (NOAA 2003a). This partnership, termed 

The Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) has a broad purpose allowing funds to be used 

for a variety of coastal issues, including restoration. Two recent developments under the CZMP 

are the development of a habitat restoration network and a wetland restoration tracking program.1

 

As part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA or Superfund) of 1980/1986 and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, polluters are 

responsible for cleanup and restoration of affected resources (NOAA 2003b). Through these 

legislations, the federal government acts as a trustee for the public to ensure that injured 

resources are repaired. 

Two acts have been passed specifically to address coastal restoration. In coastal Louisiana, the 

severity of wetland losses led to enactment of the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and 

Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA) also known as the Breaux Act (USGS 2003a). In 1998, a 

strategic plan, “Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana,” was developed by federal, 

state, and local governments (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task 

Force and Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Currently a comprehensive 

coast-wide ecosystem feasibility study is being conducted (USGS 2003b). In 2000, the Estuary 

Restoration Act (ERA) was signed into law in recognition of declining estuarine conditions 

nationwide. The ERA set a goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010 and 

authorized $275 million over 5 years for restoration projects (NOAA 2003c). In addition to the 

legislation discussed above, Congress has also appropriated funds for restoration in specific 

regions, for example the Everglades, the Columbia River Estuary, and Puget Sound. 

1.1.2 Historical Overview 

The science of restoration has been developing over the past 20 years and is becoming a more 

pervasive element in society. In 1988, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) was 

established and held its first meeting in 1989 (Hughes and Bonnicksen 1990). As of 2003, SER 

had over 2000 members and it has produced a scientific peer-reviewed journal (Restoration 

Ecology) since 1993 (SER 2003). The number of journal articles related to wetland restoration 

 

1

 For more information contact: Helen Farr, NOAA/NOS/OCRM Coastal Programs Division, (301-713-3105 x150), 

helen.farr@noaa.gov 
 Introduction 

Battelle 3 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

has steadily increased since the early 1990s (Turner and Streever 2002). This increase in 

publications is indicative of the application of science to the field of restoration and the demand 

for information from practitioners in the field. A recently published book, The Restoration 

Economy: The Greatest New Growth Frontier: Immediate & Emerging Opportunities for 

Businesses, Communities & Investors by Cunningham ( 2002), documents a shift from new 

development to restorative development in both natural and built environments. 

Early coastal habitat restoration in the United States was primarily focused on salt-marsh habitat. 

In a 1981 survey conducted by Knutsen et al. (Broome 1990), the earliest documented plantings 

of saltmarsh occurred in the 1950s in Virginia to stabilize shorelines. In 1969, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers funded North Carolina State University to research the feasibility of 

saltmarsh development using dredged material. This study later incorporated research on eroding 

shoreline stabilization and techniques for propagation of two Spartina species (Broome 1990). 

Much of the early coastal marsh restoration work was conducted in North Carolina, Chesapeake 

Bay, Florida, and California as mitigation for coastal development ( 2000). Coastal restoration 

in Florida also focused on mangroves. By 1982, 14 mangrove planting projects had been 

undertaken (Lewis III 1990). More recently in Florida, attention has been given to restoring 

coral reefs damaged primarily by vessel groundings. Since the 1990s, the approach has been to 

provide immediate restoration of damaged corals; earlier studies showed that restoration efforts 

that were not timely proved less successful (Jaap 2000). Restoration of seagrass habitat was 

documented at a few sites on the east coast as early as 1944 in response to wide-spread losses 

from wasting disease (Addy 1944). Since the 1970s, seagrass restoration in all parts of the 

country has received more attention (Davis and Short 1997; Thom 1990). Merkel and Associates 

(1998) documented 45 eelgrass restoration projects on the North American Pacific Coast 

between 1976 and 1998. 

As interest in coastal habitat restoration continues to grow, the impetus for scientists and 

managers to convene and share information also increases. The Inaugural National Conference 

on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration was held in April 2003 with over 800 participants 

from every sector of the restoration community. The conference was sponsored by Restore 

America’s Estuaries (RAE), a national nonprofit organization established in 1995 committed to 

“acting as the cohesive force and guiding beacon for coastal and estuarine habitat restoration 

across the country (RAE 2002).” Through conferences such as this, the knowledge base is 

increasing as we are learning from experience and developing new technologies. 

1.1.3 Limitations of this Review 

The information provided here is not exhaustive, but provides numerous examples of innovative 

and successful approaches to coastal habitat restoration. Topics not covered in this review 

include habitat creation, bioremediation, and species restoration (sometimes termed 

enhancement). Beach nourishment was covered in another characterization study and is also not 

discussed here. 
 Methods 

Battelle 4 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

2.0 Methods 

Literature reviews, Internet searches, and surveys of experts were used to gather information for 

this review. The literature searched was available in Current Contents, referenced in key 

documents, or recommended by experts. Over 550 citations, including scientific journals, books, 

technical reports, and conference proceedings, were entered into ProCite, a citation database. Of 

these, 358 citations spanned the time period from 1998 to present. This review focused on the 

most recent five years to provide information on the most recent innovations in coastal 

restoration. 

The Internet search was conducted by targeting Web sites known to have information on coastal 

habitat restoration, connecting to links found on those sites, and conducting keyword searches 

using various search engines. 

The final method of information gathering was through surveying experts in coastal habitat 

restoration. A preliminary list of known experts was compiled. These individuals were then 

contacted to gain an overview of restoration efforts in each geographic region and various habitat 

types. From this overview, additional contacts were made to get more specific information 

regarding innovative and successful approaches, techniques, projects, and programs. 
 Results 

Battelle 5 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.0 Results 

The results of our review generally fall into the categories of restoration research or innovative 

and successful components of restoration projects. First we discuss many examples of 

restoration research. Second, we provide examples of projects that had innovative components 

for funding, partnerships, planning, monitoring, adaptive management, dissemination of 

information, and community involvement and education. Table 3 provides a summary of 

innovative coastal restoration techniques and methods. 

3.1 Restoration Research 

Adequate assessment of coastal restoration requires not only a long-term, systematic approach to 

monitoring, but also a coordinated experimental research program to explain patterns that 

emerge from the data (Zedler 2001). By incorporating the principles of adaptive management 

into the experimental approach, scientists can provide information and suggestions that are 

considered in management decisions (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Walters and Holling 1990, 

Thom 1997, Thom 2000). The process suggests corrective measures and can lead to improved 

restoration results in future efforts in similar ecosystems. In the absence of highly predictable 

outcomes, restoration sites offer important opportunities to learn by doing. As such, some of the 

most effective restoration programs integrate pilot studies or experimental designs into their 

monitoring programs prior to restoration implementation. 

3.1.1 Research Organizations and Programs 

A number of unique models exist wherein experimental research has become an integral 

component of successful restoration projects. In general, the ingredients for a successful 

program include a large funding base, a stable knowledge base (i.e., institutional knowledge), 

ongoing monitoring programs, and extensive resources for field studies (i.e., labor and 

equipment). Most often, these circumstances coalesce in a university setting, with leadership 

provided by a prominent faculty member with a number of supporting graduate students, 

postdoctoral associates, and collaborators. Often these programs integrate National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (NERR) support and study sites. Prominent examples include Rutgers 

University programs involved in Delaware Bay marsh restoration through the Public Service 

Enterprise Group (Weinstein et al. 1997), and research conducted by San Diego State 

University’s Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL) on southern California wetlands 

under sponsorship of the Earth Island Institute (Zedler 1996; Zedler 2001). Other research 

institutions involved in coastal restoration research include the following: 

• NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina 

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, 

Louisiana 

• National Coral Reef Institute, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

• Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston, Oregon 

• Jackson Estuarine Lab, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 

• Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester Point, Virginia 

• Wetland Ecosystem Team, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 

• Coastal Research Lab, University of New Orleans, Louisiana. 
 Results 

Battelle 6 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Several federally funded, nationally and regionally significant programs have been instituted to 

promote the study and protection of estuarine areas, the development of restoration tools and 

technologies, and communication and educational outreach. These programs, discussed below, 

offer opportunities for research, collaboration, and restoration project funding. 

The previously mentioned NERR program was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972 to protect and study estuarine areas through a network of 25 reserves from different 

biogeographic regions of the United States (NOAA 2003e). One focus topic for the program is 

habitat restoration (NOAA 2004a). An inventory of restoration activities within the NERR 

program is currently underway (Crawford 2003). 

The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) 

supports the scientific development of innovative technologies for understanding and reversing 

the impacts of coastal and estuarine contamination and degradation (CICEET 2003). This 

research includes finding new approaches for restoring coastal habitats. 

The Coastal Restoration and Enhancement through Science and Technology (CREST) program 

in Louisiana and Mississippi is a research initiative developed through an alliance between 

NOAA, 11 universities, and the USGS National Wetlands Research Center. The program office 

opened in 2002, and the first call for proposals is expected in 2003. The goal of the program is 

to integrate research toward improving coastal habitat restoration through the following: 

• better coordination of programs and projects 

• assessment and improvement of existing methods 

• development of new approaches and modeling 

• improvement of tools, communications, and outreach 

• increased understanding between scientists, managers, and the public (Chapman 2003). 

The NOAA Restoration Research Program, part of the NOAA Restoration Center, was 

developed to advance the science of restoration ecology in coastal habitats (NOAA 2003f). The 

program supports research on coastal ecosystem structure and function, and focuses on studying 

the recovery process of restored coastal habitats, developing and testing innovative restoration 

methods, and establishing success criteria and monitoring protocols. NOAA staff work in 

partnership with the scientific community to provide expertise and develop improved restoration 

techniques. 

Various studies organized by habitat type, are discussed in the sections below. The studies were 

selected because they improve the understanding and methodology of restoration and were 

presented in the published literature and at scientific conferences. 

3.1.2 Salt-marsh Research 

3.1.2.1 Hydrological restoration and tidal channel development 

Natural hydrology is necessary for restoring functional coastal marshes, and this is often 

accomplished by returning tidal inundation via breach or removal of barriers such as dikes and 

levees, or excavation of fill. A recent journal issue (i.e., Restoration Ecology Vol. 10, 2002) was 

dedicated to exploring the potential and pitfalls of dike/levee breach restoration projects, 
 Results 

Battelle 7 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

including examination of experimental manipulations that have been useful for designing and 

evaluating these projects. 

The Model Marsh project in the Tijuana Estuary, California, is providing researchers with an 

opportunity to develop a better understanding of how marsh channels develop following 

reintroduction of tidal hydrology to a system (Zedler 2001). Tidal channels are one of the most 

difficult aspects of a system to predict or design. In the Model Marsh, part of the system is 

divided into two treatments (each replicated three times). In one treatment, channels were dug to 

mimic what was understood to be natural channel morphology for this type of system. The 

second treatment allows self-design, in which channels develop naturally under the existing tidal 

hydrology. The rate, pattern, and morphology of the channels will be assessed through time, 

along with the role of marsh-plant colonization and fish use. 

A number of studies shed light on how hydraulic-geometry relationships and monitoring of 

physical evolution can assist in the planning of regionally specific tidal wetland restoration 

projects. Zeff (1999) examines tidal salt-marsh channel morphometry in New Jersey and 

identifies principles that can be applied to the design and construction of channel networks in 

tidal-marsh creation and restoration projects. Williams and Orr (2002) analyzes the rate and 

pattern of evolution of vegetated marsh plains and tidal channels in 15 formerly leveed saltmarsh sites in San Francisco Bay. In this study, vegetation establishment was retarded in sites 

that had limited suspended-sediment supply, high wind-wave erosion, and restricted tidal 

exchange. Williams and Orr (2002) also found that formation of marsh tidal channels was 

greatly dependent on whether and how high the site was filled before breaching, reporting little 

channel development at high intertidal sites. In a second San Francisco Bay study, Williams et 

al. (2002) provides hydraulic, geometric relationships for predicting the depth, width, and crosssectional area of mature tidal channels as functions of contributing marsh area or tidal prism. 

These relationships can be used to predict the direction and rate of evolution in an immature or 

perturbed system. 

Hydraulic geometry and other indices provide useful guidelines for physical restoration and 

creation of estuarine tidal channels but do not clarify the ecological consequences of channel 

form. To provide this linkage, Hood (2002) investigated whether slough geometry is scaled in 

parallel with ecological processes, including current velocities, detritus export, organic matter 

deposition, and benthic community composition. Hood found that organic material in bottom 

sediment scaled negatively with channel size, as did the abundance of benthic-surface deposit 

feeders, suggesting that fish-feeding functions could be concentrated in smaller channels or the 

distal portions of large channels. Similarly, Williams and Zedler (1999) linked fish assemblage 

composition to channel morphology in a series of restored and natural marsh channels in San 

Diego Bay. Findings from this study highlight the importance of choosing proper assessment 

criteria and reference sites to avoid misleading interpretations of restoration success. 

Restoration of tidal hydrology should proceed with caution in some situations because 

biogeochemical processes that mobilize nutrients and other elements can have temporary 

detrimental effects to water quality, soil nutrient levels, and plant vigor. For example, salt-marsh 

cores from diked and ditched salt marshes in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, were exposed to 

experimental treatments in greenhouse mesocosms (Portnoy 1999). This study found that 
 Results 

Battelle 8 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

salination of drained peat increased porewater pH, ammonium, and iron, and caused increased 

sulfate reduction that led to significant subsidence and decreased vigor of transplanted Spartina 

alterniflora. 

3.1.2.2 Elevation manipulation 

In a study by Cornu and Sadro (2002), the marsh surface of a diked and subsided estuarine 

wetland in Coos Bay, Oregon, was manipulated to examine structural and functional recovery at 

three intertidal elevations. Results demonstrated that marsh surface elevations subsided at all 

three treatments, primarily as a consequence of fill consolidation, with vertical sediment 

accretion driven largely by marsh vegetation density. Tidal-channel development was influenced 

by marsh surface gradient as much as by marsh surface elevation. 

The use of dredged material has been used in numerous ways to offset marsh deterioration or to 

create proper elevations for marsh creation. For example, to offset the decrease in marsh 

elevation in North Carolina due to sediment deficits and sea-level rise, a thin layer of dredged 

material was applied using high-pressure spray dredging (Leonard et al. 2002). The dredged 

material was added such that the thickness of added sediment ranged from 0 cm to 10 cm in four 

40 m2

 plots of both deteriorating and non-deteriorating marsh. The results of the study indicate 

that both plant stem densities and microalgal biomass increased with the addition of sediment. 

Their study also suggests that further research is needed to determine an upper limit for the 

effective thickness of added sediment. Another project using high-pressure spray dredging was 

effectively employed in Louisiana on a larger-scale plot (0.5 ha) to offset wetlands losses due to 

subsidence (Ford et al. 1999). The dredged material was applied to both vegetated marshes and 

shallow water areas adjacent to marshes (i.e., previously vegetated marshes). The results showed 

that the material enhanced vegetative cover in the marsh and emergent vegetation growth in the 

shallow water areas. However, shallow subsidence and erosion were concerns in the shallow 

water areas. 

In the Sonoma Baylands restoration project, California, dredged material was used as a 

supplement to subsidence in previously diked marshes (Marcus 2000). The study estimated that 

the use of dredged material reduced the time needed for habitat development by several decades. 

Dredged material is also currently being used successfully in technologies such as geo-textile 

stabilization tubes, marsh terracing, barrier-island creation, shallow-water enhancement (see 

Section 3.4 for more information). 

The effectiveness of using dredged material for creating or restoring salt marshes has been 

evaluated in numerous studies. For example, in southwest Louisiana wetland structural 

characteristics were compared in three natural and four created marshes ranging in age from 3 to 

19 years (Edwards and Proffitt 2003). This study found that as created marshes age several 

structural characteristics approach the levels found in natural marshes. Specifically, vegetation 

species composition was similar to those found in natural marshes within a few years and also 

developed along a predictable successional path. However, the percent of organic matter and the 

bulk densities of the soils were quite different than those of the natural marsh and the authors 

speculate that it may take several decades for the values to be similar to those in a natural marsh. 

In Galveston Bay, researchers are experimenting with various marsh configurations of dredge-
 Results 

Battelle 9 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

material marshes to evaluate the effect of landscape on functional value (Minello and Rozas 

2002; Rozas and Minello 2001). 

The use of dredged material in salt marsh restoration poses many advantages, however numerous 

factors should be considered in determining whether dredged material should be used for 

restoration. In a study by Edwards and Proffitt (2003) the dredged material was composed of 

silty clay (30-65% clay) compared to some other dredge-filled created marshes that used sandier 

substrates. The authors speculate that the higher clay content may contain greater initial nutrient 

levels and thus may encourage more rapid vegetation growth. Turner and Streever (2002) 

recommend that the suitability of the dredged sediment be considered during the planning stages 

of restoration. Specifically, the authors recommend that contaminated sediment should not be 

used and caution that the use of clays and silts usually require construction of confining dikes. 

3.1.2.3 Plant propagation and reintroduction 

A common area of experimental research has focused on increasing the establishment, growth, 

and functional benefits of native salt-marsh vegetation. Soil amendments, including organic 

matter (e.g., composted kelp and municipal sewage sludge) or inorganic fertilizers (e.g., urea or 

ammonium nitrate), are experimental treatments that have been used in restoration sites with 

coarse soils, such as dredge spoils or sandy upland areas, where nitrogen is limiting (Callaway 

2001). Boyer and Zedler (1999) found nitrogen additions increased Spartina foliosa growth in 

the short-term, but few long-term impacts on aboveground growth. Added nitrogen also 

promoted growth of the annual, Salicornia bigelovii, over S. foliosa (Boyer and Zedler 1999), 

although it did not appear to promote accumulation of soil organic matter or nutrients in the 

long-term (Boyer et al. 2000). Preliminary findings in other ongoing studies have suggested that 

organic matter amendments, such as alfalfa, peat, kelp, or sewage, may “jumpstart” the marsh 

food chain by encouraging greater microbial growth (Levin and Currin 2002). Soil enrichment 

and propagation techniques compared in Seal Beach, California, to test establishment of 

pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) suggest that pickleweed mulch rototilled into the soil increases 

establishment over transplanting and cuttings (Disney and Miles 2000). 

