- Email: [email protected]
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act: A programmatic application of adaptive management
Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385 – 395
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act: A programmatic application of adaptive management Gregory D. Steyer *, Daniel W. Llewellyn Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Di6ision, P.O. Box 94396, Baton Rouge, LA 70804 -9396, USA Accepted 10 March 2000
Abstract The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), commonly referred to as ‘The Breaux Act’, has provided some of the resources necessary to begin implementing a comprehensive, large-scale, long-term coastal wetland restoration program for Louisiana USA. Due to the dynamic nature of this ecosystem and the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration, adaptive management principles were embedded throughout CWPPRA’s organizational structure, planning process, project implementation, and monitoring program to facilitate achieving the mandates associated with the Breaux Act. Feedback loops were established within and between each of the programmatic components to encourage continuous learning, which is central to adaptive management. The knowledge gained has led to institutionalized change in projects as well as the program. This paper describes how the formation of the CWPPRA Task Force and associated committees and groups resulted in an integrated coast-wide process for planning, selection, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and scientific evaluation of 84 restoration projects implemented or scheduled for implementation throughout coastal Louisiana. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Adaptive management; Ecosystem management; Coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act; Restoration; Wetlands; Coastal monitoring
1. Introduction Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem is a highly dynamic region of wetlands that covers over 1.34 million hectares (Field et al., 1991). This fragile system has been disappearing at a rate estimated between 65 (Dunbar et al., 1992) and 92 km2 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-225-3429435; fax: +1225-3426801. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.D. Steyer).
(Barras et al., 1994) per year. These losses have severely effected the social, economic, and ecological benefits these wetlands provide. In terms of natural services, biologic productivity, and infrastructural investments, the value of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands exceeds $100 billion (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, LCWCRTF, 1993). The causes of Louisiana’s wetland loss have been extensively researched and are well-documented as being the result of cumulative natural
0925-8574/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 8 5 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 8 - 4
386
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
and human-induced effects, which include, hydrologic alteration due to levees; oil and gas development, and canals; subsidence; salt water intrusion; and storms (Boesch, 1982; Mendelssohn et al., 1983; Titus, 1986; Turner and Cahoon, 1988; Day and Templet, 1989; Duffy and Clark, 1989; LCWCRTF, 1993; Nyman et al., 1993; Touchet, 1994; Penland et al., 1996). With this knowledge, plans have been generated to restore Louisiana’s coast and offset the severe land loss (Environmental Protection Agency/Louisiana Geological Survey, 1987; Boesch et al., 1994; Gagliano, 1994; van Heerden, 1994; Edwards et al., 1995). In an effort to offset land loss, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) began planning and implementing coastal restoration projects in 1981 through the Coastal Environmental Protection Trust Fund (Act 41 of the 2nd extraordinary session of 1981, R.S. 30:311 – 314). In 1989, the Louisiana Legislature recognized the urgency of addressing Louisiana’s coastal wetland losses and passed Act 6 of the second extraordinary session, which established a state coastal wetland restoration program and the state’s Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund (Wetlands Trust Fund). The citizens of Louisiana supported this effort by passing a constitutional amendment that dedicated monies to the Wetlands Trust Fund. Although approximately 100 restoration projects have been funded by the state at a cost of $44 million, most projects initiated since 1991 have been supported by federal funds and matching state funds through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (Public Law 101 – 646, Title III — CWPPRA), commonly referred to as ‘The Breaux Act’. The restoration funds resulting from CWPPRA have provided some of the resources necessary to begin implementing a comprehensive, large-scale, long-term coastal restoration program for Louisiana. The Breaux Act mandates the implementation of a comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the continued loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana through (1) the development of an organizational structure facilitated by an interagency Task Force; (2) intensive planning for the development of restoration strategies; (3) annual
development and implementation of restoration projects and (4) development and implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of wetland restoration projects. The National Research Council (NRC, 1992) defined restoration as ‘returning a system to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance, with both the structure and function of the system recreated’. In the Louisiana coastal zone, attaining this condition is generally not possible due to the severity of the disturbance and the inherent dynamic nature of the system. Establishing improvements in wetland structure and function, however, is feasible. Palmer et al. (1997) suggest that because structure affects function, and functional processes occur over different time scales, restoration may involve the setting of sequential, multi-step goals. Restorationists are challenged to introduce or restrict processes so that the influential set of processes at a site are reflective of the history of conditions supporting the targeted patterns of biological organization and dynamics (Parker, 1997). The CWPPRA program established the protection and restoration of emergent wetland vegetation as its primary objective. As we restore community structure and habitat diversity through the manipulation of processes, we assume that the biological communities will be re-established. This generalization, although untested, is commonly suggested and/or implied in large-scale restoration activities (MacArthur, 1965; NRC, 1992; Palmer et al., 1997). Due to the dynamic nature of coastal Louisiana and the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration, adaptive management principles were embedded throughout the CWPPRA program. Adaptive management has been defined as ‘learning by doing’ by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986), among others. Typically adaptive management is applied at a project-specific level in relation to monitoring feedback to management decisions. The adaptive management philosophies are applied programmatically in CWPPRA with built-in organizational flexibility, broad ecological consensus, and the testing of scientific hypotheses. The projects planned and implemented through
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
the Louisiana Coastal Environmental Protection Trust Fund and the Wetlands Trust Fund effectively served as pilot studies, adding to our knowledge base and guiding the subsequent development of the broader CWPPRA program. As we approach the 21st century, we anticipate that the social and political climate will be favorable for large-scale ecosystem management and restoration. To take advantage of this trend, restoration successes and failures must be well documented; the information must be accessible and most importantly, lessons must be learned from these efforts. Admitting the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration due to the dynamic complexity of our natural (and social) systems is also important. Historically, various reasons have been offered for low success rates in applying adaptive management, mainly relating to cost and institutional barriers (Halbert, 1993; Lee, 1993; Ludwig et al., 1993; Gunderson et al., 1995; Castleberry et al., 1996; Van Winkle et al., 1997; Walters, 1997). This paper describes the CWPPRA program in Louisiana, and how adaptive management concepts are embedded to aid in achieving the mandates associated with organizational structure, planning, implementation, and monitoring.
2. Coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act
2.1. Organization The Breaux Act directs that a task force consisting of representatives of five federal agencies —US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of Interior (USDOI), US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), US Department of Commerce and the state of Louisiana develop a ‘comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana’ (section 303b, subsection 2). The designated lead agencies for the USDOI, USDA, USDOC, and state of Louisiana are the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and
387
LDNR, respectively. Walters (1997) points out that complex, large-scale management plans such as those implemented for the Florida Everglades, Columbia River, and Upper Mississippi River have been somewhat intractable, due to conflicting agency mandates and ineffective collaboration. Thus far, however, the Task Force approach has worked for CWPPRA. As the main decisionmaking body, with equal representation by all agencies, the Task Force allows consolidation of resources and expertise. It acts as an umbrella for all activities, serves as a clearinghouse for all feedback, and most importantly, combines individual agency agendas into one goal. Agency consensus without citizen participation and buy-in guarantees failure. The Task Force understood this and established a Citizen Participation Group (CPG), which represents local officials, landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, oil and gas developers, navigation interests, and conservation organizations, to provide general input from the diverse interests across Louisiana’s coastal zone. Ensuring that all the resource groups understand and appreciate the significance of productive coastal marshes and the urgency of a long-term coastal restoration strategy is important. The CPG provides public review and input into the plans and projects considered annually by the Task Force and assists in the public involvement program. Knight and Meffe (1997) suggested that programs that emphasize decentralization, partnerships, risk-taking, and shared visions facilitate the implementation of adaptive management. Several interagency committees and work groups have been established as a result of CWPPRA, to develop and evaluate critical information necessary for screening, selection, and implementation of projects, and to ensure proper guidance of the CWPPRA program (Fig. 1). The five federal agencies and the state of Louisiana are represented on all of the committees and workgroups. The Technical Committee was established by the Task Force to provide advice and recommendations for execution of the Program and projects from a number of technical perspectives, which include: engineering, environmental, economic,
388
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
real estate, construction, operation and maintenance, and monitoring. The Technical Committee also provides guidance and direction to subordinate organizations of the program through the Planning & Evaluation Subcommittee (P&E), that reports to the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee is charged by the Task Force to consider and shape decisions and proposed actions of the P&E, regarding its position on issues, policy, and procedures toward execution of the Program and projects. The Technical Committee gives directives for action to the P&E, and makes decisions in consideration of P&E recommendations. The P&E is the working level subcommittee to oversee special technical workgroups that develop policies, processes, and procedures for formulating plans and projects to accomplish the goals and mandates of CWPPRA. The Environmental Workgroup, Engineering Workgroup, Economics Workgroup, and Monitoring Workgroup are under the guidance and direction of the P&E. The Environmental Workgroup reviews candidate projects to: (1) suggest any recommended measures and features that should be considered during engineering and design for the achievement/enhancement of wetland benefits, and (2) estimate the annualized wetland benefits of those projects. The Engineering Workgroup reviews the adequacy of candidate projects
Fig. 1. Organizational structure for the coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act in Louisiana.
considered for development, selection, and funding under the Breaux Act based on engineering and quality standards and assists in the generation of cost estimates. The Economics Workgroup reviews and evaluates candidate projects that have been completely developed, for the purpose of assigning the cost of projects, based on the estimated 20-year stream of project costs. The Monitoring Work Group (MWG) incorporates representation from academia in developing standardized protocols for monitoring variables, reviewing statistical procedures, and reviewing quality assurance and quality control guidelines (Steyer et al., 1995), addressing the concern of Lee (1993) that there are no generally accepted standards for environmental accounting. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG), under the guidance and direction of the Monitoring Workgroup, reviews projects selected and funded for implementation, for the purpose of designing a scientifically sound monitoring plan to evaluate and report the level of project effectiveness. The TAG consists of a representative from LDNR, the federal project sponsor, and US Geological Survey/National Wetlands Research Center, as well as a contracted wetland ecologist and a biostatistician. The TAG utilizes external sources of expertise from academia and the private sector in order to achieve broad ecological consensus. The Task Force allowed flexibility to expand the organizational design if necessary. Upon implementation of the Program, four areas of additional support were identified: public outreach; technical studies; cross program integration and academic participation. The Public Outreach Subcommittee, Feasibility Studies Steering Committee, Atchafalaya Liason Group and Academic Advisory Group were established to fill in existing information gaps. The Public Outreach Subcommittee comprises members from the participant federal agencies, the state of Louisiana, other coastal programs, private landowners and non-profit organizations. The committee is responsible for formulating information dissemination strategies and public education initiatives; maintaining a web site of complex technical and educational materials; developing audio-visual presentations, exhibits, pub-
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
lications and news releases; and conducting special events and project dedications and groundbreakings. Additionally, the committee represents the CWPPRA task force at expositions and workshops to promote coastal wetlands restoration. The Feasibility Studies Steering Committee provides management oversight for execution of studies to address various complex technical issues that arise during the implementation of the Program. Studies addressing optimal diversion of freshwater from the Mississippi River and holistic barrier island restoration have been carried out by private consultants and scientists from the academic community. The Atchafalaya Liaison Group was formed to facilitate and coordinate activities in the Atchafalaya River basin, the largest contiguous bottomland hardwood forest in the Mississippi River alluvial plain (Llewellyn et al., 1996). The group includes representatives of the CWPPRA agencies, flood plain managers, technical staff and the public. The purpose of this group is to encourage synergy between the interests of wetland restoration and flood plain management, and to negotiate a course of development for the Lower Atchafalaya Reevaluation Feasibility Study. The Academic Advisory Group (AAG) was formed 3 years into the CWPPRA process to provide scientific input into the comprehensive planning, project selection, and monitoring processes. As Michener (1997) noted, integration of scientific input into restoration programs commonly occurred during the process, rather than from the outset, and the roles of the scientists were typically not well-defined or interactive. The AAG formalized and facilitated the involvement of scientists from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, whose involvement until then was informal and sporadic. Academic participation in CWPPRA is interactive and has become a critical component in implementing adaptive management strategies. The linkage between government, local, and academic interests that was eventually established through CWPPRA provides the impetus necessary to decentralize partnerships and make everyone stakeholders.
389
2.2. Planning A Restoration Plan was mandated by the Breaux Act to serve as the long-term blueprint for achieving CWPPRA goals. Specifically, the purpose of the Plan was to develop a comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana. The Breaux Act allowed 3 years to formulate a plan that entailed (1) assessing Louisiana coastal wetland resources; (2) evaluating processes causing wetland loss problems; (3) reviewing solutions available to address problems; (4) identifying critical, supporting, and demonstration projects that provide the best short-term and long-term solutions and (5) identifying actions for implementing the Plan. The strategies of the Plan were to (1) sustain economic value and productivity of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands by maintaining and restoring natural processes where feasible; (2) implement small and large-scale projects in a phased approach in order to obtain local and regional benefits; (3) evaluate project and program effectiveness through monitoring and (4) use monitoring information to provide a feedback loop to project operation, design, and selection. Adaptive management philosophies are embedded throughout these strategies. Because, projects were selected that work with, not against, natural processes, greater control and flexibility in management decision-making are possible. The phasing of these projects provides continuous learning by monitoring feedback, which is particularly important in hydrologic basins where multiple projects potentially have cumulative synergistic impacts. Quick implementation of projects also provides positive public relations, as it demonstrates that we are reactive to our critical areas of wetland loss. After the completion of the Restoration Plan in 1993 (LCWCRTF, 1993), projects considered for annual priority lists were identified from the Restoration Plan and then screened according to a number of criteria, including environmental benefits, through a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure called Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). The criteria used to evaluate projects also included:
390
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
cost-effectiveness; longevity/sustainability; risk/ uncertainty; supporting partnerships; and public support. The annual priority list process was expanded to a 2-year cycle in 1998 in response to delays encountered with preliminary engineering design, land rights acquisition, and permitting issues. Although the exact process for proposed project screening is continuously evolving, all lists were formulated with interagency and public involvement prior to approval by the Task Force. Adaptive management philosophies have been employed in the policy planning phase of other large-scale ecosystem management programs, such as the Colorado River (Collier et al., 1997), Columbia River (Lee, 1993), and the Florida Everglades (Walters et al., 1992). As in the CWPPRA program, the necessary time and funds were invested in the planning phase to gather public and scientific input for the formulation of their plans, and the temptation to hasten implementation because the public (citizens, agencies, politicians) wanted to see projects on the ground was resisted. Already, programmatic planning changes have improved the integration of CWPPRA with other coastal planning efforts in Louisiana. The Restoration Plan provided a good start to mapping out the restoration future of Louisiana, but the knowledge base has grown since the plan was written in 1993. Monitoring of implemented projects has provided information to increase our understanding and adjust our assumptions of social and ecological change. External review of the program provided additional insights and recommendations guided the direction in which we should be heading (Boesch et al., 1994). Lee (1993) states that ‘an adaptive search for sustainability learns from implementation’.