The use of seedlings continues to be an effective approach for establishing diverse salt-marsh 

vegetation in smaller restoration projects. Empirical studies have compared the effects of species 

diversity on ecosystem function (Sullivan 2001; 2001). Findings from these studies support the 

general hypothesis that diversity is important in southern California marsh restoration sites, with 

high-diversity plantings resulting in more complex canopies, increased biomass, and increased 

nitrogen accumulation. In a study by Lindig-Cisneros and Zedler (2002), natural seedling 

recruitment was evaluated in a restored salt marsh as a function of established plant-species 

diversity. Abiotic effects (i.e., elevation, salinity, and canopy cover) preceded biotic interactions 

in determining recruitment early in marsh development, although species richness did have a 

scale-dependent effect on overall recruitment. Results from this study indicate that natural 

dispersal of seeds at a restoration site can be maximized by introducing tidal inundation in early 

winter before all seeds have dropped, when high spring tides could disperse seeds, and when 

rainfall might lower salinities and enhance germination. 

Researchers in southwestern Louisiana have evaluated the genetic diversity of native plant 

species that have been allowed to recolonize large expanses of mud flats constructed from 
 Results 

Battelle 10 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

dredged sediments (Travis et al. 2002). The study was conducted on three restored marshes with 

ages of 1, 4, and 14 years at the time of sampling. Overall, they found that restored populations 

of Spartina alterniflora maintained levels of genetic diversity comparable with natural 

populations. The researches also theorize that natural recolonization may actually stimulate an 

increase in genetic diversity relative to natural marshes occupying neighboring sites. 

Biotechnology and classical plant improvement methods are currently being evaluated for use in 

salt-marsh restoration activities through cooperative efforts of scientists from Louisiana State 

University and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The objectives of the 

program are to develop a seed-based system of propagating Spartina alterniflora over large areas 

and to genetically improve the performance of this species (Harrison et al. 2001). Specific 

ongoing research efforts are focusing on seed encapsulation techniques and evaluation of clones 

with high seedling vigor and exceptional resistance to disease (Croughan et al. 2002). 

3.1.2.4 Functional Assessment 

Research on monitoring methods often is focused on determining the functions provided by a 

restored habitat and comparing the functions to those provided by natural systems. The 

discussion below is primarily focused on the various functions that salt marshes provide for fish. 

Other functional assessments can include the use of habitat by birds and mammals, the 

production of invertebrates, the ability to improve water quality, or the reduction in shoreline 

erosion. 

One novel method to assess ecological function is through the evaluation of bacterial activity in 

transforming organic matter into available forms for secondary consumers. Researchers have 

found that bacterial growth efficiency (BGE) is an indicator of ecosystem function, where 

pristine marshes have the highest BGE (del Giorgio and Newell 2002). The researchers 

conducted long term monitoring of BGE in both natural and restored marshes and determined 

that restored marshes have a lower BGE then natural marshes. While there may be a trend in 

restored marshes toward the values observed in natural marshes, the restored systems continued 

to have a lower BGE over the six-year study period. These results suggest that there are 

considerable differences in elemental and organic carbon cycling between restored and natural 

marshes. 

Studies often monitor both the opportunity for fishes to access restored habitats and the capacity 

of these habitats to promote fish resilience and production (Simenstad and Cordell 2000). Most 

research has shown that restoration of tidal flows in previously restricted salt-marsh habitats 

result in rapid changes in the composition, density, size, and distribution of fish and crustacean 

species (Able et al. 2000;Raposa 2002) although the degree of tidal restriction may also 

influence parameters of community composition (Raposa and Roman 2003). In some cases, 

assemblage development may peak soon after restoration, then later decline as sediment and 

hydrologic processes of a site change and stabilize (Williams and Zedler 1999; Williams and 

Desmond 2001). In other cases, assemblage structure may be relatively simple in terms of 

species richness and trophic composition immediately after restoration, and may take a decade or 

more to approach more natural systems (Simenstad and Thom 1996; Warren et al. 2002). 
 Results 

Battelle 11 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Landscape characteristics within the marsh can also effect marsh function for fish access and 

use. Research in Texas and Louisiana continues to assess habitat values for fishery species of 

dredged material marshes in various landscape configurations using terracing(Minello and Rozas 

2002; Rozas and Minello 2001). This method of salt marsh restoration involves the creation of 

ridges in some pattern that maximizes intertidal edge and minimizes fetch between ridges, with 

the intertidal areas planted with marsh vegetation. The researchers found that while the terrace 

marsh was not functionally equivalent to the natural marsh for fishery species, the terrace field 

supported higher standing crops of most fishery species compared with shallow marsh ponds of 

similar size (Rozas and Minello 2001). The study recommends that future terracing projects 

should increase the proportion of marsh in a terrace field to enhance the habitat value for fishery 

species. In Chesapeake Bay, ongoing studies have started to evaluate whether different planting 

configurations of Spartina alterniflora in restored areas of Eastern Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge influence access to the marsh surface by fish (NOAA 2003g). 

Empirical studies are increasingly being used to confirm the value of restored salt-marsh habitats 

in terms of realized survival and growth to fishes. Miller and Simenstad (Miller and Simenstad 

1997) detected no significant differences in the relative growth of juvenile Pacific salmon in a 

created estuarine slough as compared with a natural reference site using fish otolith 

microstructure. In Delaware Bay, an intensive mark-and-recapture program with coded wire tags 

determined that growth and production of mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) appeared higher 

in a restored marsh than in previous studies in natural marshes (Teo and Able 2003). 

Bioenergetics models that estimate growth of fishes under various conditions (Gray et al. 2002) 

(e.g., temperature and other physicochemical measurements during fish occupation) have also 

been proposed as a tool for designing coastal wetland restoration projects (Madon et al. 2001). 

Researchers at the University of Washington are currently using these mass-balance models to 

determine how estuarine marsh habitats in different stages of recovery contribute to the growth 

of juvenile salmon (Gray 2003). 

Food-web relationships and fish feeding have also been explored in empirical studies that 

examine the functional benefits of restored salt-marsh habitats. As with the previous studies, 

results vary by site. Tupper and Able (2000) found that creek utilization and diets of striped bass 

were similar between natural and restored Delaware marsh habitats. However, juvenile 

salmonids occupying restoration sites in southwest Washington (Miller and Simenstad 1997) 

showed diet composition different from what might be expected in natural reference systems. 

Restoration sites of different age may reflect differences in fish prey and diets as these systems 

develop and mature (Gray, Simenstad, Bottom, and Cornwell 2002;Simenstad and Cordell 

2000). Stable isotope methods developed as a tool for the analysis of food webs in tidal saltmarsh systems (Kwak and Zedler 1997;Page 1997;Weinstein et al. 2000) are also beginning to 

be used to assess recovery of trophic function in created or restored systems (Levin and Currin 

2002). 

In summary, these studies indicate that overall restored salt marshes are providing fish access to 

usable habitat and the systems are functioning to increase growth, production, and resilience of 

fish populations. However, in some cases restored systems may be structurally and/or 

functionally different from natural marshes. Continued research will help determine whether 

improved restoration methods could improve functional equivalency. 
 Results 

Battelle 12 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.1.3 Seagrass Research 

Seagrass restoration research has evaluated the effects of restoration on seagrass genetics, 

methods to improve the cost effectiveness of seagrass restoration, and ways to improve the 

conditions for seagrass growth. 

3.1.3.1 Genetics 

Several studies have looked at the effects of transplanting seagrasses on genetic diversity in 

Chesapeake Bay and southern California (Williams 1997; Williams and Orth 1998; Williams 

2001). Findings indicate that transplanted beds were not reduced in genetic diversity compared 

to natural beds and the use of seeds as donor material could improve the genetic diversity of 

restored areas. In addition, there is a positive association between genetic diversity and 

propagation. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) populations with higher genetic diversity developed 

more flowering shoots, achieved greater seed germination, and had a higher leaf-shoot density. 

3.1.3.2 Transplant Methods 

Transplanting adult eelgrass plants has been the focus of many restoration efforts (Davis and 

Short 1997; Fonseca et al. 1998; Calumpong and Fonseca 2001). Recent research has primarily 

centered on finding more successful and cost-effective techniques. Short (2003) has developed 

the Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame System (TERFS). Two hundred eelgrass 

shoots are tied with biodegradable ties to a 50- by 50-cm, plastic-coated wire frame, which is 

then dropped into position from a boat. Several weeks later, after the ties have degraded, the 

frames are removed and the shoots remain in place. Three out of four one-acre sites continue to 

show an increase in eelgrass shoot abundance after preliminary monitoring, with failure in the 

fourth attributed to an algal bloom smothering the plants (Short 2003). 

Propeller scarring and vessel groundings have caused considerable damage to seagrass beds in 

Florida. Two methods have been tested to determine an effective means of restoring the 

damaged areas are 1) the use of sediment-filled tubes and 2) the placement of bird stakes to 

promote natural fertilization in transplant areas. The use of sediment-filled, biodegradable, 

fabric tubes to fill propeller scars in seagrass beds was tested to see if they enhance or prevent 

seagrass recovery (Hammerstrom 2003). Early results indicate that the sediment tubes are an 

effective means of deploying fine sediment and preventing further erosion in the propeller scars. 

The second method tested in propeller-scarred areas is transplanting fast-growing seagrasses in 

damaged areas among bird roosting stakes (Kenworthy 2003). The theory is that while roosting, 

the birds defecate into the water where the seagrasses are planted, and Halodule wrightii, a 

colonizing species, uses the nutrients and rapidly covers the damaged bottom. After 1.5 to 2 

years, the stakes are removed and the slower growing, climax species reestablish. The idea can 

be thought of as a compressed succession in which recovery is accelerated by fertilizing the 

faster growing species that naturally occur but are normally in lower abundance than the climax 

species, Thalassia testudinum. This method was tested against application of water-soluble 

fertilizers and plant-growth hormones. The results indicated that the fertilizer application 

technique failed to increase the recovery rate of T. testudinum or H. wrightii, whereas the bird 

stakes produced extremely high recovery rates for H. wrightii (Kenworthy et al. 2000). 
 Results 

Battelle 13 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.1.3.3 Seeds 

Recent research has begun to focus on the use of seeds for restoration to reduce costs and 

promote larger-scale restoration efforts. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island (Nixon et 

al. 2002) have developed a mechanized underwater seed planter to efficiently plant large areas of 

eelgrass. The system is comprised of a pump, similar to that used to fill jelly donuts, mounted on 

a sled that is pulled along the sediment. The seeds are mixed with a planting media then pumped 

just below the sediment surface. Current research is comparing organic and inorganic planting 

media to reduce anoxia and increase resulting seed germination (Nixon et al., 2002). 

Harwell and Orth (1999) tested the effectiveness of burlap bags (1.0-mm mesh size) to protect 

seeds from predation, burial, or lateral transport. The results showed that seeds survived better to 

the seedling stage with protection (41% to 56%) than without protection (5% to 15%). Seeds 

planted in the laboratory with and without bags had similar seedling survival (50% in both 

treatments), indicating that predation and transport may be causes for the differences observed in 

the field trials. 

A method for eelgrass restoration that shows considerable promise is being tested by Orth (2003) 

in Chesapeake Bay. In this large-scale experiment, a total of 9.1 million seeds were broadcast 

from a boat over 74 one-acre (0.4-ha) plots. Preliminary results showed that the eelgrass plots 

were visible in aerial photos after eight months. The use of seeds for seagrass restoration will 

likely be the focus of further research in efforts to decrease the costs of seagrass restoration. 

3.1.3.4 Improving light conditions under docks and piers 

Improving light under docks is one method of restoring conditions conducive to seagrasses 

growth. Blanton et al. (2002) compared the relative amount of light produced by deck prisms, 

solar tunnels, and metal halide lights. Recommendations considered many variables, including 

the height of the deck above the water surface, maintenance, structural integrity, and costs; the 

solar tunnels proved to be the best overall alternative. Another study examined the effectiveness 

of reflective material under a dock to reflect light from the water surface to depths where 

seagrasses grow (Gayaldo et al. 2001). These results indicated a positive correlation between the 

placement of the material and improved survival of the seagrass. A study in Florida looked at 

the use of deck prisms for increasing light under docks in a freshwater system and found a 

consistently higher percentage of vegetation cover under docks with deck prisms than under 

those without (McKinney 2001). 

In summary, the research discussed above is focused on improving the conditions for seagrass 

growth and the cost effectiveness of planting techniques. Through these efforts, seagrass habitat 

restoration is likely to become more successful and able to occur on a larger scale than in the 

past. 

3.1.4 Reef Research 

3.1.4.1 Coral reef 

One theme that emerged at the International Conference on the Scientific Aspects of Coral Reef 

Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration in 1999 (Thomas 2001) was the need to conduct 

hypothesis-based research into the efficacy of methods for coral-reef restoration and 
 Results 

Battelle 14 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

rehabilitation. One method being evaluated is transplanting donor stock, either collected or 

grown, to natural and artificial substrates. Studies by Rinkevich and others describe the 

mariculture of clonal coral fragments in protected areas for eventual transplanting to denuded 

areas of the reef, as well as the transplanting and growth of gravid colonies in the field or the 

laboratory to increase the diversity of sites restored by transplanting (Rinkevich 1995; Epstein et 

al. 2001). 

The National Coral Reef Institute has several studies under way in South Florida, some located at 

ship-grounding sites (Gilliam et al. 2003; Glynn et al. 2003; Quinn et al. 2003). These 

experiments evaluate the use of potential coral-larvae attractants, such as iron additive, CaCO3, 

and coral transplants to enhance larval recruitment. They also evaluate the effects of structural 

complexity affixed to Reef BallsTM (i.e., concrete structures) on fish assemblages, and the 

interaction between fish assemblages and coral recruitment. Monitoring is being conducted at 

both the transplanted areas and the coral communities from which donor cores were extracted. 

The potential benefits of coral transplants are critically evaluated in a global review of projects 

by Edwards and Clark (1998), which argues that transplanting should be carried out only when 

natural recovery processes fail. The authors do, however, identify some exceptions to the rule. 

One key finding of their study is that because branching corals (e.g., Acropora, Pocillopora) 

naturally recruit rapidly but transplant relatively poorly, there is little justification for 

transplanting. In contrast, massive species (e.g., Porites, Pavona) recruit slowly, grow slowly, 

and transplant well, suggesting that these species make better subjects for transplantation. 

3.1.4.2 Oyster reef 

Scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science use oyster reef restoration projects to 

conduct research on reef biology, community development, and trophic dynamics. These studies 

provide insight into the success of the restoration in mirroring ecological function provided by 

historically prevalent oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay. Harding (2001) examined the horizontal 

spatial and temporal variation in zooplankton community abundance and composition at a 

restored oyster reef in a Chesapeake Bay estuary as a potential metric of restoration progress 

over time. Zooplankton communities are an important component of intermediate trophic levels 

in estuarine food webs. The seasonal abundance patterns and community composition 

documented at this restored reef site were similar to that observed in other mid- and south 

Atlantic estuaries. 

3.1.5 Mangrove Research 

3.1.5.1 Hydrology 

An Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program technical note (Lewis and Streever 

2000), shows that hydrology is the most critical factor in mangrove restoration, as demonstrated 

by the reestablishment of all three Florida mangrove species at West Lake near Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida, in just 78 months after hydrologic restoration without any planting. Research on this 

and other systems shows that although restoration managers have frequently tried planting first, a 

better approach is to “determine the causes for mangrove loss, remove these causes, and work 

with natural recovery processes.” Typically, the cause of mangrove loss is altered hydrology, so 

it is concluded that planting should only be used as a restoration tool when tidal hydrology has 

been reestablished and if waterborne seeds or seedlings will not reach the restoration site. Only 
 Results 

Battelle 15 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

15 to 30 years are required for self-repair or secondary succession if normal hydrology and 

propagules from adjacent stands are present, and dense mangrove shrubs can develop within 5 

years of plant establishment. Lewis and Streever (2000) provides five steps critical to successful 

mangrove restoration, which are abbreviated here: 1) understand the ecology of local mangrove 

species (especially patterns of reproduction, propagule distribution, and successful seedling 

establishment), 2) understand the normal hydrologic patterns, 3) assess habitat modifications 

preventing natural secondary succession, 4) design a restoration program to restore hydrology 

and, if possible, utilize natural recruitment, and 5) plant only if natural recruitment will not meet 

the objectives of the restoration project. This approach has been successfully applied in the 

Cross Bayou Mangrove Restoration Site in Pinellas County, Florida, as mitigation for the Tampa 

Bay oil spill of August 10, 1993, which after 2 years of monitoring was rapidly achieving the 

performance criteria (Lewis III 2003b). 

3.1.5.2 Plantings 

Mangrove plantings have typically resulted in monocultures because of the ease with which the 

propagules of the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) are collected and transplanted (Gayaldo 

2003). Natural regeneration tends to result in a community of mangrove species that more 

closely represents nearby communities, which may be similar to the original mangrove 

vegetation in the area (Field 1998). According to Field (1998), only about 30% of mangrove 

species have been used in planting projects. However, while monoculture is less desirable than a 

more natural assemblage of species for various ecological reasons, establishing mangroves may 

be desirable for stabilizing shorelines (e.g. along boat channels experiencing erosion or on the 

shore of a new dredge-spoil island). Fortunately, species can be allowed to self-sort along 

environmental gradients during reestablishment of mangroves, without competition from 

invasive species, because of the limited species pool that is adapted to the extremes of the 

mangrove environment such as salinity and flooding (Lugo 1998). 

In summary, restoration research is an important aspect of restoration. Experimentation should 

be incorporated in a restoration project or program whenever possible. The results of research 

efforts are helping to reduce uncertainties associated with restoration, improve the costeffectiveness of projects, and develop better implementation methods and assessment techniques. 

3.2 Funding and Partnerships 

As the scope and scale of coastal habitat restoration increase, so too does the cost of such efforts. 

Legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, CWPPRA, and the 

Estuary Restoration Act of 2000, has enabled the appropriation of millions of federal dollars for 

coastal restoration through a wide range of funding programs. A majority of these programs 

require participation from a variety of groups at the regional, state, and local levels – both public 

and private. Many funding programs provide matching grants on a competitive basis. Other 

programs provide low-cost financing for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects. 

Many also provide assistance to create and expand sources for public funding. Table 1 lists 

examples of federal funding programs. Further guidance on federal funding programs that 

support the restoration goals of the Estuary Restoration Act is provided at NOAA’s Estuary 

Restoration Act Web site (NOAA 2003d). This site provides a searchable database and the 

document: “Funding for Habitat Restoration Projects: A Citizen’s Guide.” 
 Results 

Battelle 16 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 1. An example of Funding Programs and Sources for Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Primary Sponsor(s) Program Description URL 

Federal Programs 

Coastal America Corporate 

Wetlands 

Restoration 

Partnership 

(CWRP) 

A voluntary public-private partnership to restore 

wetlands and other aquatic habitats in the U.S. 

Partners include private industry, the federal 

office of the Coastal America Partnership 

(representing 12 federal departments and 

agencies), state agencies, non-profit 

organizations, and academia. Industry 

contributions generally will be matched by 

federal/state funds on an average 4:1 ratio. 

http://www.coastalameric

a.gov/text/cwrp.html 

Natural Resources 

Conservation 

Service 

Farm Bill 2002 Wetlands Reserve Program: Provides technical 

and financial assistance to landowners and tribes 

to enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring 

marginal agricultural land. Other programs are 

also available. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/farmbill/2002/ 

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA) 

Community-based 

Restoration 

Program 

The NOAA Restoration Center provides 

matching funds for projects through a 

competitive review process. Projects are 

selected based on technical merit, level of 

community involvement, ecological benefits, 

and partnership opportunities. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.go

v/habitat/restoration

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

and NOAA 

Fisheries 

Five Star 

Restoration 

Program 

Provides modest funding on a competitive basis 

to support community-based wetlands 

restoration. Projects ideally engage five or more 

diverse partners to contribute funding, land, 

technical assistance, workforce support, or other 

in-kind services. 

http://www.epa.gov/owo

w/wetlands/restore/5star/ 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund 

(SRF) 

Each state and Puerto Rico maintain revolving 

loan funds to provide low-cost financing for a 

variety of water-quality and estuary 

management projects. Although most grant 

programs require cost shares, an SRF loan can 

cover 100% of project costs with no preliminary 

cash outlay. 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/

cwfinance/cwsrf/

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

National Coastal 

Wetlands 

Conservation Grant 

Program 

Provides matching grants for acquisition, 

restoration, management, or enhancement of 

coastal wetlands through a nationwide 

competitive process. 

http://www.fws.gov/cep/c

wgcover.html

Other Programs 

National Fish and 

Wildlife 

Foundation 

Challenge Grants On a competitive basis, reviews proposed 

projects, fosters cooperative partnerships and 

commits combination of federal and nonfederal 

funds to on-the-ground conservation projects. 

http://www.nfwf.org/prog

rams/guidelines.htm 

The Trust for 

Public Land 

Conservation 

Finance Program 

Assists land trusts, communities, and states in 

creating and expanding sources of public 

funding for land conservation. 

http://www.tpl.org
 Results 

Battelle 17 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Funding opportunities are not limited to large federal programs, however. Many smaller 

innovative partnerships have been forged between groups with shared objectives. For example, 

Save the Bay is providing golf course superintendents of Rhode Island and Massachusetts with 

technical support and cost-effective, best-management methods to improve not only estuarine 

ecological functions, but also the aesthetics and playability of golf courses (Save the Bay 2003a). 

Golf courses represent one of the largest property owners in this coastal zone. 

The focus of many restoration funding programs is to increase participation in restoration 

projects through innovative and creative partnering. According to Corcoran (2002), successful 

partnerships have three key ingredients: 

1. Collective involvement – involve everyone with a stake in the project and collaborate on 

decision-making to ensure successful implementation. Typical partners include 

government agencies (federal, state, and local), conservation organizations or local 

citizens groups, corporations, schools or youth organizations, and landowners. 

2. Shared vision – generate a commonly shared vision to build long-term support. 

3. Measurable goals – establish clear goals and objectives to measure progress 

One large coastal restoration project that exemplifies the key ingredients of partnerships is the 

Bahia Grande in Texas. The estuary is within the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, 

but barriers to the natural hydrological processes were created by construction of the Brownsville 

Ship Canal in the 1930s (Lassen 2003). The range of organizations sharing the vision of 

returning water and native vegetation and wildlife to the 11,000-acre estuary is extensive, and 

includes commercial and sports fishing and shrimping industries, school districts, the navigation 

district, several federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations. All have donated funds or labor 

and materials to the effort, which will include the construction of channels to permit adequate 

tidal exchange and the planting of native grasses and the black mangrove (Avicennia nitida). 

These actions will increase productivity and provide important nursery grounds for recreationally 

and commercially important aquatic species. According to Lassen (2003), a strong partnership is 

being built to give everyone an opportunity to participate and ensure the restoration of Bahia 

Grande is a success. 

Another example on a smaller scale is the Jimmy-Come-Lately estuary restoration project in 

Washington State. The project was spearheaded by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to alleviate 

frequent flooding and enhance salmon runs. The project involved numerous local, state, and 

federal agencies, local land owners, and nongovernmental organizations. Representatives from 

these various entities have worked together for years to develop an estuary restoration vision. 

They have successfully secured the necessary funding, private land, and other resources to 

implement the restoration plan. Although still in the early stages of implementation, the Tribe 

attributes these early successes to a solid scientific foundation, a broad collaboration between 

partners, early public involvement, and a broad funding base (Rot 2003). 

Collaborative partnerships can also be important for conflict resolution when varying viewpoints 

and multiple resource uses are at issue. The Sonoma Baylands restoration project in San 

Francisco Bay was controversial regarding the use of dredged material for restoration of diked, 

subsided tidal marsh; however, through a collaborative effort, the project was successfully 
 Results 

Battelle 18 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

implemented (Marcus 2000). This collaborative approach resulted in beneficial results for those 

involved rather than unresolved conflicts among people with diverse viewpoints. 

As these examples demonstrate, active participation of all stakeholders is critical to the success 

of habitat restoration projects. Diverse partnerships allow the pooling of resources and the 

opportunity to take advantage of the strengths of all sectors – public, private, and academic 

(Wolf-Armstrong and Spalding 2002). Single individuals or groups can greatly benefit from 

forming partnerships in order to more effectively implement coastal restoration. 

3.3 Planning 

Planning efforts range in scale from large, region-wide coastal restoration programs to individual 

project planning. Examples of large scale planning efforts are provided below followed by a 

discussion of approaches for restoration planning from different scales. 

Several large restoration programs are currently underway across the nation and are at various 

phases in the planning process. The CWPPRA program in Louisiana developed a restoration 

plan over a decade ago to address the need to coordinate and integrate restoration efforts in the 

region. Since that time, 141 projects have been authorized for funding (USGS 2003c). The 

Chesapeake Bay Program recently enacted the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, which will guide 

the next decade of restoration and protection efforts throughout the Bay (Chesapeake Bay 

Program 2003). The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides a framework 

and guidance to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, 

including coastal areas (CERP 2003). The plan was approved in 2000, will take more than 30 

years to construct, and will cost an estimated $7.8 billion. More recently, the Puget Sound 

Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) established a Science Team to oversee the 

activities involved in studying and planning for restoration in the Puget Sound region (PSNERP 

2003). 

The document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (RAE and NOAA 

2002) provides a framework for Restoration Planning and Priority-Setting and also reviews 

restoration plans from across the nation. The review found many common elements among 

successful plans including effective partnerships, education and outreach efforts, availability of 

funds, use of best available technology, implementation of a scientifically sound monitoring 

protocols, use of defined success criteria, and a standard tracking system. In addition, many of 

the most successful projects were those that were part of a watershed plan. 

Watershed-based or estuary-wide restoration planning is an approach that is applied by many of 

the large-scale programs discussed above, but that can also be applied to smaller watersheds or 

estuaries. This approach is recommended in Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration (RAEERF 1999) and is also discussed by numerous others (Lewis et al. 1998; Foote-Smith 

2002;Gersib 2002). The National Estuary Program encourages estuary-wide planning in the 28 

estuaries involved in the program through their Comprehensive Conservation and Management 

Plans (CCMPs), which often include goals for restoration (ANEP 2002). Estuary-wide planning 

can include both restoration required as part of compensatory mitigation (as required for 

unavoidable impacts to wetlands) and non-regulatory restoration (Fuss 2000;Simenstad and 
 Results 

Battelle 19 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Thom 1992). This approach can improve the effectiveness of mitigation ( 2001) and increase the 

funds available for restoration (Hall 2003). 

Diefenderfer and others (2003) developed a systematic approach to coastal ecosystem 

restoration, which includes a 19-step method for planning restoration projects. This method was 

originally developed for project-scale planning, but could also be applied to large-scale 

restoration programs. Another project-scale planning method is the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Water Resource Council (WRC) six-step planning process (WRC 1983). This method 

is generally applied to large-scale restoration projects and incorporates analyses of alternatives 

and sources of uncertainty. 

3.3.1 Planning Restoration in Urban Settings 

More than 50% of the U.S. population lives on the coast, with a higher growth rate in coastal 

counties than in the country as a whole (NOAA 1998). The result of this development has been 

the loss of a high percentage of coastal habitats that were once present in urban areas. 

Restoration in urban areas presents the following challenges: 

• limited sites available for restoration 

• limited reference and plant donor sites 

• confounding factors, such as poor water quality, chemical contamination, and altered 

hydrology 

• fragmented habitat 

• high costs due to land acquisition expenses and the amount of work required to reverse 

habitat modifications 

• differing needs for coastal resources (e.g., economic, cultural, social, recreational, 

environmental) (Brammeier 2003) 

• differing values of local citizens (Ehrenfeld 2000). 

However, these challenges are often offset by the following benefits: 

• the restored habitat provides pockets of habitat where otherwise there would be none 

• additional natural landscapes for urban residents (Ehrenfeld 2000) 

• a heightened public awareness of coastal ecosystems (Milano 1999) 

• educational opportunities 

• public involvement in the restoration process of highly visible projects, resulting in 

community project stewardship (see Section 3.8 on community based restoration) 

Successful restoration planning in urban estuaries requires public involvement throughout the 

process. The Mowitch restoration project in Tacoma, Washington, for example, included the 

public in every stage of the planning process from site selection to design, resulting in wide 

public acceptance of the project (Steger 2003). 

Simenstad and Thom (1992) contends that another aspect of successful coastal restoration 

planning is the incorporation of compensatory mitigation and non-regulatory restoration into an 

estuary-wide restoration plan. In urban estuaries, this may be particularly challenging because of 

the number and diversity of jurisdictional entities (e.g., local governments, private organizations, 

nongovernmental organizations, and federal and state agencies). If achievable, advantages of 
 Results 

Battelle 20 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

this approach include stakeholder approval, identification of ecologically significant areas for 

conservation and restoration, and funding for restoration through mitigation. 

Finally, urban restoration represents the perhaps the most critical and challenging situation to use 

the principles of landscape ecology for choosing a restoration site. A study by Shreffler and 

Thom (1993) contends that these principles provide the critical link between restoration ecology 

theory and effective, practical restoration in urban estuaries. In particular the study highlights 

the need for emphasis on habitat size, shape, accessibility, connectance, and self-maintenance. 

In addition, restoration site location can also be critical in urban areas. For example, in the 

highly urban Duwamish estuary, located in Seattle, Washington, habitat restoration has focused 

around salinity transition zones in the estuary, which provide places for juvenile salmon to 

acclimate to the changes in salinity as they make the transition from freshwater to saltwater 

(Simenstad 2003). 

While the challenges of urban restoration are many, the importance of habitat restoration in these 

settings is monumental from an ecological and societal perspective. The ecological importance 

of projects in urban areas can be disproportional to the size of the project because of the lack of 

ecological habitat in the surrounding areas. These projects are also highly visible and can 

influence the public perception of restoration, therefore successful restoration projects in urban 

settings can increase support for future restoration efforts. 

3.3.2 Goal Setting and Success Criteria 

A special issue of the journal Ecological Engineering compiled invited papers presented at a 

symposium on “Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration” (Wilber et al. 

2000). This issue provides information from a diversity of habitats, has a nationwide scope, and 

covers many parts of the restoration process. 

Evaluation of urban coastal restoration success requires criteria that balance both ecological 

parameters and the urban context (Ehrenfeld 2000). Ecological functions may be secondary to 

human values, in which case, the functional capacity must be assessed within a framework of 

social expectations, ecosystem capacities, needs for active management, and values particular to 

the urban area (Ehrenfeld 2000). 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has conducted an exercise to test the utility 

of various success criteria for the restoration and creation of salt marshes and mangroves for 

compensatory mitigation, with the goal of providing a set of criteria that is both ecologically 

meaningful and can be implemented within the existing regulatory environment (Redmond 

2000). The language describing these “objective, meaningful, and enforceable” success criteria 

was further refined to ensure its utility in a legal setting (Redmond 2000). The permit timelines 

are typically short relative to ecosystem development. Covenants, placed on the land as a 

condition of the permit, are tools that Redmond (2000) recommends to ensure that complex 

ecosystem functions ultimately develop. The covenant is a document that accompanies the title 

of the land stating the long-term responsibilities of the permittee and is established by the 

permittee prior to permit approval. 
 Results 

Battelle 21 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

The goals of mangrove restoration projects have evolved from establishing “persistent vegetative 

cover,” to establishing “functional equivalency,” to “ecological restoration” and “ecosystem 

restoration” (Lewis 2000). Lewis suggests that to achieve greater success, mangrove restoration 

projects will depend on providing training for all those involved in the planning process, 

formalizing specific ecologically-based project goals, and developing individual projects within 

the framework of regional ecosystem-based conservation and restoration plans. Broad criteria 

for judging success have been summarized as the rate of recruitment of flora and fauna, the 

closeness to which the new mangrove ecosystem meets the goals, and the efficiency of the 

project in terms of labor and other resources (Field 1998). Given the absence of generally 

accepted criteria for goal setting, it is critical that experts be involved throughout the planning 

and permit process to ensure that ecologically sound goals are set and appropriate restoration 

design technology is selected to give the project the highest chance of success (Lewis 2000). 

A study identifying the potential effects of various coastal restoration measures on fish 

assemblages found that although the increase in organic inputs associated with mangrove 

restoration positively affects estuarine and coastal fish assemblages, it has no effect on the 

continental fish assemblage, which occupies the upper estuary and wetlands (Baran and 

Hambrey 1998). The findings are important in cases in which target fish species have been 

identified in restoration goal setting. In another example, the more mobile estuarine front 

associated with dam removal would negatively affect the coastal assemblage, while favoring 

both the fish of continental origin through the intensified flood and the estuarine assemblage 

through increased area of brackish and turbid waters. The study by Baron and Hambrey (1998) 

shows that with respect to the restoration of fish populations, it is critical to associate the species 

or assemblage with habitat requirements, yet also to question whether it is individual fish species 

or multiple species that should be the target. 

3.3.3 Modeling 

Modeling is a tool that has been used extensively in coastal restoration planning to predict 

physical, biological, and hydrological changes resulting from restoration efforts. Both numerical 

models and conceptual models are powerful planning tools which can be used as part of the 

adaptive management process where field data are fed back into the models to provide 

verification and a means of evaluating progress toward the goals. 

In Louisiana, modeling has been used to determine the optimum amount of freshwater and 

sediment to divert from the Mississippi River to restore the coastal system (Clairain 2003). Over 

the next 20 years, diversion projects are expected to create or stabilize over a 400,000 hectares of 

wetlands (WaterMarks 2003). One project designed to divert water from the Mississippi River 

to restore wetlands in the Maurepas Basin led to concern that increased nutrient inputs would 

lead to downstream eutrophication and associated phytoplankton blooms (Lane et al. 2003). 

Flow distribution from a hydrodynamical UNET model was used to calculate nutrient loadings 

and retention, to determine if the Maurepas swamps were a suitable location for restoration. The 

analysis predicted that 90-95% of introduced nitrate – the nutrient of concern – would be 

assimilated in the wetlands and would therefore not impact downstream water quality. 