2.3. Implementation In geological terms, Louisiana’s coastal zone contains three distinct regions: active Mississippi River delta, abandoned deltas, and the Chenier plain. Comprehensive planning provides a holistic view of each coastal region’s problems and the restoration efforts undertaken to address them. Projects are selected in the context of the region-
specific restoration objectives to which they contribute. Selected projects are then collectively examined as an integrated network of restoration projects that, in collaboration, will move CWPPRA towards its regional objectives. Establishing clear goals and objectives at broad spatial and temporal scales is critical not only for ecosystem management (Cortner et al., 1994; Grumbine, 1994; Brunner and Clark, 1997), but also for adaptive management. Clear goals and objectives provide the appropriate boundaries necessary to make decisions and to expand the number of alternatives available to achieve the objectives. The projects approved for implementation fall within broad restoration techniques: freshwater or sediment diversions, outfall management, barrier island restoration, marsh creation through use of dredged material, hydrologic restoration, marsh management, vegetative plantings, sediment and nutrient trapping, shoreline protection, or combinations of these types. Small- scale demonstration projects are also implemented to test innovative techniques. Since the enactment of CWPPRA, 84 coastal restoration projects have been selected for implementation in Louisiana’s coastal zone. Excluding small-scale demonstration projects, the average project area is more than 5700 ha, with some projects as large as 90 000 ha. The difficulty in implementing large-scale restoration projects is reflected in the 39-month average interval between project selection and the start of construction. One of the mechanisms that CWPPRA has initiated to reduce this time is the 2-year planning cycle. This cycle should provide the necessary time to evaluate the issues that are typically the most problematic and that sometimes render the project entirely unfeasible (e.g. preliminary engineering design, land rights acquisition, and permitting). The number of large-scale projects to be implemented is unprecedented, and upwards of 14 projects are planned in a region. Freshwater and sediment diversions, hydrologic restoration, and marsh management projects are designed to increase natural wetland-building processes by reestablishing the natural flows of water and sediment which sustains wetlands health. Many of
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
these projects require active operational manipulation of structures to achieve their goals. Active management provides a mechanism to more closely integrate human intervention with complex natural dynamics. Parker (1997) stated that it is critical to understand ‘this multi-dimensionality of processes, because we use processes to manipulate sites and direct succession or local dynamics’. Project operation or manipulation has inevitably resulted in response from various user groups, covering the entire spectrum from active support to minor dissension and even to litigation. Active management and operational flexibility has allowed adaptation to social preferences, conflicts of ecological values, environmental variability, and disturbance regimes. Active management is only as successful as the monitoring that supports it, and a strong linkage between operation and monitoring, as well as feedback to future project design, are essential.
2.4. Monitoring Lee (1993) called monitoring ‘‘the environmental counterpart to financial accounting and reporting.’’ Unfortunately, monitoring has commonly suffered from a lack or absence of: funding, longevity, control or reference, hypothesis testing, standardized protocol, sound science, and accountability. Monitoring is typically the least supported component of a restoration program but is the most important in an adaptive management program. Monitoring of well-defined goals provides the feedback necessary to make active management decisions. The Breaux Act requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term contributions for arresting coastal wetland loss. This requirement has resulted in the development of a monitoring program designed to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of each coastal restoration project, thus ensuring the best use of State and Federal funds for the restoration and conservation of these wetlands (Steyer and Stewart, 1992). Also, in keeping with the Breaux Act mandate of longevity of projects, the Task Force committed the resources to monitor each project for 20 years,
391
giving managers the ability to evaluate ecological response in time scales from seasons to decades. Monitoring data are crucial in helping to define ecological conditions and changes resulting from individual restoration activities, and helping to quantify any changes that may occur on an ecosystem level. The CWPPRA Monitoring Program in Louisiana develops monitoring plans and collects data on individual projects based on specific project goals and objectives. The TAG wetland ecologist and biostatistician provide scientific input into monitoring, experimental design, quality assurance, and verification of data interpretations to ensure unbiased reporting of results. The monitoring plans are implemented by LDNR upon approval of the Task Force. The monitoring program does more than just characterize a system and look at status and trends; it investigates cause and effect through hypothesis testing. The questions that are tested are significant to management, which Lee (1993) suggests improve experimental efficiency. Determining the effectiveness of CWPPRA projects in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana is a daunting task. Spatial and temporal variability in coastal land loss rates may account for differences between reference and project areas and hinder traditional experimental design and statistical techniques (Underwood, 1994). This variability necessitates a monitoring approach with a high degree of flexibility to detect the effectiveness of management actions under different environmental conditions (Boesch et al., 1994). One example of the flexibility of the monitoring program was the de-authorization of a demonstration project after analysis of monitoring data. The SW Shore White Lake Shoreline Protection demonstration project was designed to determine the effectiveness of vegetative plantings as a wave damping technique, and to prevent the encroachment of White Lake into the adjacent interior marsh by reducing the rate of shoreline erosion. The data showed that Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush) did not establish when planted at depths of 1.5–2.0 ft (0.46–0.61 m) in an area of high wave energy. Of the 2650 plants installed, only 40
392
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
were present after 12 months. The state and the sponsoring federal agency agreed that further monitoring would be of limited value, and initiated the project de-authorization process. Project de-authorization requires concurrence from the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force. The Task Force must also notify the public and solicit comments regarding the proposed de-authorization prior to rendering a decision. The SW Shore White Lake project was formally de-authorized, curtailing additional spending on the project. The remaining funds were re-appropriated in the program. One of the initial difficulties in the monitoring program was the identification of appropriate reference areas. Since estuaries are open ecological systems, monitoring entire coastal ecosystems, not just the areas directly affected by individual projects, is imperative. This long-term, large-scale strategy is being adopted by the CWPPRA Monitoring Program as more projects are implemented in coastal Louisiana and adequate funding is provided. A Coastwide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) is being developed that will allow managers to gain insight into the natural variability of ecosystems and the effects of projects. A network of reference sites across the Louisiana coast will be established. This network will allow for both project-specific evaluations and cumulative evaluations of the effects of projects on a hydrologic basin and coastwide level. The CRMS is based on a modification of the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996). Reference sites will span the range of variability from disturbed to pristine across the vegetation habitats that characterize the Louisiana coast. Projects will then be compared with a suite of references to look at habitat change trajectories over time. We will better determine what environmental settings are most conducive to restoration and what project types work best in different environmental settings, and we will determine collectively the effectiveness of all the projects carried out under the restoration plan in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana. This in turn will allow improvements in future planning and design of projects, to achieve maximum benefit for the resources spent.