A geographic information system (GIS) can provide a useful tool in the restoration planning 

process. To guide a joint federal and state project to restore a 300-ha coastal wetland on western 
 Results 

Battelle 22 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Lake Erie, an historical analysis was conducted to determine factors that had contributed to the 

degradation of the wetland as well as physical conditions to be recreated during the restoration 

process (Kowalski and Wilcox 1999). Large-scale aerial photographs dating from 1940 through 

1994 were interpreted to delineate major wetland vegetation types and boundaries of a preexisting protective barrier beach. These data were digitized using a geographic information 

system (GIS). The geospatial data were supplemented by paleoecological and sedimetological 

analyses to identify the relationships between wetland vegetation, water levels, and sediment 

supply from littoral drift. This enabled project planners to identify the need to construct a dike to 

replace the protective function of the historical barrier beach, because near term natural 

reestablishment was unlikely. 

In New England, researchers developed the Marsh Response to Hydrological Modifications 

(MRHM) model as a predictive tool to evaluate various restoration alternatives in restricted tidal 

marshes (Boumans et al. 2002). The model output provides expected tidal ranges, water 

discharges, and flood potential for various culvert installation alternatives. The results of the 

model can be used to determine the correct tidal regime for salt marsh vegetation establishment. 

In San Francisco Bay, hydrological modeling was conducted as part of a feasibility study to 

restore approximately 4,000 hectares of inactive salt ponds and associated remnant sloughs and 

wetlands. Modelers employed one-dimensional and two-dimensional models to characterize 

existing physical conditions and to simulate the complex flow field in large open ponds, small 

slough channels, and rivers (Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. and DHI Water and 

Environment 2002). This information provided information to compare project alternatives in 

subsequent phases of the study. 

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) proposes to increase freshwater 

inputs from upland sources to re-establish historical estuarine conditions in Florida nearshore 

environments. A seagrass model modified to include a short-term salinity response function was 

used to evaluate the effect of various freshwater inputs and the associated decrease in salinity on 

seagrass species (Lirman and Cropper 2003). The results indicated that Thalassia testudinum

would continue to be a dominant component of the nearshore except under drastically lower 

salinity regimes. 

The multiple benefits of using ecological models in the planning process for mangrove 

restoration are described and applied in a recent case study (Twilley et al. 1998). Models can 

describe expected trajectories of mangrove development under variable conditions at site and 

regional levels. Thus, models support the establishment of realistic goals with realistic time 

frames and the selection of critical monitoring variables (Twilley et al. 1998). Models can 

improve the understanding of the relative effects of ecological and geophysical processes 

operating at different scales, helping to improve the design, implementation and adaptive 

management of the project ( Twilley et al. 1998). However, the authors stress that models 

cannot replace field studies and should be considered a complementary tool. 

3.3.4 Site Selection 

Whenever possible site selection should be carried out as part of an estuary-wide or watershed 

restoration plan. The Hudson-Rariton Estuary Project uses an iterative process for identifying 

problems and ecological restoration opportunities in the highly urban estuary (HRE Project 
 Results 

Battelle 23 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

2004). The Comprehensive Restoration Improvement Plan addresses habitat fragmentation by 

identifying combinations of restoration opportunities in the context of watershed and regional 

needs rather than just site specific needs and benefits. Site selection and prioritization in the 

restoration planning process involve three general steps: 1) assessment and characterization of 

the study area or region, 2) development of site selection criteria, and 3) prioritization of 

potential sites. 

3.3.4.1 Assessment and Characterization 

Site assessment involves the collection of information about an area as necessary in order to 

adequately characterize or describe the past, present, and future conditions. This process can be 

done over a broad region to determine the best possible locations for restoration sites or the 

assessment might be at a smaller site-specific scale to determine whether a site would be suitable 

for restoration. The methods for conducting this phase of site selection can vary widely, 

depending on available information and the level of effort afforded to characterization. The 

more information collected for an assessment leads to a more detailed characterization, resulting 

in better-informed site selection. Useful assessment information includes historical habitat 

extent, surveys on substrate and vegetation, elevation data, and physical factors controlling 

habitat development (Dean et al. 2001;Williams and Thom 2001;Williams et al. 2003;Williams 

2001). Data may need to be collected specifically for the purpose of determining site suitability. 

For example, seismic equipment and remotely operated vehicles were used in site selection for 

coral reef restoration off the coast of Florida (Japp 2003). 

If possible, socio-economic information should be included in the characterization. This data 

can include growth-management data, land use and zoning of surrounding areas, and future 

build-out scenarios. The extensive resources spent on restoration warrant a complete evaluation 

of these data sources to ensure that the restored area will not be degraded by future development. 

The San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

1999) identifies numerous socioeconomic studies to evaluate potential restoration sites including 

economic analysis, aesthetic considerations, cultural investigations, and real estate studies. 

The use of geographic information systems (GIS) is instrumental in integrating dissimilar data 

into a manageable decision-making tool. GIS also incorporates elements of the landscape, such 

as the type and impact of land uses adjacent to the site and the position of the site within the 

watershed. Numerous entities throughout the country are using this method for determining 

suitable restoration sites. For example, in New Hampshire, a site-selection model was developed 

to determine the best locations for eelgrass transplanting (Short et al. 2002). The model 

synthesizes available historic data, conditions required for eelgrass growth, and field 

measurements using GIS. Efforts are currently underway to incorporate the model into an 

interactive CD-ROM (Short 2003). 

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources developed a method for 

identifying potential restoration and enhancement sites (Williams 2002) using data on wetland 

type, soils, hydrography, land use, and land cover. The information was developed in layers 

using GIS to determine locations where conditions existed for restoration. A similar method was 

described by Gersib (2000) in Washington using wetland inventories and hydric soil data to 

determine potential sites. The sites were then overlayed on aerial photos to confirm the sites 
 Results 

Battelle 24 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

potential. This information was used in conjunction with other information such as wetland 

function potential, ecological problems in the study area, and community needs. 

3.3.4.2 Criteria Development 

The second step in the site selection process is the development of specific criteria for restoration 

sites, such as level of site alteration, proximity to healthy wetlands, and target functions. The 

criteria will vary depending on the goals for restoration. In addition, conditions of the study area 

can contribute to criteria development depending on the level of urbanization and types of land 

uses in the area. Examples of criteria used for restoration site selection can be found in most 

restoration plans and in A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (Restore 

America's Estuaries (RAE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

2002). Table 2 shows examples of restoration site evaluation criteria from Fidalgo Bay, 

Washington (Antrim et al. 2003), the Columbia River Estuary (Johnson et al. 2003), and the 

Peconic Estuary, New York (Peconic Estuary Habitat Restoration Workgroup 2000). 

Developing measurable criteria helps ensure the accuracy of the prioritization process and the 

likelihood of success. 

 

3.3.4.3 Prioritization 

Site prioritization approaches often include a quantitative or semi-quantitative ranking protocol 

based on site-selection criteria (e.g., see Table 2). The document, A National Strategy to Restore 

Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2002) provides a four step approach for prioritizing sites 

and recommends that separate lists should be prepared for each estuary or region. 

Within the CWPPRA program, annual priority lists for restoration projects are formulated with 

interagency and public involvement (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Task Force 2001). Proposed projects are assessed and ranked on a number of criteria, including 

cost effectiveness, longevity, sustainability, risk and uncertainty, supporting partnerships, public 

support, and support for the CWPPRA Restoration Plan. Projects are also evaluated for 

environmental benefits using the Wetland Value Assessment, a quantitative, habitat-based 

assessment that uses historical wetland-loss data and scientific models. 

Prioritization is critical to make certain that limited funds for restoration are spent on the best 

possible sites. The site-selection process helps ensure that sites meet decided upon criteria, are 

ecologically sound, fit within region-wide plans, and benefit the community. 
 Results 

Battelle 25 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 2. Examples of evaluation criteria for use in selecting restoration sites. 

Peconic Estuary, New York Fidalgo Bay, Washington Lower Columbia River Estuary, 

Washington and Oregon 

Ecological

- Lost habitat value 

- Level of degradation 

- Historical justification 

- Proposed project size 

- Habitat contiguity/adjacent 

land use 

- Target restoration functions 

- Promoting landscape habitat 

diversity 

- Providing benefit to statelisted species 

- Proximity to state/local 

designated areas 

Logistical

- Type of ownership 

- Relationship to broad 

planning efforts 

- Current stage of planning 

achieved 

- Committed/leveraged funds 

- Probability of success 

- Support from 

community/user groups 

- Level of post-restoration 

maintenance 

Enhancing public access and 

awareness

- Enhancing commercial and 

recreational uses 

- Benefit to commercial 

recreational species 

- Feasibility 

- Opportunity to improve 

ecosystem function 

- Site protection 

- Potential for sediment 

deposition/transport 

processes to support 

sustained function 

- Potential to benefit 

threatened and endangered 

species 

- Probability of success 

- Habitat connectivity 

- Restore or replace limited 

habitat 

- Sustainability of habitat 

functions 

- Type of habitat replacement 

- Timing of implementation 

General Criteria

- Habitat connectivity 

- Areas of historic habitat loss 

- Linkages to reference sites 

- Passive habitat restoration over 

creation 

- Monitoring and evaluation 

- Community support and 

participation 

Specific Criteria

Existing Conditions 

- Size 

- Complexity 

- Accessibility 

- Habitat connectivity 

Potential Conditions 

- Potential to conform to natural 

habitat structure, processes, and 

functions 

- Potential for self-maintenance 

- Potential benefit to nearshoredependent threatened and 

endangered species 

- Potential to substantially 

improve ecosystem functions
 Results 

Battelle 26 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.4 Innovative Methods and Techniques 

As the science of habitat restoration matures, coastal restoration practitioners are developing new 

and innovative ways to increase the efficiency and success of restoration efforts. These new 

methods range considerably in their scale of application, from addressing small, site-specific 

issues, to having a larger, regional or national focus. In salt marsh restoration, for example, 

organic baffles are being used in New England in low wave-energy environments to stabilize the 

eroding edges of marshes. In Coastal Louisiana, vegetated terraces are constructed to diminish 

wave energy, thereby increasing sediment deposition and facilitating marsh growth. Restorers of 

seagrass in the Florida Keys use biodegradable, sediment filled tubes to promote the recovery of 

seagrass damaged from boat propellers. To address large-scale seagrass restoration, researchers 

in Chesapeake Bay are developing methods to harvest viable eelgrass seeds as an alternative to 

the more expensive method of transplanting mature plants from donor areas. The restoration of 

oyster reef habitat in Tampa Bay uses a similar approach to methods being used to restore hard 

bottom and coral reef habitat in Florida’s coastal waters. Small, pre-cast concrete balls are 

placed along seawalls to promote re-establishment of oyster reef habitat and other littoral benthic 

communities. Also in Florida, large pre-fabricated limestone-covered concrete modules are 

deployed to restore and enhance coral reef communities. Kelp habitat in Southern California is 

being restored through a variety of strategies, from cultivation of juvenile kelp in laboratories to 

opportunistic transplanting of drift kelp. Table 3 summarizes these methods and other innovative 

techniques found in our nationwide review. 
 Results 

Battelle 27 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 3. Innovative Coastal Restoration Techniques 

Innovative 

Technique 

Project Location Description Contact URL or Citation 

Salt Marsh 

Dike removal Deep Water 

Slough 

Restoration 

Project 

Skagit River, 

Washington 

Dike removal (instead of 

breaching) to restore tidal 

hydrology to system 

Curtis Tanner, 

USFWS 

Curtis_Tanner@fws

.gov 

http://www.nws.usace.arm

y.mil/publicmenu/DOCU

MENTS/deepwater.pdf 

Dike removal 

and 

experimental 

elevation 

adjustment 

Winchester 

Tidelands 

Restoration 

Project 

South Slough 

NERR, 

Oregon 

Dike and tidegate removal. 

Dynamited to create tidal 

creek. Created 

experimental marsh 

mesocosms. See also 

Section 3.1. 

Steve Rumrill or 

Craig Cornu, South 

Slough NERR 

Steve.rumrill@state.

or.us

http://www.southsloughest

uary.org 

Soil 

amendments 

Tijuana 

Estuary Tidal 

Restoration 

Program 

Tijuana 

Estuary 

NERR, 

Southern 

California 

Use of different treatments 

with soils, such as mixing 

in kelp and organics, and 

different amendments to 

see how it affects marsh 

growth. See also Section 

3.1. 

Jeff Crook, Tijuana 

River National 

Estuarine Research 

Reserve 

jcrooks@tijuanaestu

ary.com 

www.tijuanaestuary.com 

Terracing Little 

Vermilion Bay 

Sediment 

Trapping 

Vermilion 

Parish, 

Louisiana 

Construction of a series of 

vegetated terraces to 

diminish waves, increasing 

sediment deposition, and 

reducing rate of shoreline 

erosion. 

John Foret, NOAA 

Fisheries 

John.Foret@noaa.go

v 

http://www.lacoast.gov 

Barrier islands 

shoreline 

Barataria 

Barrier Island 

Complex 

Project 

Plaquemines 

Parish, 

Louisiana 

Use of mathematical 

modeling to determine 

placement of dredged 

material to prevent 

breaching of island and to 

create dune, swale, and 

intertidal marsh. 

Rachel Sweeney, 

NOAA Fisheries 

Rachel.Sweeney@n

oaa.gov 

http://www.lacoast.gov 

Hydrologic 

Restoration 

Black Bayou 

Hydrologic 

Restoration 

Cameron and 

Calcasieu 

Parishes, 

Louisiana 

Use of a self-regulating 

tide gate to regulate tidal 

flushing. 

John Foret, NOAA 

Fisheries 

John.Foret@noaa.go

v 

http://www.lacoast.gov 

High School 

nursery 

program 

Sea Grasses in 

Classes 

Tampa Bay, 

Florida (also 

Chesapeake 

Bay and 

Galveston 

Bay) 

Use of Tampa Bay school 

system to grow salt-marsh 

grasses in on-campus 

nurseries to provide a 

source of wetland plants 

for large-scale Bay 

restoration projects. 

Peter Clark, 

Executive Director 

of Tampa Bay 

Watch 

info@tampabaywatc

h.org

www.tampabaywatch.org 

Marsh 

Renourishmen

t through 

Dredged 

Material 

Disposal 

Sediment 

Recycling 

Masonboro 

Island, North 

Carolina 

Determination of whether 

placement of dredged 

material in tidal marshes 

could be used to offset 

marsh deterioration. 

See also Section 3.1. 

Lynn Leonard, 

University of North 

Carolina 

lynnl@UNCW.edu 

http://people.uncw.edu/lyn

nl/ciceet.htm 
 Results 

Battelle 28 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 3. Innovative Coastal Restoration Techniques (Continued) 

Innovative 

Technique 

Project Location Description Contact URL or Citation 

Spartina 

seedling 

transplant 

Field trial of 

Spartina 

alterniflora 

seedling 

establishment 

in a created 

salt marsh 

Cape Fear 

River 

Estuary, 

North 

Carolina 

Test of survival of 

greenhouse-grown 

cordgrass seedlings 

(grown using various 

combinations of watering, 

fertilizer, soil types) under 

field conditions 

David Padgett, 

University of North 

Carolina 

Padgett@uncw.edu

or 

Charles.r.wilson.saw

02.usace.army.mil 

Geo-textile 

tubes and 

dredged 

materials to 

expand saltmarsh areas 

Barren Island 

Wetland 

Restoration 

Chesapeake 

Bay (also 

numerous 

other 

locations) 

Use of dredged sand to fill 

polyester geotextile tubes 

to expand and stabilize 

shoreline, then filled 11 

acres behind tubes and 

planted with salt-marsh 

vegetation 

Rich Takacs, NOAA 

Fisheries 

Rich.Takacs@noaa.g

ov 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/

PROJECTS/Wetlands/Bar

ren_Is/ 

Filtration 

Enhancement 

Devices 

(FEDS) 

Organic 

Baffles to 

Improve Saltmarsh 

Stability and 

Water Quality 

Great Bay 

NERR, New 

England 

Use of porous, organic 

baffles to enhance 

filtration and reduce 

resuspension of sediment 

to stabilize edges of 

eroding salt marsh. 

David Burdick, 

Jackson Estuarine 

Laboratory, New 

Hamphsire 

dburdick@cisunix.u

nh.edu

http://ciceet.unh.edu 

Great Lakes Marsh

Water control 

structure to 

create barrier 

beach 

Metzger 

Marsh 

Restoration 

Ottawa 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge, near 

Toledo, Ohio 

Construction of dike to 

replace barrier beach with 

water control structure to 

maintain hydrologic 

connection to Lake Erie. 

Doug Wilcox, 

USGS Great Lakes 

Science Center 

douglas_wilcox@us

gs.gov 

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/

science/wetlands/Metzger

.thm 

Seagrass

Propogation of 

donor eelgrass 

stocks 

Clinton Ferry 

Terminal 

Eelgrass 

Restoration 

Puget Sound, 

Washington 

Stockpiling of eelgrass 

from the area of future 

impact (five-fold increase 

in population at lab), then 

transplanting to areas near 

the site 

Amy Borde, Battelle 

Marine Science Lab, 

Washington 

amy.borde@pnl.gov 

Modeling and 

use of dredged 

material 

Middle Harbor 

Enhancement 

Area 

Oakland Bay, 

California 

Use of dredged material to 

create 100+ acres of 

shallow-water habitat, 

including eelgrass 

 

Sediment 

tubes in 

propeller scars 

Seagrass 

Restoration in 

Propeller Scars 

Lignumvitae 

Key 

Botanical 

State Park, 

Florida Keys 

The use of biodegradable 

fabric, sediment-filled 

tubes to fill propeller scars 

and enhance seagrass 

recovery in propeller scars. 