The CWPPRA Monitoring Program is generating a tremendous amount of data and information. Yaffee (1997) stated that there is a fragmentation of information and knowledge between user groups and that better mechanisms are needed to share information. To ensure that the information gathered is made available to the general public as well as governmental agencies and the research community (customers), an accessible ORACLE/ArcView database of temporal and spatial monitoring data is maintained. The database facilitates the publication of monitoring results so that the management techniques developed in Louisiana can be peer-reviewed by a national and international audience. The monitoring data provide essential baseline and post-construction information to aid in determining the effectiveness of existing projects, the beneficial operation of existing projects, the design of future projects, and most importantly, the selection of projects proposed for creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. Information transfer and dissemination are also supported through two types of project-specific evaluation reports (progress reports and comprehensive reports) and a triennial Report to Congress. Interim progress reports are submitted for the entire project design life and include sections pertaining to the project’s current monitoring status, design, and preliminary results. Comprehensive reports compile all the available monitoring information and project performance details every 3 years and emphasize specific conclusions about the project’s success in meeting project design goals and objectives. Comprehensive reports prepared by LDNR are reviewed by the TAG, MWG, P&E, and Technical Committee, and peer reviewed by the AAG before submittal to the Task Force for final approval. The Report to Congress (LCWCRTF, 1997) provides a holistic view of each coastal region’s problems and the restoration efforts undertaken to address them. Coastwide summaries of anticipated benefits of CWPPRA activities and the cost-effectiveness of these efforts are also provided to assure the public that our efforts are providing the benefits projected. Program and project-specific information is most efficiently distributed through the
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395 Table 1 Conventional barriers to adaptive management and the CWPPRA approach to overcome them Conventional barriers
CWPPRA approach
Forced vision
Shared vision by implementing agencies Decentralized partnership Local buy-in Open communication Continuous dialogue Comprehensive (short and long-term)
Truncated planning
Unsupported monitoring
Costs
Clear, achievable goals and objectives Involved range of user groups Adaptive language in legislation Flexible approaches Realistic expectations 20-year commitment Standardized protocols Quality management plan Sound experimental designs Use of reference sites Hypothesis testing Documentation Information dissemination Peer review Cost-sharing partnership Long-term commitment Adequate funding for planning, implementation, and monitoring
CWPPRA and LDNR homepages (http:// www.lacoast.gov and http:// www.savelawetlands.org, respectively). The homepages have become very effective mechanisms for exchanging information throughout the CWPPRA organization.
3. Conclusions Adaptive management policies result primarily from court decisions and legislative acts, rather than from the resource agencies (Walters, 1997). Because most funding for large-scale restoration comes from legislative acts, sculpting the legislation in a manner that dictates adaptive management philosophies is important. The language should include statements regarding, (1) the un-
393
certainties associated with ecosystem management and restoration; (2) the need for a long-term vision and (3) the importance of flexibility of possible management actions. Knight and Meffe (1997) recommend designing management actions as experiments rather than prescriptions. Perhaps Davis and Ogden (1994) said it best: ‘‘Because of the changing conditions and uncertainties, ecosystem stability can only be viewed as a short-term objective. Long-term restoration must be an ongoing process whereby restoration implementation becomes a continuing series of management decisions. Each decision should be based upon a growing pool of research information, updated measurements of ecosystem responses, and evaluations of degrees of progress in reaching a set of goals or targets that have been identified as indicative of ecosystem vitality’. These philosophies have been applied throughout the evolution of CWPPRA in Louisiana. Establishing flexibility in all management decisions has allowed CWPPRA to overcome conventional barriers (see Table 1). For example, the Task Force expanded the CWPPRA organization to bring in technical knowledge and user groups; extended the planning process to ensure a more comprehensive evaluation of projects and expedite implementations and developed a CWPPRA homepage to facilitate information exchange. The result has been a continuously evolving process for planning, selection, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and scientific evaluation of restoration projects throughout coastal Louisiana. This evolution resulted only because the Task Force accepted uncertain outcomes in CWPPRA, identified appropriate alternatives, and implemented institutional change. The CWPPRA program in Louisiana has been a catalyst for large-scale changes in ecosystemlevel resource management. Through ongoing studies and numerous public education and outreach efforts, CWPPRA serves as a cooperative planning forum to form liaison groups that will ensure a common vision for the future of coastal Louisiana. By coordinating restoration and resource protection efforts in Louisiana, CWPPRA has minimized redundant efforts and conflicting goals, thereby, maximizing the long-term productivity of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands.
394
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
Acknowledgements We extend our thanks to Dr Andy Nyman, Dr Charles Sasser, Dr Bill Good, Katherine Vaughan, Rick Raynie and Mary Horton for their valuable comments and suggestions, and to the hundreds of dedicated people who are involved in the CWPPRA program in Louisiana.
References Barras, J.A., Bourgeois, P.E., Handley, L.R., 1994. Land loss in coastal Louisiana 1956–1990. National Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center Open Report 94-01, 4 pp., 10 color plates. Boesch, D.F., 1982. Modifications in Louisiana, causes, consequences and options. In: Proceedings of A Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Service Program, Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-83/59, 259 pp. Boesch, D.F., Josselyn, M.N., Mehta, A.J., Morris, J.T., Nuttle, W.K., Simenstad, C.A., Swift, D.J.P., 1994. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana (special issue). J. Coastal Res. 20, 103. Brinson, M.M., Rheinhardt, R., 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol. Appl. 6 (1), 69 – 76. Brunner, R.D., Clark, T.W., 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conserv. Biol. 11 (1), 48–58. Castleberry, D.T., Cech Jr, J.J., Erman, D.C., Hankin, D., Healey, M., Kondolf, G.M., Mangel, M., Mohr, M., Moyle, P.B., Nielsen, J., Speed, T.P., Williams, J.C., 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards. Fisheries 21 (8), 20– 21. Collier, M.P., Webb, R.H., Andrews, E.D., 1997. Experimental flooding in Grand Canyon. Sci. Am. 276 (1), 82–89. Cortner, H.J., M.A. Shannon, M.G. Wallace, S. Burke, and M.A. Moote, 1994. Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management. Issue Paper No. 16. Water Resource Research Center, University of Arizona, 51 pp. Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C., 1994. Toward ecosystem restoration. In: Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 769 – 796. Day, J.W., Templet, P.H., 1989. Consequences of sea level rise: implications from the Mississippi Delta. Coastal Manage. 17, 241 – 257. Duffy, W.G., Clark, D. (Eds.), 1989. Marsh Management in Coastal Louisiana: Effects and Issues. Proceedings of a Symposium. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89 (22), 378 pp.
Dunbar, J.B., Britsch, L.D., Kemp III, E.B., 1992. Land loss rates. Report 3, Louisiana Coastal Plain. Technical Report GL-90-2. US Army Corp of Engineers, US Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Edwards, E.W., McClanahan, J., Bahr L., van Heerden, I.L., 1995. A White Paper: The State of Louisiana’s Policy for Coastal Restoration Activities. State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, 11 pp. Environmental, Protection Agency/Louisiana Geological Survey, 1987. Saving Louisiana’s coastal wetlands: the need for a long-term plan of action. Louisiana Wetland Protection Panel, Grand Terre Island, LA, 102 pp. Field, D.W, Reyer, A.J., Genovese, P.V., Shearer, B.D., 1991. Coastal wetlands of the United States: an accounting of a valuable national resource. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, US, 59 pp. Gagliano, S., 1994. An Environmental-Economic Blueprint For Restoring The Louisiana Coastal Zone: The State Plan. Report of the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities Science Advisory Panel Workshop. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA, 51 pp. plus appendices. Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8 (1), 1 – 12. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Light, S.S., 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Halbert, C.L., 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1, 261 – 283. Holling, C.S. (Ed.), 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, New York. Knight, R.L., Meffe, G.K., 1997. Ecosystem management: agency liberation from command and control. Wildl Soc. Bull. 25 (3), 676 – 678. Lee, K., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics For the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, p. 243. Llewellyn, D.W., Shaffer, G.P., Craig, N.J., Creasman, L., Pashley, D., Swan, M., Brown, C., 1996. A decision-support system for prioritizing restoration sites on the Mississippi river alluvial plain. Conserv. Biol. 10 (5), 1446 – 1455. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, 1993. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan: Main Report, Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices. US Army, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Commerce, US Department of the Interior, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, 1997. The 1997 evaluation report to the US Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 76 pp. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C.J., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260 (17), 36.
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395 MacArthur, R.H., 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev. 40, 510 – 533. Mendelssohn, I.A., Turner, R.E., McKee, K.L., 1983. Louisiana’s eroding coastal zone: management alternatives. J. Limnol. Soc. South Africa 9, 63–75. Michener, W.K., 1997. Quantitatively evaluating restoration ‘experiments’: research design, statistical analysis, and data management considerations. Restor. Ecol. 5, 324–337. National Research Council, 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and the Public. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nyman, J.A., DeLaune, R.D., Roberts, H.H., Patrick, W.H., 1993. Relationship between vegetation and soil formation in a rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96, 269 – 279. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R.F., Poff, N.L., 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5, 291 – 300. Parker, V.T., 1997. The scale of successional models and restoration objectives. Restor. Ecol. 5, 301–306. Penland, S., Mendelssohn I., Wayne, L., Britsch, D., 1996. Natural and human causes of coastal land loss in Louisiana — workshop summary. Coastal Studies Institute, Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 25 pp. Steyer, G.D., Stewart Jr., R.E., 1992. Monitoring program for Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act projects. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center, Open-File Report 93-01, 85 pp. Steyer, G.D., Raynie, R.C., Steller, D.L., Fuller, D., Swenson, E., 1995. Quality management plan for Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Monitoring Program. Open-File Report 95-01. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Baton Rouge, 97 pp.
.
395
Titus, J.G., 1986. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and coastal zone management. Coastal Zone Manage. J. 14 (3), 147 – 171. Touchet, B.A., 1994. Genesis of the Louisiana Coastal Marshes, p. 11. Turner, R.E., Cahoon, D.R., 1988. Causes of wetland loss in coastal central Gulf of Mexico. In: Technical Narrative, vol. 2. US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, p. 400. Underwood, A.J., 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol. Appl. 4 (1), 3 – 15. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Division of Ecological Services. ESM 102. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 141 pp. van Heerden, I.L., 1994. A long-term comprehensive management plan for coastal Louisiana to ensure sustainable biological productivity, economic growth, and the continued existence of its unique culture and heritage. Center for Coastal, Energy, and Environmental Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 45 pp. Van Winkle, W., Coutant, C.C., Jager, H.I., Mattice, J.S., Orth, D.J., Otto, R.G., Railsback, S.F., Sale, M.J., 1997. Uncertainty and instream flow standards; perspectives based on hydropower research and assessment. Fisheries 22 (7), 21 – 22. Walters, C.J., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McMillan, New York. Walters, C.S., 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. [online]1(2):1. Available from the Internet.http:// www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1 Walters, C.J., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 1992. Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecol. Appl. 2, 189 – 202. Yaffee, S.L., 1997. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conserv. Biol. 11 (2), 328 – 337.
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act: A programmatic application of adaptive management Gregory D. Steyer *, Daniel W. Llewellyn Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Di6ision, P.O. Box 94396, Baton Rouge, LA 70804 -9396, USA Accepted 10 March 2000
Abstract The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), commonly referred to as ‘The Breaux Act’, has provided some of the resources necessary to begin implementing a comprehensive, large-scale, long-term coastal wetland restoration program for Louisiana USA. Due to the dynamic nature of this ecosystem and the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration, adaptive management principles were embedded throughout CWPPRA’s organizational structure, planning process, project implementation, and monitoring program to facilitate achieving the mandates associated with the Breaux Act. Feedback loops were established within and between each of the programmatic components to encourage continuous learning, which is central to adaptive management. The knowledge gained has led to institutionalized change in projects as well as the program. This paper describes how the formation of the CWPPRA Task Force and associated committees and groups resulted in an integrated coast-wide process for planning, selection, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and scientific evaluation of 84 restoration projects implemented or scheduled for implementation throughout coastal Louisiana. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Adaptive management; Ecosystem management; Coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act; Restoration; Wetlands; Coastal monitoring
1. Introduction Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem is a highly dynamic region of wetlands that covers over 1.34 million hectares (Field et al., 1991). This fragile system has been disappearing at a rate estimated between 65 (Dunbar et al., 1992) and 92 km2 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-225-3429435; fax: +1225-3426801. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.D. Steyer).
(Barras et al., 1994) per year. These losses have severely effected the social, economic, and ecological benefits these wetlands provide. In terms of natural services, biologic productivity, and infrastructural investments, the value of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands exceeds $100 billion (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, LCWCRTF, 1993). The causes of Louisiana’s wetland loss have been extensively researched and are well-documented as being the result of cumulative natural
0925-8574/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 8 5 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 8 - 4
386
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
and human-induced effects, which include, hydrologic alteration due to levees; oil and gas development, and canals; subsidence; salt water intrusion; and storms (Boesch, 1982; Mendelssohn et al., 1983; Titus, 1986; Turner and Cahoon, 1988; Day and Templet, 1989; Duffy and Clark, 1989; LCWCRTF, 1993; Nyman et al., 1993; Touchet, 1994; Penland et al., 1996). With this knowledge, plans have been generated to restore Louisiana’s coast and offset the severe land loss (Environmental Protection Agency/Louisiana Geological Survey, 1987; Boesch et al., 1994; Gagliano, 1994; van Heerden, 1994; Edwards et al., 1995). In an effort to offset land loss, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) began planning and implementing coastal restoration projects in 1981 through the Coastal Environmental Protection Trust Fund (Act 41 of the 2nd extraordinary session of 1981, R.S. 30:311 – 314). In 1989, the Louisiana Legislature recognized the urgency of addressing Louisiana’s coastal wetland losses and passed Act 6 of the second extraordinary session, which established a state coastal wetland restoration program and the state’s Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund (Wetlands Trust Fund). The citizens of Louisiana supported this effort by passing a constitutional amendment that dedicated monies to the Wetlands Trust Fund. Although approximately 100 restoration projects have been funded by the state at a cost of $44 million, most projects initiated since 1991 have been supported by federal funds and matching state funds through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (Public Law 101 – 646, Title III — CWPPRA), commonly referred to as ‘The Breaux Act’. The restoration funds resulting from CWPPRA have provided some of the resources necessary to begin implementing a comprehensive, large-scale, long-term coastal restoration program for Louisiana. The Breaux Act mandates the implementation of a comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the continued loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana through (1) the development of an organizational structure facilitated by an interagency Task Force; (2) intensive planning for the development of restoration strategies; (3) annual
development and implementation of restoration projects and (4) development and implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of wetland restoration projects. The National Research Council (NRC, 1992) defined restoration as ‘returning a system to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance, with both the structure and function of the system recreated’. In the Louisiana coastal zone, attaining this condition is generally not possible due to the severity of the disturbance and the inherent dynamic nature of the system. Establishing improvements in wetland structure and function, however, is feasible. Palmer et al. (1997) suggest that because structure affects function, and functional processes occur over different time scales, restoration may involve the setting of sequential, multi-step goals. Restorationists are challenged to introduce or restrict processes so that the influential set of processes at a site are reflective of the history of conditions supporting the targeted patterns of biological organization and dynamics (Parker, 1997). The CWPPRA program established the protection and restoration of emergent wetland vegetation as its primary objective. As we restore community structure and habitat diversity through the manipulation of processes, we assume that the biological communities will be re-established. This generalization, although untested, is commonly suggested and/or implied in large-scale restoration activities (MacArthur, 1965; NRC, 1992; Palmer et al., 1997). Due to the dynamic nature of coastal Louisiana and the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration, adaptive management principles were embedded throughout the CWPPRA program. Adaptive management has been defined as ‘learning by doing’ by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986), among others. Typically adaptive management is applied at a project-specific level in relation to monitoring feedback to management decisions. The adaptive management philosophies are applied programmatically in CWPPRA with built-in organizational flexibility, broad ecological consensus, and the testing of scientific hypotheses. The projects planned and implemented through
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
the Louisiana Coastal Environmental Protection Trust Fund and the Wetlands Trust Fund effectively served as pilot studies, adding to our knowledge base and guiding the subsequent development of the broader CWPPRA program. As we approach the 21st century, we anticipate that the social and political climate will be favorable for large-scale ecosystem management and restoration. To take advantage of this trend, restoration successes and failures must be well documented; the information must be accessible and most importantly, lessons must be learned from these efforts. Admitting the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration due to the dynamic complexity of our natural (and social) systems is also important. Historically, various reasons have been offered for low success rates in applying adaptive management, mainly relating to cost and institutional barriers (Halbert, 1993; Lee, 1993; Ludwig et al., 1993; Gunderson et al., 1995; Castleberry et al., 1996; Van Winkle et al., 1997; Walters, 1997). This paper describes the CWPPRA program in Louisiana, and how adaptive management concepts are embedded to aid in achieving the mandates associated with organizational structure, planning, implementation, and monitoring.
2. Coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act
2.1. Organization The Breaux Act directs that a task force consisting of representatives of five federal agencies —US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of Interior (USDOI), US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), US Department of Commerce and the state of Louisiana develop a ‘comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana’ (section 303b, subsection 2). The designated lead agencies for the USDOI, USDA, USDOC, and state of Louisiana are the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and
387
LDNR, respectively. Walters (1997) points out that complex, large-scale management plans such as those implemented for the Florida Everglades, Columbia River, and Upper Mississippi River have been somewhat intractable, due to conflicting agency mandates and ineffective collaboration. Thus far, however, the Task Force approach has worked for CWPPRA. As the main decisionmaking body, with equal representation by all agencies, the Task Force allows consolidation of resources and expertise. It acts as an umbrella for all activities, serves as a clearinghouse for all feedback, and most importantly, combines individual agency agendas into one goal. Agency consensus without citizen participation and buy-in guarantees failure. The Task Force understood this and established a Citizen Participation Group (CPG), which represents local officials, landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, oil and gas developers, navigation interests, and conservation organizations, to provide general input from the diverse interests across Louisiana’s coastal zone. Ensuring that all the resource groups understand and appreciate the significance of productive coastal marshes and the urgency of a long-term coastal restoration strategy is important. The CPG provides public review and input into the plans and projects considered annually by the Task Force and assists in the public involvement program. Knight and Meffe (1997) suggested that programs that emphasize decentralization, partnerships, risk-taking, and shared visions facilitate the implementation of adaptive management. Several interagency committees and work groups have been established as a result of CWPPRA, to develop and evaluate critical information necessary for screening, selection, and implementation of projects, and to ensure proper guidance of the CWPPRA program (Fig. 1). The five federal agencies and the state of Louisiana are represented on all of the committees and workgroups. The Technical Committee was established by the Task Force to provide advice and recommendations for execution of the Program and projects from a number of technical perspectives, which include: engineering, environmental, economic,
388
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
real estate, construction, operation and maintenance, and monitoring. The Technical Committee also provides guidance and direction to subordinate organizations of the program through the Planning & Evaluation Subcommittee (P&E), that reports to the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee is charged by the Task Force to consider and shape decisions and proposed actions of the P&E, regarding its position on issues, policy, and procedures toward execution of the Program and projects. The Technical Committee gives directives for action to the P&E, and makes decisions in consideration of P&E recommendations. The P&E is the working level subcommittee to oversee special technical workgroups that develop policies, processes, and procedures for formulating plans and projects to accomplish the goals and mandates of CWPPRA. The Environmental Workgroup, Engineering Workgroup, Economics Workgroup, and Monitoring Workgroup are under the guidance and direction of the P&E. The Environmental Workgroup reviews candidate projects to: (1) suggest any recommended measures and features that should be considered during engineering and design for the achievement/enhancement of wetland benefits, and (2) estimate the annualized wetland benefits of those projects. The Engineering Workgroup reviews the adequacy of candidate projects
Fig. 1. Organizational structure for the coastal wetlands planning, protection, and restoration act in Louisiana.
considered for development, selection, and funding under the Breaux Act based on engineering and quality standards and assists in the generation of cost estimates. The Economics Workgroup reviews and evaluates candidate projects that have been completely developed, for the purpose of assigning the cost of projects, based on the estimated 20-year stream of project costs. The Monitoring Work Group (MWG) incorporates representation from academia in developing standardized protocols for monitoring variables, reviewing statistical procedures, and reviewing quality assurance and quality control guidelines (Steyer et al., 1995), addressing the concern of Lee (1993) that there are no generally accepted standards for environmental accounting. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG), under the guidance and direction of the Monitoring Workgroup, reviews projects selected and funded for implementation, for the purpose of designing a scientifically sound monitoring plan to evaluate and report the level of project effectiveness. The TAG consists of a representative from LDNR, the federal project sponsor, and US Geological Survey/National Wetlands Research Center, as well as a contracted wetland ecologist and a biostatistician. The TAG utilizes external sources of expertise from academia and the private sector in order to achieve broad ecological consensus. The Task Force allowed flexibility to expand the organizational design if necessary. Upon implementation of the Program, four areas of additional support were identified: public outreach; technical studies; cross program integration and academic participation. The Public Outreach Subcommittee, Feasibility Studies Steering Committee, Atchafalaya Liason Group and Academic Advisory Group were established to fill in existing information gaps. The Public Outreach Subcommittee comprises members from the participant federal agencies, the state of Louisiana, other coastal programs, private landowners and non-profit organizations. The committee is responsible for formulating information dissemination strategies and public education initiatives; maintaining a web site of complex technical and educational materials; developing audio-visual presentations, exhibits, pub-
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
lications and news releases; and conducting special events and project dedications and groundbreakings. Additionally, the committee represents the CWPPRA task force at expositions and workshops to promote coastal wetlands restoration. The Feasibility Studies Steering Committee provides management oversight for execution of studies to address various complex technical issues that arise during the implementation of the Program. Studies addressing optimal diversion of freshwater from the Mississippi River and holistic barrier island restoration have been carried out by private consultants and scientists from the academic community. The Atchafalaya Liaison Group was formed to facilitate and coordinate activities in the Atchafalaya River basin, the largest contiguous bottomland hardwood forest in the Mississippi River alluvial plain (Llewellyn et al., 1996). The group includes representatives of the CWPPRA agencies, flood plain managers, technical staff and the public. The purpose of this group is to encourage synergy between the interests of wetland restoration and flood plain management, and to negotiate a course of development for the Lower Atchafalaya Reevaluation Feasibility Study. The Academic Advisory Group (AAG) was formed 3 years into the CWPPRA process to provide scientific input into the comprehensive planning, project selection, and monitoring processes. As Michener (1997) noted, integration of scientific input into restoration programs commonly occurred during the process, rather than from the outset, and the roles of the scientists were typically not well-defined or interactive. The AAG formalized and facilitated the involvement of scientists from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, whose involvement until then was informal and sporadic. Academic participation in CWPPRA is interactive and has become a critical component in implementing adaptive management strategies. The linkage between government, local, and academic interests that was eventually established through CWPPRA provides the impetus necessary to decentralize partnerships and make everyone stakeholders.