See also Section 3.1. 

Kamille 

Hammerstrom, 

NOAA Fisheries 

Kamille.Hammerstro

m@noaa.gov

http://www.seagrass.net/ 

Bird stakes to 

increase 

fertilization 

Seagrass 

Restoration in 

Propeller Scars 

South Florida Transplanting of 

seagrasses and fertilization 

from birds roosting on 

specially designed roosting 

stakes. See also Section 

3.1. 

Judson Kenworthy, 

NOAA Fisheries 

Jud.Kenworthy@noa

a.gov

http://shrimp.ccfhrb.noaa.

gov/~mfonseca/reports.ht

ml 
 Results 

Battelle 29 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 3. Innovative Coastal Restoration Techniques (Continued) 

Innovative 

Technique 

Project Location Description Contact URL or Citation 

Seed 

collection 

Guidebook on 

Collection, 

Processing, 

and Storage of 

Eeelgrass 

Seeds 

Developed in 

Rhode Island, 

but applicable 

where seed 

production is 

high 

Guidebook on seed 

development, tips for 

collection, and methods 

for separation and storage 

Stephen Granger, 

granger@gso.uri.edu

Guidebook available 

from: Rhode Is. Sea Grant 

Communications Office 

Univ. of RI Bay Campus 

Narragansett, RI 02882-

1197 (order P1635) 

Seed 

broadcasting 

Seagrass 

Restoration in 

Virginia 

Multiple Sites 

in 

Chesapeake 

Bay and 

Delaware 

Coastal Bays 

Broadcasting of seagrass 

seeds from a boat (planted 

41 acres in 2001 utilizing 

4.2 million seeds). See 

also Section 3.1. 

Bob Orth, Virginia 

Institute of Marine 

Science (VIMS) 

jjorth@vims.edu

http://www.vims.edu/bio/

sav 

Mechanical 

seed planter 

Large-Scale, 

Seed-Based 

Eelgrass 

Restoration 

Narragansett 

Bay, Rhode 

Island 

Use of mechanized 

underwater seed-planter to 

inject seagrass seeds 

mixed in gel matrix into 

sediment. 

Scott Nixon, 

University of Rhode 

Island 

snixon@gso.uri.edu

http://ciceet.unh.edu 

Bioturbation 

fences 

Great Bay 

Estuary 

Eelgrass 

Mitigation 

Piscataqua 

River 

Estuary, New 

Hampshire 

Development of method of 

fencing seagrass transplant 

plots to reduce 

bioturbation by green 

crabs. 

Fred Short, 

University of New 

Hampshire 

fred.short@unh.edu 

Restoration Ecology, Vol. 

6, 1989, pg. 297-302 

Transplanting 

Eelgrass 

Remotely with 

Frame System 

(TERFS) 

New Bedford 

Harbor 

Eelgrass 

Ttransplant 

New Bedford 

Harbor, 

Massachusett

s 

Perfection of the TERFS 

method, which uses a 

reusable frame, protects 

against bioturbation, and 

allows for community 

involvement 

Fred Short, 

University of New 

Hampshire 

fred.short@unh.edu 

http://shrimp.ccfhrb.noaa.

gov/lab/fonseca/guide/cha

p3.pdf 

Kelp 

Integrated kelp 

restoration 

program 

Southern 

California 

Regional Kelp 

Restoration 

Project 

Southern 

California 

(San Diego to 

Santa 

Barbara) 

1) outplanting of 

laboratory-cultivated 

juvenile kelp, 2) use of 

sporophyll bags to 

“reseed” barren reefs with 

Macrocystis spores, 3) 

relocation of sea urchin 

grazers, and 

4) transplanting drift kelp. 

Chantal Collier, 

California 

Coastkeepers 

kelplab@cacoastkee

per.org

http://www.cacoastkeeper

.org 

Mangrove

Riley encased 

methodology 

(REMTM) to 

enhance 

mangrove 

restoration and 

habitat 

creation. 

Mangrove 

Replenishment 

Initiative 

Central east 

coast Florida 

Mangrove seedlings are 

encased in PVC tubing to 

provide protection and 

support until 

establishment, enabling 

restoration of mangrove in 

high-energy environments 

where natural recruitment 

no longer occurs. 

Robert W. Riley, Jr. 

Mangrove 

Replenishment 

Initiative 

riley@mangrove.org 

http://www.mangrove.org

Mangroves and Salt 

Marshes (Incorporated 

into ‘Wetlands Ecology 

and Management’ in 

2000) December 1999 

3(4) :207-213 
 Results 

Battelle 30 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Table 3. Innovative Coastal Restoration Techniques (Continued) 

Innovative 

Technique 

Project Location Description Contact URL or Citation 

Site 

construction 

without 

planting 

Cross Bayou 

Mangrove 

Restoration 

Site 

Pinellas County, 

Florida 

Restoration of 

mangroves without 

planting, but through 

engineered site 

elevations and removal 

of dredge spoils. 

Robin Lewis, Lewis 

Environmental 

Services, 

lesrrl3@aol.com 

Coral Reef

Reef modules 

& limestone 

boulders 

Gulfstream 

Pipeline 

Offshore & 

Inshore 

Mitigation 

Tampa Bay and 

seaward to 130' 

depth, seaward 

of Pinellas, 

Florida 

Deployment of large 

limestone rocks (2.5- to 

4.5-ft diameter) and reef 

modules (consisting of a 

reinforced concrete slab 

with a hollow concrete 

and limestone dome on 

top), which provide 

refugia. 

Walter C. Jaap, 

Florida Marine 

Research Institute 

wkjaap@worldnet.at

t.net or 

Harold Hudson, 

NOAA Fisheries 

haroldhudson@noaa.

gov

For reef module 

information: 

www.sanctuaries.nos.noa

a.gov/special/wellwood/re

storation 

Coral 

reattachment 

to reef 

substrate 

C/V Hind 

Grounding 

Site 

Off Fort 

Lauderdale, 

Florida 

Reattachment of >300 

corals 2 months after 

grounding. Mapping 

and monitoring of 

reattached corals 

showed 74% live and 

securely attached. See 

also Section 3.1. 

D.S. Gilliam, 

National Coral Reef 

Institute, Nova 

Southeastern 

University 

Oceanographic 

Center, 

http://www.nova.edu/ocea

n/ncri/projects/hind/index.

html 

Coral 

recruitment to 

artificial reef 

substrate 

U.S.S. 

Memphis 

Grounding 

Site 

Off Fort 

Lauderdale, 

Florida 

Deployment of 160 

artificial reef modules 

(Reef Balls) adjacent to 

grounding site and 

treatment with coral 

larval attractants. 

Monitoring of coral 

development and fish 

assemblage. See also 

Section 3.1. 

T.P. Quinn, National 

Coral Reef Institute, 

Nova Southeastern 

University 

Oceanographic 

Center 

http://www.nova.edu/ocea

n/ncri/projects/memphis/i

ndex.html 

Oyster Reef 

Reef BallsTM 

at base of sea 

walls 

Seawall 

Oyster Reef 

Project 

Tampa Bay, 

Florida 

Use of concrete reef 

balls along seawalls to 

promote reestablishment 

of oyster reef and other 

benthic communities. 

info@tampabaywatc

h.org

http://www.tampabaywatc

h.org/seawallreef.htm 

Use of 

recycled oyster 

shell for reef 

restoration 

S. Carolina 

Oyster 

Restoration 

and 

Enhancement 

(SCORE) 

South Carolina Restoration and 

enhancement of oyster 

habitat by planting 

recycled oyster shells in 

intertidal environment 

with volunteers 

Nancy Hadley, 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

Hadleyn@mrd.dnr.st

ate.sc.us

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/

scoysters
 Results 

Battelle 31 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.5 Monitoring 

Monitoring is a critical element of restoration, whereby performance is assessed to determine 

whether the restoration project is progressing toward the goals of the project. The information 

gathered from a monitoring program is essential for adaptive management and for developing a 

greater understanding of restoration ecology. A guide for developing a coastal restoration 

monitoring plan was recently developed by NOAA: “Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of 

Coastal Habitats.” Volume I is “A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and 

Clean Water Act 2000” and Volume II provides “Tools for Monitoring Coastal Habitats” 

(NOAA 2004b). The components of monitoring that are discussed below are those that are 

innovative or integral to improving the success of a restoration project. 

3.5.1 Pre-Restoration Monitoring 

Pre-restoration monitoring can be conducted to determine the existing functions as well as 

provide information on potential restoration endpoints and help develop project goals. For 

example, monitoring of the existing functions of a degraded Phragmites australis-dominated 

marsh relative to native Spartina spp. marshes along the Woodbridge River in New Jersey 

showed that reintroducing tidal inundation to the restoration site would enhance water quality 

functions and the development of salt marsh community structure and food webs (Sturdevant and 

Craft 2002). 

Pre-restoration monitoring can also be used to assess the contaminant release potential from 

restoration actions. The presence of contaminants can pose ecological and human health risks 

and can also have significant cost implications. At the Willapa River salt-marsh restoration 

project in Washington State, for example, researchers analyzed physical and chemical properties 

of soil, sediment, and water samples as well as coliform bacteria levels of the water and 

resuspended sediment at selected restoration sites and reference sites prior to dike breach and 

removal (Diefenderfer and Ward 2002). The researchers concluded that this type of evaluation 

can improve project design and minimize risk to biological organisms at restoration sites with 

potential contamination. 

3.5.2 Standard Monitoring Protocols 

Standard monitoring protocols are important in situations where many observers are involved. 

For example, the California Regional Kelp Restoration Program uses teams of volunteer divers 

from local California CoastKeeper affiliates for monitoring. The program developed the Kelp 

Restoration and Monitoring Protocol to provide detailed instructions and training for the 

volunteers to ensure consistent and accurate monitoring of the extensive kelp restoration program 

(California CoastKeeper Alliance 2003). 

Standard monitoring protocols are also essential where results from many projects are part of a 

coordinated program. The Commencement Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) 

Restoration Monitoring Program in Tacoma, Washington, provides a matrix of established 

monitoring criteria, including seven physical, twelve biological, and two chemical criteria 

(Steger 2003). Project managers can select some or all of these criteria to monitor depending on 

the goals and objectives of the project. 
 Results 

Battelle 32 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

The Great Bay Estuary Eelgrass Mitigation project in New Hampshire provided an opportunity 

for the development of a new protocol for assessing natural and restored eelgrass sites. Because 

the protocol can be used with any seagrass species, the researchers developed SeagrassNet, a 

global seagrass monitoring program. The monitoring protocol, sample field data sheets, data 

handling instructions, and a manual for scientific monitoring are available through the Internet 

(SeagrassNet 2003). 

3.5.3 Functional Assessment 

One popular method for determining restoration success is to compare the functionality of the 

restored habitat to that of natural habitat. This is complicated, however, by the fact that there is 

significant variability in both restored and natural systems and the functional parameters that 

characterize natural coastal habitat are often not well understood. Recent research has 

contributed to a greater understanding and application of many popular functional assessment 

tools. For example, stable isotope methods that were developed to analyze food webs in tidal 

salt marsh systems are now being used to assess the ability of created and restored systems to 

provide food for target species (Levin and Currin 2002). Bioenergetics models are being 

proposed as a tool for designing coastal wetland restoration (Madon et al. 2001). These models 

estimate growth of fish under various environmental conditions and are being used by University 

of Washington researchers to determine how estuarine marsh habitats in different stages of 

recovery contribute to the growth of juvenile salmon (Gray, Simenstad, Bottom, and Cornwell 

2002). See Restoration Research (Section 3.1) for more information on innovative methods of 

functional assessment. 

3.5.4 Long-term monitoring 

3.5.4.1 The CWPPRA example 

The restoration plan developed pursuant to CWPPRA requires 1) “an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to 

arresting coastal wetland loss in Louisiana,” and 2) “a scientific evaluation of the effectiveness 

of coastal wetland restoration projects carried out under the plan in creating, restoring, protecting 

and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana.” Thus mandated, funding is provided for the 

monitoring of each CWPPRA project for 20 years. Coastal Louisiana scientists and technical 

experts consensually developed standardized protocols for seven categories of monitoring 

variables: water quality, hydrology, soils and sediments, vegetative health, habitat mapping, 

wildlife, and fisheries (Steyer et al. 1995). In addition to providing long-term data to look at 

status and trends, the monitoring program is designed to investigate cause and effect through 

hypothesis testing, which requires the establishment of paired reference areas (Steyer and 

Llewellyn 2000). 

Monitoring is based on evaluating project-specific goals and objectives. After the initial nine 

years of monitoring, many CWPPRA projects have met their goals, (e.g., increasing land:water 

ratios, increasing submerged aquatic vegetation abundance, and reducing erosion) while others 

have not. Importantly, the data generated from this monitoring approach are used not only to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the specific project, but also to provide feedback necessary to make 

active management decisions. For example, water level monitoring at a marsh management 

project at East Mud Lake showed that elevations of water control structures were set too high, 
 Results 

Battelle 33 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

affecting the duration of flooding. The site was resurveyed and structure operations were 

adjusted. Monitoring of wave reduction behind a variety of demonstration shoreline protection 

structures at Lake Salvador has provided important engineering design information for future 

shoreline projects (Steyer 2003). 

As the scale of CWPPRA projects has increased over time, finding adequate reference areas has 

become increasingly difficult. Also, because many of the projects are adjacent to one another, 

the potential for cumulative, indirect influences on landscape-level processes has increased, 

making evaluation of individual project effectiveness increasingly difficult. A monitoring 

program was needed that effectively monitors at the ecosystem level. Hence, a new monitoring 

program, the Coast-wide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS), was approved for full 

implementation in 2003 (Steyer 2003). A network or “pool” of reference sites are being 

established, which will allow for both project-specific evaluations and cumulative evaluations on 

both a hydrologic-basin and coast-wide level. These reference sites will span the range of 

variability from disturbed to pristine across the various vegetation habitats of the Louisiana 

coast. Restoration projects will then be compared with a suite of reference sites to look at habitat 

change trajectories over time (Steyer et al. 2002). This analysis will provide a means of 

evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration on the entire coastal ecosystem versus just those 

areas affected by individual projects. 

Through monitoring the science of restoration can be improved by evaluating the progress of 

systems over time, determining functional roles of restored habitat, and comparing restored 

systems to natural systems. Research can play an important role in the assessment of restored 

systems by improving monitoring methods and providing a better understanding of the 

functioning of restored systems (Zedler and Callaway 2000). Finally, the longer a project is 

evaluated, the better the understanding of the system trajectories over time. 

3.6 Adaptive Management 

Because significant uncertainty exists on the effectiveness of habitat restoration, more and more 

projects are being designed and implemented in an adaptive management framework. Since 

1995, the Corps of Engineers has directed that ecosystem restoration be done according to the 

principles of adaptive management to better ensure attainment of project goals and planning 

objectives (USACE 1995). A simple definition of adaptive management is “learning by doing” 

(Walters 1986). More formally, uncertainties about a project are acknowledged in the planning 

phase and steps are taken to deal with these uncertainties. These measures may include 

incremental project implementation, experimental studies in subareas of the restoration site, 

projects run in parallel that differ in one or more condition, and implementation of full projects 

with the plan to evaluate the effectiveness of a restoration technique. Each of these techniques 

requires a project be monitored over time. This is done to assess the success or failure of 

different restoration techniques and determine what remedial action might be required if a 

restoration effort is not achieving project goals. 

Some very large projects, such as the restoration of the Florida Everglades and the CWPPRA 

program in Louisiana, have embraced the adaptive management approach. The Everglades 

program has not been implemented as yet, but planners are adapting project designs using results 
 Results 

Battelle 34 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

of extensive modeling studies of hydrology to guide restoration planning. The program will use 

feedback from an extensive, long-term monitoring program to guide restoration, as well as to 

correct their conceptual model of the system. 

The tidal marsh restoration conducted in Louisiana is employing numerous methods (e.g., water 

diversions using pumping stations, beneficial use of dredged material for marsh creation, and 

terracing) to restore the Mississippi River deltaic marshes (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Task Force and Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 

1998). The program managers readily admit that the outcomes of these projects are uncertain, 

and that some of their efforts have met with failure. Their conceptual model shows that the 

marshes are starved of nutrients and sediment, and that reintroduction of these materials should 

alleviate some losses. Their basic strategy is to introduce water, nutrients, and sediment into the 

marshes to promote marsh growth and development. To assess the success of over a hundred 

projects, they have strategically located monitoring stations. A scientific team meets regularly 

(annually) to evaluate a selected subset of the projects. The lessons learned are incorporated into 

revisions and the development of new project plans. This program benefits from a clear 

understanding of factors that control marsh development from decades of research on these 

systems, the ability to conduct experiments with untested technologies, a strong monitoring 

program, and a framework for evaluating the results and incorporating them into future project 

plans, as well as through modifications to existing projects. 

Smaller project examples include those such as the tidal marsh restoration in South Slough, Coos 

Bay, Oregon and eelgrass restoration at the Clinton ferry terminal in Puget Sound, Washington. 

In South Slough, restoration of the Winchester Tidelands marsh (8.1 hectares) was set up to 

provide information on what elevations are best for marsh development. Here, prior to removal 

of dikes surrounding former tidal marshes, four areas within the marsh were graded to different 

elevations. Colonization of the areas is being allowed to progress naturally following dike 

removal. The information gained through monitoring will allow future projects to be built to 

maximize the rate and pattern of marsh development through manipulation of elevation. 

At the Clinton ferry terminal, eelgrass is being restored in bare areas within and adjacent to an 

existing eelgrass meadow. An initial 2-year research effort partitioned the various sources of 

eelgrass disturbance from ferry terminals and ferryboat operations. Although it was clear from 

the research why eelgrass was absent from some of these plots, reasons were not as obvious for 

others. Because of the uncertainty regarding restoration potential, the plots were given a relative 

score indicating low, moderate, or high probability of success. Then monitoring was set up to 

assess the progress of eelgrass development and to evaluate factors contributing to success or 

failure. In addition, eelgrass was planted under the terminal in an area where glass blocks in the 

overhead walkway were installed to pass light to support eelgrass. The effectiveness of this 

method was evaluated and used along with information from other studies to help plan eelgrass 

restoration near other terminals in Puget Sound. Clinton, therefore, represents a place where the 

lessons learned from experimental manipulations can be applied to increase the effectiveness of 

projects elsewhere. For example, light enhancement technologies have been incorporated in 

dock design in Port Townsend, Washington (Diefenderfer et al. In Press). The results of the 

Clinton project are presented annually and discussed with resource agency scientists and 

modifications are made in both the approach to restoration and to the metrics used to evaluate 
 Results 

Battelle 35 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

success. Researchers recently realized that total shoot abundance (relative to eelgrass lost from 

terminal reconstruction) was a better measure of the goal for the project of no-net-loss of 

eelgrass habitat than was mean shoot density (Southard et al. 2003). Similar to projects in 

Louisiana, but on a much smaller scale, this program benefits from a focused research program, a 

monitoring program, and a management framework. 

Adaptive restoration is a concept being put into action in the Tijuana Estuary (Crooks 2003). A 

8-hectare portion of the 200-hectare area is being restored in an experimental design so that the 

lessons learned from the smaller area can be applied to the larger restoration project. 

The concept of adaptive management - learning by doing - is generally intuitive, however many 

restoration projects fail to incorporate it in the overall plan. It was developed specifically to 

provide information where there is uncertainty and a need for a decision-making framework 

(Thom 1997;Thom 2000). Adaptive management plans should be developed in the planning 

phase of a project. The principles of adaptive management can be applied at various levels of 

intensity and using various strategies. The most important element is to learn from the project. 

3.7 Dissemination of Information 

Often in the past information from restoration projects has not been widely distributed. In a 

review of mangrove rehabilitation projects by Field (1998), documentation on the many projects 

existing worldwide was found to be scarce. Disseminating information about restoration projects 

is vital to learning from past experiences and thereby improving the success of future projects 

(Hackney 2000). In recent years restoration information has been more broadly disseminated 

through the use of the internet and through journals and conferences dedicated to the topic. 

Considerations in regard to disseminating the results of a coastal restoration project include the 

purpose, audience, timing, and appropriate venues (Diefenderfer et al. 2003). The appropriate 

venue for disseminating information can include scientific journals, reports, conferences, fact 

sheets, and newsletters. Below are some examples of innovative methods of disseminating 

information that we identified in our review. 

3.7.1 Use of the Internet 

Recently, the use of the Internet to disseminate information about restoration projects has greatly 

increased. One Web site that came online in 2003 is the NOAA Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) 

Database (NOAA 2003c). This site provides information on restoration projects from across the 

country with links to project Web sites that provide further information. Another NOAA Web 

site that will be coming online in 2004 is a Web site describing coastal restoration monitoring 

projects from around the US. This site will also be linked to the ERA Web site (Gayaldo 2003). 

The Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP) Web site contains a Habitat Loss 

Technology Transfer Database, which contains information about restoration from many of the 

NEP sites (ANEP 2004). 

In Rhode Island, numerous groups acted in partnership to develop the Rhode Island Habitat 

Restoration Portal. The purpose of the portal is to “provide data and information about habitat 

restoration in Rhode Island to the public, federal and state agencies, and nonprofit groups. The 

focus is on seagrass, riverine (fish runs), and salt-marsh habitats. The objective is to create an 
 Results 

Battelle 36 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

information system that can be used to apply for grants, select potential projects, educate the 

public, and assist the state in restoration planning (University of Rhode Island Environmental 

Data Center 2003).” 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has a web portal called the Florida 

Wetland Restoration Information Center, which has information on restoration projects, funding 

sources, guidebooks, and a library (FDEP 2003). In southern California, the Southern California 

Wetlands Recovery Project Information Station provides a searchable database of biological, 

hydrological, and land-use information for Southern California's coastal wetlands and 

watersheds. Project summaries are available with contact information, a brief description, and 

costs (California Coastal Conservancy 2004). 

Information on the Internet can also focus on a particular project. For example, in Washington, 

the Mowitch Restoration Project has a Web site providing a project summary, list of restoration 

activities, and documents available for downloading (NOAA 2003h). 

3.7.2 Other Innovative Dissemination Methods 

Other effective means to disseminate information about restoration projects include the use of 

conventional media. For example, television can used to reach a very broad audience. The 

Outdoor Channel taped and aired a restoration planting of mangroves in the Indian River Lagoon 

by volunteers of the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida - Orlando Chapter (CCA of 

Florida 2004). The program included interviews with chapter members and also featured cord 

grass being grown by students of Rockledge High School. Videos and compact discs (CDs) can 

also be used as an information tool, not only to inform but also to provide training. The Tampa 

BayWatch Bay Grasses in Classes program distributes a video on how to build a wetland nursery 

to grow salt marsh plants for restoration (Clark 2003). The California Coastkeepeer Alliance 

provides a CD, entitled “Help the Kelp,” which highlights the Regional Kelp Restoration Project. 

It includes footage on kelp forests and growing juvenile kelp plants in their Regional Kelp 

Mariculture Facility (California Coastkeepeer Alliance 2003). Press releases in regional 

newspapers can also be an effective tool to keep the public and local stakeholders abreast of 

restoration activities. 

In summary, information from a restoration project or program needs to be disseminated widely 

and in as many venues as possible. Only in this way can the science of restoration continue to 

mature and uncertainties begin to diminish. 

3.8 Community Involvement and Education 

Dedicating restoration project resources to activities that involve and educate the community can 

provide a significant return on investment. A variety of approaches can be used that are 

beneficial and often critical to the success of individual projects, as well as to long-term public 

support of coastal habitat restoration. The importance of public involvement is evident in the 

examples discussed below, which are only a small fraction of the community-based efforts being 

conducted nationwide. 
 Results 

Battelle 37 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

3.8.1 Public Outreach 

Outreach programs provide an effective way to gain public support and recruit volunteers. A 

few examples are discussed below. The Southern California Regional Kelp Restoration Project 

regularly offers presentations to dive clubs, community centers, and scientific meetings. Media 

outreach has resulted in project coverage in newspapers, dive magazines, and local television. 

Volunteer dive teams are an essential component of kelp restoration efforts as they work with 

biologists to restore, maintain, and monitor the restoration sites. The project also sponsors an 

annual Kelp Fest to foster public awareness of the importance of kelp forest ecosystems (Collier 

2003). The Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF), a nonprofit organization whose mission is to 

“preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of the Galveston Bay estuarine system, and 

its tributaries, for present users and for posterity,” has developed two creative outreach programs. 

Their Bay Ambassadors program uses trained volunteers to take Bay specimens and visual aids 

to local classrooms, and Speakers Bureau volunteers speak to community groups about GBF’s 

habitat-related projects (Galveston Bay Foundation 2003). 

In urban settings, where conflicting land-use needs often make restoration controversial, 

involving the public from the start may be essential to the successful outcome of a project. In 

highly urban Commencement Bay, Washington, the Mowitch Restoration Project organizers 

encouraged the attendees at a public meeting to draw their own conceptual plan. The public was 

also involved in the selection process, in planting, and in on-site garbage collection. 

Additionally, a local Indian tribe was involved in naming the site (Steger 2003). 

3.8.2 Volunteers 

Hands-on restoration activities such as native plant propagation, transplanting, site mapping, and 

monitoring that utilize citizen volunteers not only stretches project funding dollars, but enables 

participants to become environmental stewards. The South Carolina Oyster Restoration and 

Enhancement (SCORE) program uses volunteers to restore oyster habitat by assisting in oyster 

shell recycling, building new reefs with recycled shells, and monitoring restoration success. To 

date, over 5000 volunteer hours have been donated. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation developed 

a Grasses for the Masses program to help restore Chesapeake Bay’s underwater grasses. 

Volunteers receive the necessary equipment and training to grow native underwater grasses from 

seed in their homes. Following the 12-week growing period, the volunteers then transplant the 

grasses at predetermined sites (Bieri 2003). “Marsh Bash 1999” (now an annual event known as 

Marsh Mania) began with the purpose of involving citizens in the restoration of wetland habitat 

during a weekend event at multiple locations around Galveston Bay. A total of 1500 volunteers 

participated in this innovative event and planted 14.5 acres of habitat in 2.5 hours (NMFS 

Habitat Conservation Division 2003). 

Volunteers can also be used effectively for long-term monitoring and maintenance. Through 

their Sound Stewardship Program, People for Puget Sound trains community stewards to identify 

native and invasive plant species and track their growth at restored sites to determine how 

successful restoration sites are functioning as habitat for native species (People for Puget Sound 

2003). 

The examples discussed above represent but a few of the numerous restoration programs and 

projects around the nation that use volunteers. Sources are available that can provide 
 Results 

Battelle 38 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

information to project managers who wish to use volunteers. For example, The Nature 

Conservancy has prepared a training module on behalf of the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary 

System that is intended for project managers who will recruit and coordinate volunteers 

(Enstrom 2003).2

 

3.8.3 Education 

Restoration projects also provide unique opportunities to educate a new generation of responsible 

environmental stewards. Save The Bay of San Francisco provides many educational 

opportunities, including classroom visits and field programs for middle and high school classes 

through a program known as Canoes in Sloughs (Save the Bay 2003b). The Bay Grasses in 

Classes program sponsored by Tampa BayWatch and other coastal groups use local middle and 

high schools for a wetland nursery program whereby students learn to plant, maintain, and 

harvest the wetland plants to be used in restoration projects. By educating and involving the 

student community, Tampa BayWatch teaches the value of a healthy environment and creates an 

opportunity for hands-on involvement, and in return, receives the benefit of enthusiastic and 

energetic volunteers. Currently there are 16 schools involved in the program (Clark 2003; 

Tampa BayWatch 2004). In Chesapeake Bay, a similar program has gained considerable support 

since its inception in 1998, with more than 250 schools throughout the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed participating in the program. The program is coordinated by the Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR 2004). 

Community involvement, outreach, and education can increase the success of coastal habitat 

restoration through public support and volunteer assistance. However, the benefits of involving 

and informing the community go far beyond individual project success by creating 

environmental stewards in the community and educating future generations on the importance of 

habitat and restoration.

 

2

 More information on this training module can be obtained through Matthew Stout, Director of NMS Education, 

Outreach, and Volunteer Program, email: matthew.stout@NOAA.gov). 
 Discussion 

Battelle 39 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

4.0 Discussion 

In recent years, efforts to improve the success of coastal restoration have been increasing. 

Guidelines were outlined in Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration (RAE and ERF 1999) 

and were the basis for development of A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine 

Habitat (RAE and NOAA 2002). Other guidance is available in the National Coastal Ecosystem 

Restoration Manual (Ridlington 2002) and Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands ( 2001). In 

addition, (Diefenderfer et al. 2003) put forth a systematic approach to address uncertainties 

related to coastal restoration. These efforts exemplify the trend in coastal restoration toward a 

greater understanding of restored systems, improved communication, and better coordination. 

Perhaps the most important lesson of this review is that we must learn from our experiences, 

whether it is from deliberate experimentation or the result of problem solving. Innovation is 

critical to improving the science of restoration. The science has evolved from early success in 

planting of vegetation (e.g., Spartina marshes) to more complex and innovative methods. This 

development has resulted because the models for successful plant establishment did not always 

work. The most significant gains were the result of assessment monitoring programs that 

supplied an understanding of the factors affecting success. Although improving the 

predictability of a project’s success is a critical area for research, restorationists have learned that 

improving success depends on a strategy that can include a multitude of facets. These 

components vary from improved site assessment and experimental manipulation of the site to 

test plantings and removal of disturbances. The importance of partnerships for project funding 

and long-term site stewardship is now widely recognized. Innovations are spread throughout all 

facets of restoration projects. 

We attempted to capture examples of unique and innovative approaches to restoration across 

most coastal and estuarine habitat types. By doing this, we hope that others can benefit from the 

application of these unique and innovative approaches. Below we summarize the findings of the 

review in eight topics that have emerged from our coastal restoration experiences and from the 

experiences in the hundreds of projects evaluated in this review. 

Incorporate experimentation 

Several examples show that simple experiments can go a long way in improving the success of 

restoration projects. Experimentation does not have to be complicated and highly technical. In 

most cases, simple tests that help decide between two methods may be all that is needed. For 

example, test planting seagrass to evaluate the suitability of a site can help refine where planting 

should be carried out. We suspect that experimentation a) is used more often than reported 

because simple experiments are often not suitable for publications and b) not always used when 

needed to provide information that would reduce key uncertainties. Experimentation can also be 

incorporated as an integral feature of a project so that future projects at the site or in the region 

can benefit from the information. Finally, adaptive management relies on experiments and 

monitoring, and provides a framework within which experimentation can be incorporated into a 

project or restoration program. 

 
 Discussion 

Battelle 40 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Plan at the watershed or estuary level 

In the past, the restoration site was the focus of attention, with little regard for the broader 

landscape. There has been a fundamental shift in approach that has proven successful in many 

areas where the watershed (or other larger-scale ecological unit) is considered in planning 

restoration at sites. The two basic reasons for this change are: 1) to maintain restoration sites in 

the long-term, the processes (e.g., hydrology) that control maintenance must be functional in the 

system; and, 2) if a site is restored to help a certain highly motile species (e.g., migratory fish and 

birds), but the habitat requirements are inadequate for maintenance of the population at a larger 

scale, the actions taken at the site will provide little or no benefit for the species. The probability 

of a site restoration working is improved if the landscape processes are relatively intact (Mitchell 

1981; Shreffler and Thom 1993). 

Choose appropriate sites 

Ultimately, site selection can be summed up in the rule of real estate: “location, location, 

location.” Often in the past, and probably into the foreseeable future, restoration project sites 

will be those that are presented as an opportunity rather than being selected from among a suite 

of potential sites using objective, science-based criteria. However, the primary factor explaining 

project failure is inadequate site conditions. Realizing this, site-selection methods are being 

developed to improve the process. The best methods appear to be those that rely on the scientific 

understanding of the requirements (e.g., elevation, hydrology) of habitats, and what must be done 

to a site to make these conditions correct for the target habitat. Using science-based criteria, the 

sites can be narrowed to those most likely to prove successful. Other criteria such as land 

ownership, public opinion, and surrounding land uses can then be factored in to choose the best 

possible site. 

 

Form creative partnerships 

Restoration is generally an expensive endeavor and is driven by the ability to provide adequate 

financial support for all phases of a project. What restorationists have realized is that to 

accomplish a project, funding will likely come from a variety of sources in both cash and in-kind 

contributions. Knowledge of what needs to be accomplished to make a project happen and who 

might contribute as a partner in the process is a key element of successful restoration projects. 

As much as scientists tend to shy away from it, politics also can play a key role in a project. 

Having a wide base of support helps in funding the project, can provide needed expertise and 

labor, and also helps provide political support. 

Identify challenges and set appropriate goals 

Setting a realistic and clear goal for a project, while acknowledging the uncertainties and 

challenges up-front, provides a guide for project success. If there is any consensus in restoration, 

it is that a clear goal statement is required to direct what is done on a project. A vague or 

unrealistic goal statement only sets a project up for failure. The simplest projects (e.g., replacing 

a nonfunctional tide gate with a self-regulating tide gate) that offer obvious benefits can also 

offer major challenges. The challenges can operate at all levels and scales of intensity from the 

technical to interpersonal. Realizing these challenges up-front and developing a strategy to deal 

with them will help smooth the planning and implementation process. Here is where technical 

experts, community involvement specialists, and politicians can all play a vital role. Rare is the 

person who can operate at all these levels, although many have tried and have encountered a high 
 Discussion 

Battelle 41 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

level of frustration and disappointment in the process. Although fighting for a solid project on 

technical grounds may seem logical and obvious to some, political and interpersonal issues are 

equally powerful. 

Establish long-term funding for monitoring 

Monitoring is the basis for improving restoration science. Monitoring in the past often has been 

either not done or poorly conducted. Monitoring does not need to be complex and expensive to 

provide critical data needed to manage the project and to help make decisions on alternative 

actions. Monitoring is critical to applying adaptive management as a framework for restoration. 

Many innovative methods are published on how to monitor key variables at restoration sites. 

Funding is required to conduct monitoring in most cases, and the source of funding should be 

reasonably assured for the long-term. Volunteers have been used successfully and very 

effectively to monitor routine parameters. Training volunteers, managing the data, and 

producing summary reports is best handled by a person or group accustomed to doing this. 

Support for these tasks often requires funding. 

Use adaptive management to reduce uncertainty 

We can no longer walk away from a project assuming it will work as expected. Most projects do 

not end up exactly as planned, and many end up quite different than predicted. When projects 

involve little funding, this may not be an issue, but for projects costing several million dollars, a 

failure is not acceptable. Many large programs are using adaptive management principles to try 

innovative and uncertain methods and to learn from these methods. As mentioned above, clear 

goal statements, acknowledging uncertainties and challenges, and an effective and focused 

monitoring program are all elements of an adaptive management program. 