389
2.2. Planning A Restoration Plan was mandated by the Breaux Act to serve as the long-term blueprint for achieving CWPPRA goals. Specifically, the purpose of the Plan was to develop a comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana. The Breaux Act allowed 3 years to formulate a plan that entailed (1) assessing Louisiana coastal wetland resources; (2) evaluating processes causing wetland loss problems; (3) reviewing solutions available to address problems; (4) identifying critical, supporting, and demonstration projects that provide the best short-term and long-term solutions and (5) identifying actions for implementing the Plan. The strategies of the Plan were to (1) sustain economic value and productivity of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands by maintaining and restoring natural processes where feasible; (2) implement small and large-scale projects in a phased approach in order to obtain local and regional benefits; (3) evaluate project and program effectiveness through monitoring and (4) use monitoring information to provide a feedback loop to project operation, design, and selection. Adaptive management philosophies are embedded throughout these strategies. Because, projects were selected that work with, not against, natural processes, greater control and flexibility in management decision-making are possible. The phasing of these projects provides continuous learning by monitoring feedback, which is particularly important in hydrologic basins where multiple projects potentially have cumulative synergistic impacts. Quick implementation of projects also provides positive public relations, as it demonstrates that we are reactive to our critical areas of wetland loss. After the completion of the Restoration Plan in 1993 (LCWCRTF, 1993), projects considered for annual priority lists were identified from the Restoration Plan and then screened according to a number of criteria, including environmental benefits, through a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure called Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). The criteria used to evaluate projects also included:
390
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
cost-effectiveness; longevity/sustainability; risk/ uncertainty; supporting partnerships; and public support. The annual priority list process was expanded to a 2-year cycle in 1998 in response to delays encountered with preliminary engineering design, land rights acquisition, and permitting issues. Although the exact process for proposed project screening is continuously evolving, all lists were formulated with interagency and public involvement prior to approval by the Task Force. Adaptive management philosophies have been employed in the policy planning phase of other large-scale ecosystem management programs, such as the Colorado River (Collier et al., 1997), Columbia River (Lee, 1993), and the Florida Everglades (Walters et al., 1992). As in the CWPPRA program, the necessary time and funds were invested in the planning phase to gather public and scientific input for the formulation of their plans, and the temptation to hasten implementation because the public (citizens, agencies, politicians) wanted to see projects on the ground was resisted. Already, programmatic planning changes have improved the integration of CWPPRA with other coastal planning efforts in Louisiana. The Restoration Plan provided a good start to mapping out the restoration future of Louisiana, but the knowledge base has grown since the plan was written in 1993. Monitoring of implemented projects has provided information to increase our understanding and adjust our assumptions of social and ecological change. External review of the program provided additional insights and recommendations guided the direction in which we should be heading (Boesch et al., 1994). Lee (1993) states that ‘an adaptive search for sustainability learns from implementation’.
2.3. Implementation In geological terms, Louisiana’s coastal zone contains three distinct regions: active Mississippi River delta, abandoned deltas, and the Chenier plain. Comprehensive planning provides a holistic view of each coastal region’s problems and the restoration efforts undertaken to address them. Projects are selected in the context of the region-
specific restoration objectives to which they contribute. Selected projects are then collectively examined as an integrated network of restoration projects that, in collaboration, will move CWPPRA towards its regional objectives. Establishing clear goals and objectives at broad spatial and temporal scales is critical not only for ecosystem management (Cortner et al., 1994; Grumbine, 1994; Brunner and Clark, 1997), but also for adaptive management. Clear goals and objectives provide the appropriate boundaries necessary to make decisions and to expand the number of alternatives available to achieve the objectives. The projects approved for implementation fall within broad restoration techniques: freshwater or sediment diversions, outfall management, barrier island restoration, marsh creation through use of dredged material, hydrologic restoration, marsh management, vegetative plantings, sediment and nutrient trapping, shoreline protection, or combinations of these types. Small- scale demonstration projects are also implemented to test innovative techniques. Since the enactment of CWPPRA, 84 coastal restoration projects have been selected for implementation in Louisiana’s coastal zone. Excluding small-scale demonstration projects, the average project area is more than 5700 ha, with some projects as large as 90 000 ha. The difficulty in implementing large-scale restoration projects is reflected in the 39-month average interval between project selection and the start of construction. One of the mechanisms that CWPPRA has initiated to reduce this time is the 2-year planning cycle. This cycle should provide the necessary time to evaluate the issues that are typically the most problematic and that sometimes render the project entirely unfeasible (e.g. preliminary engineering design, land rights acquisition, and permitting). The number of large-scale projects to be implemented is unprecedented, and upwards of 14 projects are planned in a region. Freshwater and sediment diversions, hydrologic restoration, and marsh management projects are designed to increase natural wetland-building processes by reestablishing the natural flows of water and sediment which sustains wetlands health. Many of
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
these projects require active operational manipulation of structures to achieve their goals. Active management provides a mechanism to more closely integrate human intervention with complex natural dynamics. Parker (1997) stated that it is critical to understand ‘this multi-dimensionality of processes, because we use processes to manipulate sites and direct succession or local dynamics’. Project operation or manipulation has inevitably resulted in response from various user groups, covering the entire spectrum from active support to minor dissension and even to litigation. Active management and operational flexibility has allowed adaptation to social preferences, conflicts of ecological values, environmental variability, and disturbance regimes. Active management is only as successful as the monitoring that supports it, and a strong linkage between operation and monitoring, as well as feedback to future project design, are essential.
2.4. Monitoring Lee (1993) called monitoring ‘‘the environmental counterpart to financial accounting and reporting.’’ Unfortunately, monitoring has commonly suffered from a lack or absence of: funding, longevity, control or reference, hypothesis testing, standardized protocol, sound science, and accountability. Monitoring is typically the least supported component of a restoration program but is the most important in an adaptive management program. Monitoring of well-defined goals provides the feedback necessary to make active management decisions. The Breaux Act requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term contributions for arresting coastal wetland loss. This requirement has resulted in the development of a monitoring program designed to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of each coastal restoration project, thus ensuring the best use of State and Federal funds for the restoration and conservation of these wetlands (Steyer and Stewart, 1992). Also, in keeping with the Breaux Act mandate of longevity of projects, the Task Force committed the resources to monitor each project for 20 years,
391
giving managers the ability to evaluate ecological response in time scales from seasons to decades. Monitoring data are crucial in helping to define ecological conditions and changes resulting from individual restoration activities, and helping to quantify any changes that may occur on an ecosystem level. The CWPPRA Monitoring Program in Louisiana develops monitoring plans and collects data on individual projects based on specific project goals and objectives. The TAG wetland ecologist and biostatistician provide scientific input into monitoring, experimental design, quality assurance, and verification of data interpretations to ensure unbiased reporting of results. The monitoring plans are implemented by LDNR upon approval of the Task Force. The monitoring program does more than just characterize a system and look at status and trends; it investigates cause and effect through hypothesis testing. The questions that are tested are significant to management, which Lee (1993) suggests improve experimental efficiency. Determining the effectiveness of CWPPRA projects in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana is a daunting task. Spatial and temporal variability in coastal land loss rates may account for differences between reference and project areas and hinder traditional experimental design and statistical techniques (Underwood, 1994). This variability necessitates a monitoring approach with a high degree of flexibility to detect the effectiveness of management actions under different environmental conditions (Boesch et al., 1994). One example of the flexibility of the monitoring program was the de-authorization of a demonstration project after analysis of monitoring data. The SW Shore White Lake Shoreline Protection demonstration project was designed to determine the effectiveness of vegetative plantings as a wave damping technique, and to prevent the encroachment of White Lake into the adjacent interior marsh by reducing the rate of shoreline erosion. The data showed that Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush) did not establish when planted at depths of 1.5–2.0 ft (0.46–0.61 m) in an area of high wave energy. Of the 2650 plants installed, only 40
392
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
were present after 12 months. The state and the sponsoring federal agency agreed that further monitoring would be of limited value, and initiated the project de-authorization process. Project de-authorization requires concurrence from the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force. The Task Force must also notify the public and solicit comments regarding the proposed de-authorization prior to rendering a decision. The SW Shore White Lake project was formally de-authorized, curtailing additional spending on the project. The remaining funds were re-appropriated in the program. One of the initial difficulties in the monitoring program was the identification of appropriate reference areas. Since estuaries are open ecological systems, monitoring entire coastal ecosystems, not just the areas directly affected by individual projects, is imperative. This long-term, large-scale strategy is being adopted by the CWPPRA Monitoring Program as more projects are implemented in coastal Louisiana and adequate funding is provided. A Coastwide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) is being developed that will allow managers to gain insight into the natural variability of ecosystems and the effects of projects. A network of reference sites across the Louisiana coast will be established. This network will allow for both project-specific evaluations and cumulative evaluations of the effects of projects on a hydrologic basin and coastwide level. The CRMS is based on a modification of the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996). Reference sites will span the range of variability from disturbed to pristine across the vegetation habitats that characterize the Louisiana coast. Projects will then be compared with a suite of references to look at habitat change trajectories over time. We will better determine what environmental settings are most conducive to restoration and what project types work best in different environmental settings, and we will determine collectively the effectiveness of all the projects carried out under the restoration plan in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana. This in turn will allow improvements in future planning and design of projects, to achieve maximum benefit for the resources spent.