Involve the community 

In the words of Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can 

change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Community involvement and 

support was cited in the literature and by those interviewed as a common element leading to 

successful projects. The community often is the key political force supporting a project, which 

will drive funding and other aspects of a program (e.g., permits). In addition, the community is 

an excellent source of stewardship. The community is invested in its region and generally wants 

to see the area improved. Community members often see restoration as adding value to their 

property, creating educational and recreational opportunities, and enhancing the overall quality 

of life. 
 Conclusion 

Battelle 42 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

5.0 Conclusion 

In conclusion, restoration projects provide an important opportunity to learn from innovation and 

the experiences of others. The probability of success can be greatly enhanced through selecting 

appropriate project sites based on objective, science-based criteria; approaching the project from 

a broader perspective (i.e., at the landscape level); and being willing to risk taking new and 

experimental approaches. Restoration is necessarily a combined effort, requiring the 

contribution of skills and funding from a variety of sources and stakeholders working toward a 

common goal. These resources are required from the onset of planning through the long-term 

monitoring stages to the realization of project goals. Challenges are generally the rule, rather 

than the exception. Establishing clearly defined, realistic goals at the planning phase provides a 

shared path forward. Adaptive management provides a framework for critical review and 

decision making to ensure progress toward restoration objectives. Most importantly, it is the 

collaborative efforts of dedicated scientists, consultants, educators, resource managers, 

regulators, conservation groups, volunteers, and others that make a restoration project a success. 

We hope the experiences from the sources noted in this review contribute toward the success of 

future restoration efforts. 

6.0 Acknowledgements 

This review was made possible by funding from the NOAA Coastal Services Center. We would 

like to thank Jeffery Adkins for his guidance and support during this project. This review was 

greatly improved thanks to the reviews of numerous anonymous reviewers and Blythe Barbo at 

the Battelle Marine Sciences Lab. In addition, this review would not have been possible without 

the help of the many experts in the field of coastal habitat restoration who were willing to take 

time to talk to us, send us information, and provide direction on other sources of information. 
 References 

Battelle 43 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

7.0 References 

7.1.1 Published Materials 

Able, K. W., D. M. Nemerson, P. R. Light, and R. O. Bush. 2000. Initial response of fishes to 

marsh restoration at a former salt hay farm bordering Delaware Bay. Pages 749-773 in M. 

P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, editors, Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh 

Ecology. Klewer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 

Addy, C. E. and D.A. Aylward. 1944. Status of eelgrass in Massachusetts during 1943. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 8(4):269-275. 

Antrim, L.D., A. B. Borde, R. M. Thom, and J. A. Southard. 2003. Plan for Habitat Protection, 

Restoration, and Enhancement: Fidalgo Bay and Guemes Channel. Battelle Memorial 

Institute, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. PNWD-3282. 

Association of National Estuary Programs, Inc. (ANEP). 2002. Habitat Characterization and 

Management Approaches in our Nation's Estuaries. Association of National Estuary 

Programs, Inc., Annandale, Virginia. 

Baran, E. and J. Hambrey. 1998. Mangrove conservation and coastal management in southeast 

Asia: What impact on fishery resources? Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):431-440. 

Blanton, S., R. Thom, A. Borde, H. Diefenderfer, and J. Southard. 2002. Evaluation of Methods 

to Increase Light under Ferry Terminals. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest 

Division, Richland, Washington. PNNL-13714. 

Boumans, R. M. J., D. M. Burdick, and M. Dionne. 2002. Modeling habitat change in salt 

marshes after tidal restoration. Restoration Ecology 10(3):543-555. 

Boyer, K. E., J. C. Callaway, and J. B. Zedler. 2000. Evaluating the progress of restored 

cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) marshes: Belowground biomass and tissue N. Estuaries

23:711-721. 

Boyer, K. E. and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Nitrogen addition could shift plant community composition 

in a restored California salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 7(1):74-85. 

Broome, S. W. 1990. Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States. 

Pages 37-72 in J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, editors, Wetland Creation and Restoration: 

The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Callaway, J. C. 2001. Hydrology and substrate. Pages 89-117 in J. B. Zedler, editor, Handbook 

for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Calumpong, H. P. and M. S. Fonseca. 2001. Seagrass transplantation and other seagrass 

restoration methods. Pages 425-443 in F. T. Short and R. G. Coles, editors, Global 

Seagrass Research Methods. Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 
 References 

Battelle 44 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Corcoran, P. 2002. Creating successful partnerships. Pages 3-29 in S. Ridlington, editor, 

National Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Manual. Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Cornu, C. E. and S. Sadro. 2002. Physical and functional responses to experimental marsh 

surface elevation manipulation in Coos Bay's South Slough. Restoration Ecology

10(3):474-486. 

Cunningham, S. 2002. The restoration economy: The Greatest New Growth Frontier: Immediate 

and Emerging Opportunities for Businesses, Communities, and Investors. Berret-Koehler 

Publishers, San Francisco, California. 

Davis, R. C. and F. T. Short. 1997. Restoring Eelgrass, Zostera marina L., Habitat Using a New 

Transplanting Technique: the Horizontal Rhizome Method. Aquatic Botany 59(1-2):1-15. 

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White, and C. Tanner. 2001. Skagit Estuary Restoration Assessment: 

Identifying and prioritizing areas for habitat restoration in Puget Sound's largest rural 

estuary. http://www.pugetsound.org/blueprints/skagit_assessment.pdf 

del Giorgio, P. A. and Newell, R. I. E. 2002. Use of microbial community metabolism to 

monitor and assess saltmarsh ecological function. Progress Report submitted to 

NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology 

(CICEET). http://ciceet.unh.edu/progressreports/2002/fall/del_giorgio/index.html 

Diefenderfer, H. L., S. L. Sargeant, R. M. Thom, A. B. Borde, P. F. Gayaldo, C. A. Curtis, B. L. 

Court, D. M. Pierce, and D. S. Robison. In Press. Dock design to facilitate the restoration 

of eelgrass in Port Townsend Bay, Washington. Ecological Restoration. 

Diefenderfer, H. L., R. M. Thom, and J. Adkins. 2003. Systematic Approach to Coastal 

Ecosystem Restoration. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. 

PNWD-3237. 

Diefenderfer, H. L. and J. A. Ward. 2002. Analysis of potential downstream contamination 

resulting from dike removal for restoration: Willapa River estuary, Washington. Battelle 

Pacific Northwest Division, Sequim, Washington. PNWD-3161. 

Disney, M. and Miles, A. K. 2000. Effects of soil organic content and surface litter (mulch) on 

pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) establishment along Suisin Bay. State of the Estuary 

2000 Restoration Primer. Page 50. Oakland, California, San Francisco Estuary Project. 

Edwards, A. J. and S. Clark. 1998. Coral transplantation: a useful management Totl or 

misguided meddling? Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):474-487. 

Edwards, K. R. and C. E. Proffitt. 2003. Comparison of wetland structural characteristics 

between created and natural salt marshes in southwest Louisiana, USA. Wetlands

23(2):344-356. 
 References 

Battelle 45 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2000. Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecological Engineering

15:253-265 . 

Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich. 2001. Strategies for gardening denuded coral reef 

areas: the applicability of using different types of coral material for reef restoration. 

Restoration Ecology 9(4):432-442. 

Field, C. D. 1998. Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an overview. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 37(8-12):383-392. 

Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, and G. W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and 

Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Foote-Smith, C. 2002. Watershed Wetlands Restoration Planning: The Massachusetts 

Experience. Pages 111-124 in R. Tiner, editor, Watershed-Based Wetland Planning and 

Evaluation. A Collection of Papers from the Wetland Millennium Event. Berne, NY. 

Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. 

http://www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/pdf/tiner_2002_wshed.pdf 

Ford, M. A., D. R. Cahoon, and J. C. Lynch. 1999. Restoring marsh elevation in a rapidly 

subsiding salt marsh by thin-layer deposition of dredged material. Ecological Engineering

12(3-4):189-205. 

Gayaldo, P., Ewing, K., and Wyllie-Echeverria, S. 2001. Transplantaion and alteration of 

submarine environment for restoration of Zostera marina (eelgrass): A case study at Curtis 

Wharf (Port of Anacortes), Washington. Proceedings of Puget Sound Research 2001. 

Olympia, Washington, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 

Gersib, R. A. Tiner, R. 2002. The Need for Process-driven, Watershed-based Wetland 

Restoration: The Washington State Experience. Pages 89-110 in R. Tiner, editor, 

Watershed-Based Wetland Planning and Evaluation. A Collection of Papers from the 

Wetland Millennium Event. Berne, NY. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. 

http://www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/pdf/tiner_2002_wshed.pdf 

Gilliam, D. S., R. E. Dodge, S. L. Thornton, E. A. Glynn, W. Jaap, and J. Wheaton. 2003. 

Scleractinian coral reattachment success and recruitment on a shallow-water ship 

grounding site in southeastern Florida, USA. National Coral Reef Institute, Nova 

Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida. 

http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ncri/projects/hind/index.html 

Glynn, E. A., T. P. Quinn, D. P. Fahy, R. E. Dodge, D. S. Gilliam, and R. E. Spieler. 2003. 

Growth and survivorship of stony coral Meandrina meandrites and Montastrea cavernosa

transplants to an artificial reef environment: A work in progress. National Coral Reef 

Institute, Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida. 

http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ncri/projects/transplant/index.html 
 References 

Battelle 46 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Gray, A., C. A. Simenstad, D. L. Bottom, and T. J. Cornwell. 2002. Contrasting functional 

performance of juvenile salmon habitat in recovering wetlands of the Salmon River 

Estuary, Oregon, USA. Restoration Ecology 10(3):514-526 . 

Hackney, C. T. 2000. Restoration of coastal habitats: Expectation and reality. Ecological 

Engineering 15(3-4):165-170. 

Hall, W. 2003. The role of mitigation in a restoration strategy. Proceedings of the 2003 

Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Olympia, Washington, Puget Sound 

Water Quality Action Team. 

Harding, J. 2001. Temporal variation and patchiness of zooplankton around a restored oyster 

reef. Estuaries 24(3):453-466. 

Harrington, K. W. and T. D. Feather. 1996. Evaluation of environmental investments procedures: 

Interim overview manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 

Alexandria, Virginia. IWR Report 96-R-18. 

Harrison, S. A., T. P. Croughan, M. D. Materne, B. C. Venuto, G. A. Breitenbeck, M. A. Cohn, 

X. Fang, A. Ryan, R. W. Schneider, R. A. Shadow, P. Subudhi, and H. Utomo. 2001. 

Improving native plants to protect and preserve Louisiana's coastal marshes. Louisiana 

Agriculture 44(3):4-6. 

Harwell, M. C. and R. J. Orth. 1999. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) seed protection for field 

experiments and implications for large-scale restoration. Aquatic Botany 64(1):51-61. 

Hemminga, M. A. and C. M. Duarte. 2000. Seagrass ecology. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

Hood, W. G. 2002. Landscape allometry: From tidal channel hydraulic geometry to benthic 

ecology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1418-1427. 

Hughes, H. G. and Bonnicksen, T. M. 1990. Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. 

Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. 

Oakland, California. 

Jaap, W. C. 2000. Coral reef restoration. Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):345-364. 

Johnson, G. E., R. M. Thom, A. Whiting, B. Sutherland, and J. A. Southard. 2003. A Plan for 

Ecological Restoration of Salmon Habitat in the Lower Columbia River Estuary, 90% 

Draft Submittal. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Columbia River Estuary Study 

Taskforce, and Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 

Kenworthy, W. J., M. S. Fonseca, P. E. Whitfield , K. Hammerstrom, and C. Schwarzschild. 

2000. A comparison of methods for enhancing the recovery of seagrasses into propellor 

scars: Mechanical injection of nutrient and growth solution vs. defecation by roosting 

seabirds. Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Reasearch, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Beaufort, North Carolina. 
 References 

Battelle 47 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Kowalski, K. P. and D. A. Wilcox. 1999. Use of historical and geospatial data to guide the 

restoration of a Lake Erie coastal marsh. Wetlands 19(4):858-868. 

Kwak, T. and J. B. Zedler. 1997. Food web analysis of southern California coastal wetlands 

using multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110:262-277. 

Lane, R. R., H. S. Mashriqui, G. P. Kemp, J. W. Day, J. N. Day, and A. Hamilton. 2003 . 

Potential nitrate removal from a river diversion into a Mississippi delta forested wetland. 

Ecological Engineering 20:237-249. 

Leonard, L., M. Posey, L. Cahoon, R. Laws, and T. Alphin. 2002. Sediment Recycling: Marsh 

Renourishment through Dredged Material Disposal. Final Report submitted to 

NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology 

(CICEET). http://ciceet.unh.edu/files/full_project/LeonardFinal.pdf 

Levin, L. and Currin, C. 2002. Restoration of coastal wetlands invertebrates: Methods for 

colonization enhancement and evaluation of trophic function. Progress Report submitted 

to NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental 

Technology (CICEET). http://ciceet.unh.edu/progressreports/2002/fall/levin/index.html 

Lewis III, R. R. 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal plain wetlands in Florida.Kusler and 

Kentula, editors. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Lewis III, R. R. 2003a. Mangrove restoration - Costs and benefits of successful ecological 

restoration. Proceedings of the Mangrove Valuation Workshop.Stockholm, Sweden, 

Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics. 

Lewis III, R. R. 2003b. Time zero plus 24 months report for the Cross Bayou mangrove 

restoration site, Pinella County, Florida. Tampa, Florida. 

Lewis, R. R. 2000. Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove forest and tidal marsh 

restoration. Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):191-198. 

Lewis, R. R., P. A. Clark, W. K. Fehring, H. S. Greening, R. O. Johansson, and R. T. Paul. 

1998. The rehabilitation of the Tampa Bay estuary, Florida, USA, as an example of 

successful integrated coastal management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):468-473. 

Lewis, R. R. and B. Streever. 2000. Restoration of Mangrove Habitat. U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC TN-WRP-VN-RS-3.2. 

http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wrtc/wrp/tnotes/vnrs3-2.pdf 

Lindig-Cisneros, R. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Halophyte recruitment in a salt marsh restoration 

site. Estuaries 25(6A):1174-1183. 

Lirman, D. and Jr. W. P. Cropper. 2003. The influence of salinity on seagrass growth, 

survivorship, and distribution within Biscayne Bay, Florida: Field, experimental, and 

modeling studies. Estuaries 26(1):131-141. 
 References 

Battelle 48 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2001. The 2000 

evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland 

restoration projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/program/program.asp?r=206 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable coastal 

Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

http://www.lacoast.gov/Programs/2050/MainReport/report1.pdf 

Lugo, A. E. 1998. Mangrove forests: a tough system to invade but an easy one to rehabilitate. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):427-430. 

Madon, S. P., G. D. Williams, J. M. West, and J. B. Zedler. 2001. The importance of marsh 

access to growth of the California killifish, Fundulus parvipinnis, evaluated through 

bioenergetics modeling. Ecological Modelling 136(2-3):149-165. 

Marcus, L. 2000. Restoring Tidal Wetlands at Sonoma Baylands, San Francisco Bay, 

California. Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):373-383. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 1998. Analysis of Eelgrass and Shallow Water Habitat Restoration 

Programs Along the North America Pacific Coast: Lessons Learned and Applicability to 

Oakland Middle Harbor Enhancement Area Design. San Diego, California. 

Milano, G. R. 1999. Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern Florida. Wetland Journal

11(2):15-24. 

Miller, J. A. and C. A. Simenstad. 1997. A comparative assessment of a natural and created 

estuarine slough as rearing habitat for juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Estuaries

20(4):792-806. 

Minello, T. J. and L. P. Rozas. 2002. Nekton in Gulf Coast Wetlands: Fine-Scale Distributions, 

Landscape Patterns, and Restoration Implications. Ecological Applications 12(2):441-455. 

Mitchell, D. L. 1981. Salt Marsh Reestablishment Following Dike Breaching in the Salmon 

River Estuary, Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, Dissertation. 

Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New 

York. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Population: distribution, 

density, and growth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2002. National coastal ecosystem 

restoration manual, Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 
 References 

Battelle 49 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean 

Water Act, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nixon, S. W., Granger, S., Maynard, B., and Schwartz, M. 2002. Density-dependent effects on 

grazing and success from seed generated seagrass (Zostera marina L.) plants. Progress 

Report submitted to NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine 

Environmental Technology (CICEET). 

http://ciceet.unh.edu/progressreports/2002/fall/nixon98/index.html

Page, H. M. 1997. Importance of vascular plant and algal production to macroinvertebrate 

consumers in a southern California salt marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science

45:823-834. 

Peconic Estuary Habitat Restoration Workgroup. 2000. Habitat Restoration Plan for the Peconic 

Estuary. Peconic Estuary Program, Riverhead, New York. 

Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. and DHI Water and Environment. 2002. Hydrodynamic 

modeling analysis of existing conditions - Phase 1. Sacramento, California. PWA Ref. 

#1174-8. 

Portnoy, J. W. 1999. Salt marsh diking and restoration: biogeochemical implications of altered 

wetland hydrology. Environmental Management 24(1):111-120. 

Quinn, T. P., E. A. Glynn, R. E. Dodge, K. Banks, L. Fisher, and R. E. Spieler. 2003. 

Hypothesis-based restoration study for mitigation of a damaged southeastern Florida coral 

reef: A work in progress. National Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern University 

Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida. 

http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ncri/projects/memphis/index.html 

Raposa, K. 2002. Early responses of fishes and crustaceans to restoration of a tidally restricted 

New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 10(4):665-676. 

Raposa, K. B. and C. T. Roman. 2003. Using gradients in tidal restriction to evaluate nekton 

community responses to salt marsh restoration. Estuaries 26(1):98-105. 

Redmond, A. M. 2000. Dredge and fill regulatory constraints in meeting the ecological goals of 

restoration projects. Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):181-189. 

Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2002. A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat. Restore 

America's Estuaries, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.estuaries.org/ 

Ridlington, S. (editor). 2002. National Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Manual. Oregon Sea 

Grant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Rinkevich, B. 1995. Restoration strategies for coral reefs damaged by recreational activities: 

The use of sexual and asexual recruits. Restoration Ecology 3(4):241-251. 
 References 

Battelle 50 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating 

fishery habitat. Wetlands 21(3):327-341. 

Short, F. T., R. C. Davis, B. S. Kopp, C. A. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 2002. Site-selection 

model for optimal transplantation of eelgrass Zostera marina in the northeastern US. 

Marine Ecology-Progress Series 227:253-267. 

Shreffler, D. K. and R. M. Thom. 1993. Restoration of Urban Estuaries; New Approaches for 

Site Location and Design. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Simenstad, C. A. and J. R. Cordell. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring 

anadromous salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering

15(3-4):283-302. 

Simenstad, C. A. and R. M. Thom. 1992. Restoring wetland habitats in urbanized Pacific 

Northwest estuaries. Pages 423-472 in G. W. Thayer, editor. Restoring the Nation's marine 

environment. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, Maryland. 

Simenstad, C. A. and R. M. Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored 

Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6(1):38-56. 

Southard, J. A., G. D. Williams, R. M. Thom, A. B. Borde, S. L. Sargeant, and J. Cordell. 2003. 

Habitat Mitigation Monitoring at the Clinton Ferry Terminal, Whidbey Island: Annual 

Report Number 6. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. 

Steyer, G. D. and D. W. Llewellyn. 2000. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and 

Restoration Act: A programmatic application of adaptive management. Ecological 

Engineering 15(3-4):385-395. 

Steyer, G. D., C. E. Sasser, J. M. Visser, E. M. Swenson, J. A. Nyman, and R. C. Raynie. 2002. 

A proposed coast-wide reference monitoring system for evaluating wetland restoration 

trajectories in Louisiana. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:107-

117. 

Sturdevant, A. and C. B. Craft. 2002. Baseline Ecological Characterization of an Estuarine 

Marsh Restoration Site and Reference Marshes along Woodbridge River, NJ. School of 

Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. 

Sullivan, G. 2001. Establishing vegetation in restored and created coastal wetlands. Pages 119-

155 in J. B. Zedler, editor. Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

Florida. 

Teo, S. L. H. and K. W. Able. 2003. Growth and production of the mummichig (Fundulus 

heteroclitus) in a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 26(1):51-63. 

Thom, R. M. 1990. A review of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) transplanting projects in the 

Pacific Northwest. Northwest Environmental Journal 6:127-137. 
 References 

Battelle 51 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Thom, R. M. 1997. System-development matrix for adaptive management of coastal ecosystem 

restoration projects. Ecological Engineering 8:219-232. 

Thom, R. M. 2000. Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects. 

Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):365-372. 

Thomas, J. D. 2001. Prodeedings of the International Conference on Scientific Aspects of Coral 

Reef Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration. Bulletin of Marine Science 69. 

Travis, S. E., C. E. Proffitt, R. C. Lowenfeld, and T. W. Mitchell. 2002. A comparative 

assessment of genetic diversity among differently-aged populations of Spartina 

alterniflora on restored versus natural wetlands. Restoration Ecology 10(1):37-42. 

Tupper, M. and K. W. Able. 2000. Movements and food habits of striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis) in Delaware Bay (USA) salt marshes: Comparison of a restored and a reference 

marsh. Marine Biology 137:1049-1058. 

Turgeon, D. D., R. G. Asch, B. D. Causey, R. E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B. D. 

Keller, R. Speiler, C. A. Matos, J. R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C. S. Rogers, Z. 

Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G. P. Schmahl, M. W. Miller, D. A. Gulko, J. E. 

Maragos, A. M. Friedlander, C. L. Hunter, R. S. Brainard, P. Craig, R. H. Richond, G. 

Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C. E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. 

Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde. 2002. The State 

of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring. Maryland. 

http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/documents/status%5Fcoralreef.pdf 

Turner, R. E. and B. Streever. 2002. Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf 

of Mexico. SPB Academic Publishing, The Netherlands. 

Twilley, R. R., V. H. Rivera-Monroy, R. H. Chen, and L. Botero. 1998. Adapting an ecological 

mangrove model to simulate trajectories in restoration ecology. Marine Pollution Bulletin

37(8-12):404-419. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works 

Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Circular No. 

1105-2-210. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1999. San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Study. 

US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, California. 

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, McGrawhill, New York, 

NY. 

Walters, C. J. and R. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by 

doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068. 
 References 

Battelle 52 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A. H. Brawley, A. C. Orsted, E. T. Olson, V. Swamy, and W. 

A. Niering. 2002. Salt marsh restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and 

management. Restoration Ecology 10(3):497-513. 

Water Resources Council (WRC). 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. US 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Watzin, M. C. and J. G. Gosselink. 1992. The Fragile Fringe: Coastal Wetlands of the 

Continental United States. Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Loiusiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, LA;U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.; National 

Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 

http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/pubs/consensus/fragfringe.pdf 

Weinstein, M. P., J. H. Balletto, J. M. Teal, and D. F. Ludwig. 1997. Success criteria and 

adaptive management for a large- scale wetland restoration project. Wetlands Ecology 

and Management (Special Issue) 4(2):111-127. 

Weinstein, M. P., S. Y. Litvin, K. L. Bosley, C. M. Fuller, and S. C. Wainwright. 2000. The 

role of tidal marsh as an energy source for marine transient and resident finfishes: A stable 

isotope approach. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 129:797-810. 

Wilber, P., G. Thayer, M. Croom, and G. Mayer. 2000. Goal setting and success criteria for 

coastal habitat restoration. Ecological Engineering 15(3-4 (Special Issue)):165-405. 

Williams, B. W., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and A. Bailey. 2003. Historic Nearshore Habitat Change 

Analysis: Fidalgo Bay and Guemes Channel. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Williams, G. D. and J. S. Desmond. 2001. Restoring assemblages of invertebrates and fishes. 

Pages 235-269 in J. B. Zedler, editor. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, 

Boca Raton, Florida. 

Williams, G. D. and R. M. Thom. 2001. Development of Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat 

Protection and Restoration: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Battelle 

Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. PNWD-3087. 

Williams, G. D. and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Fish assemblage composition in constructed and natural 

tidal marshes of San Diego Bay: Relative influence of channel morphology and restoration 

history. Estuaries 22(3A):702-716. 

Williams, K. B. 2002. The Potential Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Site Identification 

Procedure: A Geographic Information System for Targeting Wetland Restoration and 

Enhancement. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Williams, P. 2001. Restoring physical processes in tidal wetlands. Journal of Coastal Research

27:149-161. 
 References 

Battelle 53 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Williams, P. B. and M. K. Orr. 2002. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes 

in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Restoration Ecology 10(3):527-542. 

Williams, P. B., M. K. Orr, and N. J. Garrity. 2002. Hydraulic geometry: a geomorphic design 

tool for tidal marsh channel evolution in wetland restoration projects. Restoration Ecology

10(3):577-590. 

Williams, S. L. 2001. Reduced genetic diversity in eelgrass transplantations affects both 

population growth and individual fitness. Ecological Applications 11(5):1472-1488. 

Williams, S. L. and R. J. Orth. 1998. Genetic diversity and structure of natural and transplanted 

eelgrass beds in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. Estuaries. 

Zedler, J. B. 1996. Tidal Wetlands Restoration: A Scientific Perspective and Southern California 

Focus. National Sea Grant, CUIMR-T-96-001. 

Zedler, J. B. (editor). 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

Florida. 

Zedler, J. B. and J. C. Callaway. 2000. Evaluating the progress of engineered tidal wetlands. 

Ecological Engineering 15(3-4):211-225. 

Zeff, M. L. 1999. Salt marsh tidal channel morphometry: applications for wetland creation and 

restoration. Restoration Ecology 7(2):205-211. 

7.1.2 Sources of Unpublished Materials 

Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP). 2004. The Association of National Estuary 

Programs Web site, Habitat Loss Technology Transfer Database. URL: http://www.anepusa.org/techtransfer/Habitat/management/restoration/R_index.htm (accessed January 

2004). 

Bieri, J.. 2003. Restoring Underwater Grasses in Chesapeake Bay : How Community 

Involvement Can Benefit Restoration Techniques, Program Exposure and Partnerships. 

URL: http://www.estuaries.org/objects/docs/m2b_1.pdf (accessed December 2003). 

Brammeier, J. 2003. Personal communication, Joel Brammeier, Lake Michigan Federation, 

Chicago, Illinois. 

California Coastal Conservancy. 2004. Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project 

Information Station. URL: http://www.wrpinfo.scc.ca.gov/ (accessed January 2004). 

California CoastKeepeer Alliance. 2003. California CoastKeepeer Alliance Web site. URL: 

www.cacoastkeeper.org (accessed December 2003). 
 References 

Battelle 54 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Chapman, P. 2003. The CREST Program: A new coastal research initiative in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. Presented at the Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine 

Habitat Restoration . April 13-16, 2003, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2003. Chesapeake Bay Program Web site. URL: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ (accessed December 2003). 

Clairain, B. 2003. Personal communication, Buddy Clairain, USACE-Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Clark, P. 2003. Personal communication, Peter Clark. Tampa BayWatch, Tampa Bay, Florida. 

Coastal Conservation Association of Florida (CCA of Florida). 2004. Coastal Conservation 

Association of Florida Web site. URL: http://www.ccaflorida.org/habitat.html (accessed 

January 2004). 

Collier, Chantal. Personal communication. 2003. California CoastKeeper Alliance, Newport 

Beach, California 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). 2003. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan Web site. URL: http://www.evergladesplan.org/ (accessed December 

2003). 

Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). 2003. 

The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology Web site. 

URL: http://ciceet.unh.edu (accessed December 2003). 

Crawford, M. 2003. Personal communication, Maurice Crawford, NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Crooks, J. 2003. Personal communication, Jeff Crooks, Tijuana River NERR, Imperial Beach, 

California. 

Croughan, T. P., Harrison, S. A., Subudhi, P. K. , Breitenbeck, G. A., Cohn, M. A., Schneider, 

R. W., and Materne, M. D. 2002. Biological Approaches to Coastal Wetlands 

Restoration. http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/inst/research/stations/rice/croughan.htm 

Enstrom, M.. 2003. Personal communication, Mary Enstrom, The Nature Conservancy, Key 

West, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2003. Florida Wetland Restoration 

Information Center Web site. URL: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/fwric/index.htm (accessed December 2003). 

Galveston Bay Foundation. 2003. Volunteer Opportunities. URL: http://www.galvbay.org/7-

0.cfm (accessed December 2003). 
 References 

Battelle 55 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Gayaldo, P. 2003. Personal communication, Perry Gayaldo, NOAA Restoration Center, 

Restoration Research Program, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Gray, A. 2003. Personal communication, Ayesha Gray, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Hammerstrom, K. 2003. Personal communication, Kamille Hammerstrom, NOAA, Center for 

Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina. 

Japp, W. 2003. Personal communication,Walter Japp, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. 

Petersburg, Florida 

Kenworthy, J. 2003. Personal communication, Jud Kenworthy, NOAA, Center for Coastal 

Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina. 

Lassen, T. 2003. Personal communication, Thor Lassen, Ocean Trust, Arlington, Virginia. 

Leonard, L. 2003. Personal communication, Lynn Leonard, University of North Carolina 

Wilmington, Wilmington, NC. 

Lewis, R. 2003. Personal communication, Robin Lewis, Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., 

Salt Springs, Florida. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2004. Bay Grasses in Classes Program 

Web site. URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/bgic/grass_class.html (accessed 

January 2004). 

McKinney, A. 2001. Personal communication, Alicia McKinney, St. Johns River Water 

Management District, Palatka, Florida. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004a. National Estuarine 

Research Reserve Web site. URL:http://nerrs.noaa.gov/ (accessed January 2004). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004b. National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science, Science for Coastal Communities, Science-Based Restoration 

Monitoring of Coastal Habitats Web site. URL: 

http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/ecosystems/estuaries/restoration_monitoring.html (accessed 

January 2004). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003a. Coastal Zone Management 

Web site. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management. URL: http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/ (accessed December 2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003b. Relevent Laws, Damage 

Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) Web site. NOAA, DARP. URL: 

http://www.darp.noaa.gov/legislat.htm (accessed December 2003). 
 References 

Battelle 56 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003c. NOAA’s Estuary 

Restoration Act Web site. URL: http://era.noaa.gov/welcome.html (accessed December 

2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003d. Federal Funding Sources 

for Habitat Restoration Database. URL: 

http://era.noaa.gov/htmls/funding/sup_funding.html (accessed December 2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003e. Coastal Zone Management 

Act Web site. URL: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html (accessed 

December 2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003f. Restoration Research 

Program Web site. URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/research/index.html (Site 

updated April 2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003g. Restoration Research 

Program Web site, The Restoration of Salt Marsh at Eastern Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge in the Chesapeake Bay. URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/research/funded_projects/

5.html. (Site updated March 2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003h. Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Program, Northwest Region, Mowich Restoration Project. URL: 

http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/wasser.htm (accesses December 2003). 

NMFS Habitat Conservation Division. 2003. Marsh Bash 1999. URL: 

http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/galv/community/Marsh/marsh_bash_1999.htm (accessed 

December 2003). 

Orth, R. J. 2003. Seeds and seed dispersal strategies in seagrasses: Are there lessons to be 

learned for seagrass restoration projects? Presented at the Restore America's Estuaries 

Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration. April 13-16, 

2003, Baltimore, Maryland. 

People for Puget Sound. 2003. Sound Stewardship Program: URL: 

http://www.pugetsound.org/vshrmp/index.html (accessed December 2003). 

Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Program (PSNERP). 2003. Puget Sound 

Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Program Web Site. URL: 

http://www.prism.washington.edu/lc/PSNERP/index.html (accessed December 2003). 

Restore Americas Estuaries (RAE). 2003. Restore Americas Estuaries Web site. URL: 

http://www.estuaries.org/ (accessed December 2003). 

Rot, B. 2003. Personal communication Byron Rot, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Sequim, 

Washington. 
 References 

Battelle 57 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

Save the Bay. 2003a. Salt Marshes: A Critical Narragansett Bay Habitat Web site. URL: 

http://www.savebay.org/bayissues/saltmarshes.htm (accessed December 2003). 

Save the Bay. 2003b. Save the Bay (San Francisco) Education Program Web site. URL: 

http://www.savesfbay.org/educationprograms/ (accessed December 2003). 

SeagrassNet. 2003. SeagrassNet Web site. URL: www.seagrassnet.org (accessed December 

2003). 

Short, F. 2003. Personal communication, Fred Short, Jackson Estuarine Research Lab, 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 

Short, F. T. 2003. Science provides the tools for successful mitigation and community-based 

seagrass restoration. Presented at the Restore America's Estuaries Inaugural National 

Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration. April 13-16, 2003, Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

Simenstad, C. 2003. Challenges of habitat restoration in a heavily urbanized estuary: Evaluating 

the investment. Presented at the Inaugural National Conference on Coastal Estuarine 

Habitat Restoration. April 13-16, 2003, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). 2003. Society for Ecological Restoration 

International Online Web site. URL: http://www.ser.org/ (accessed December 2003). 

South Carolina Oyster Restoration and Enhancement. 2003. URL: 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/scoysters/html/restore.htm (accessed December 2003). 

Steger, J. 2003. Personal communication, Jennifer Steger, NOAA, Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Center, Seattle, Washington. 

Steyer, G. 2003. Personal communication Greg Steyer, United States Geological Service 

(USGS) National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

Tampa BayWatch. 2004. Bay Grasses in Classes Program Web site. URL: 

http://www.tampabaywatch.org/programbaygrasses.htm (accessed January 2004). 

United States Geological Society (USGS). 2003a. LAcoast Web site. Maintained by USGS, 

National Wetlands Research Center. URL: http://www.lacoast.gov/ (accessed December 

2003). 

United States Geological Society (USGS). 2003b. Coast2050 Web site. Maintained by USGS, 

National Wetlands Research Center. URL: http://www.coast2050.gov/ (accessed 

December 2003). 

United States Geological Society (USGS). 2003c. CWPPRA Web site. Maintained by USGS, 

National Wetlands Research Center. URL: http://lacoast.gov/cwppra/ (accessed December 

2003). 
 References 

Battelle 58 Innovative and Successful 

 Coastal Habitat Restoration 

University of Rhode Island Environmental Data Center. 2003. Rhode Island Coastal Habitat 

Restoration Portal Web site. URL: http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/index.htm (accessed 

December 2003). 

WaterMarks 2003. WaterMarks: the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and 

Restoration Newsletter, August 2003 Issue (Number 23). URL: 

http://lacoast.gov/newsletter.htm 

Williams, S. L. 1997. Genetic Issues for the Restoration of Seagrass Populations. Workshop on 

the Restoration Genetics of Wetland Plants. http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/cuimr/cuimrr97054.pdf