The CWPPRA Monitoring Program is generating a tremendous amount of data and information. Yaffee (1997) stated that there is a fragmentation of information and knowledge between user groups and that better mechanisms are needed to share information. To ensure that the information gathered is made available to the general public as well as governmental agencies and the research community (customers), an accessible ORACLE/ArcView database of temporal and spatial monitoring data is maintained. The database facilitates the publication of monitoring results so that the management techniques developed in Louisiana can be peer-reviewed by a national and international audience. The monitoring data provide essential baseline and post-construction information to aid in determining the effectiveness of existing projects, the beneficial operation of existing projects, the design of future projects, and most importantly, the selection of projects proposed for creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. Information transfer and dissemination are also supported through two types of project-specific evaluation reports (progress reports and comprehensive reports) and a triennial Report to Congress. Interim progress reports are submitted for the entire project design life and include sections pertaining to the project’s current monitoring status, design, and preliminary results. Comprehensive reports compile all the available monitoring information and project performance details every 3 years and emphasize specific conclusions about the project’s success in meeting project design goals and objectives. Comprehensive reports prepared by LDNR are reviewed by the TAG, MWG, P&E, and Technical Committee, and peer reviewed by the AAG before submittal to the Task Force for final approval. The Report to Congress (LCWCRTF, 1997) provides a holistic view of each coastal region’s problems and the restoration efforts undertaken to address them. Coastwide summaries of anticipated benefits of CWPPRA activities and the cost-effectiveness of these efforts are also provided to assure the public that our efforts are providing the benefits projected. Program and project-specific information is most efficiently distributed through the
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395 Table 1 Conventional barriers to adaptive management and the CWPPRA approach to overcome them Conventional barriers
CWPPRA approach
Forced vision
Shared vision by implementing agencies Decentralized partnership Local buy-in Open communication Continuous dialogue Comprehensive (short and long-term)
Truncated planning
Unsupported monitoring
Costs
Clear, achievable goals and objectives Involved range of user groups Adaptive language in legislation Flexible approaches Realistic expectations 20-year commitment Standardized protocols Quality management plan Sound experimental designs Use of reference sites Hypothesis testing Documentation Information dissemination Peer review Cost-sharing partnership Long-term commitment Adequate funding for planning, implementation, and monitoring
CWPPRA and LDNR homepages (http:// www.lacoast.gov and http:// www.savelawetlands.org, respectively). The homepages have become very effective mechanisms for exchanging information throughout the CWPPRA organization.
3. Conclusions Adaptive management policies result primarily from court decisions and legislative acts, rather than from the resource agencies (Walters, 1997). Because most funding for large-scale restoration comes from legislative acts, sculpting the legislation in a manner that dictates adaptive management philosophies is important. The language should include statements regarding, (1) the un-
393
certainties associated with ecosystem management and restoration; (2) the need for a long-term vision and (3) the importance of flexibility of possible management actions. Knight and Meffe (1997) recommend designing management actions as experiments rather than prescriptions. Perhaps Davis and Ogden (1994) said it best: ‘‘Because of the changing conditions and uncertainties, ecosystem stability can only be viewed as a short-term objective. Long-term restoration must be an ongoing process whereby restoration implementation becomes a continuing series of management decisions. Each decision should be based upon a growing pool of research information, updated measurements of ecosystem responses, and evaluations of degrees of progress in reaching a set of goals or targets that have been identified as indicative of ecosystem vitality’. These philosophies have been applied throughout the evolution of CWPPRA in Louisiana. Establishing flexibility in all management decisions has allowed CWPPRA to overcome conventional barriers (see Table 1). For example, the Task Force expanded the CWPPRA organization to bring in technical knowledge and user groups; extended the planning process to ensure a more comprehensive evaluation of projects and expedite implementations and developed a CWPPRA homepage to facilitate information exchange. The result has been a continuously evolving process for planning, selection, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and scientific evaluation of restoration projects throughout coastal Louisiana. This evolution resulted only because the Task Force accepted uncertain outcomes in CWPPRA, identified appropriate alternatives, and implemented institutional change. The CWPPRA program in Louisiana has been a catalyst for large-scale changes in ecosystemlevel resource management. Through ongoing studies and numerous public education and outreach efforts, CWPPRA serves as a cooperative planning forum to form liaison groups that will ensure a common vision for the future of coastal Louisiana. By coordinating restoration and resource protection efforts in Louisiana, CWPPRA has minimized redundant efforts and conflicting goals, thereby, maximizing the long-term productivity of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands.
394
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395
Acknowledgements We extend our thanks to Dr Andy Nyman, Dr Charles Sasser, Dr Bill Good, Katherine Vaughan, Rick Raynie and Mary Horton for their valuable comments and suggestions, and to the hundreds of dedicated people who are involved in the CWPPRA program in Louisiana.
References Barras, J.A., Bourgeois, P.E., Handley, L.R., 1994. Land loss in coastal Louisiana 1956–1990. National Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center Open Report 94-01, 4 pp., 10 color plates. Boesch, D.F., 1982. Modifications in Louisiana, causes, consequences and options. In: Proceedings of A Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Service Program, Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-83/59, 259 pp. Boesch, D.F., Josselyn, M.N., Mehta, A.J., Morris, J.T., Nuttle, W.K., Simenstad, C.A., Swift, D.J.P., 1994. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana (special issue). J. Coastal Res. 20, 103. Brinson, M.M., Rheinhardt, R., 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol. Appl. 6 (1), 69 – 76. Brunner, R.D., Clark, T.W., 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conserv. Biol. 11 (1), 48–58. Castleberry, D.T., Cech Jr, J.J., Erman, D.C., Hankin, D., Healey, M., Kondolf, G.M., Mangel, M., Mohr, M., Moyle, P.B., Nielsen, J., Speed, T.P., Williams, J.C., 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards. Fisheries 21 (8), 20– 21. Collier, M.P., Webb, R.H., Andrews, E.D., 1997. Experimental flooding in Grand Canyon. Sci. Am. 276 (1), 82–89. Cortner, H.J., M.A. Shannon, M.G. Wallace, S. Burke, and M.A. Moote, 1994. Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management. Issue Paper No. 16. Water Resource Research Center, University of Arizona, 51 pp. Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C., 1994. Toward ecosystem restoration. In: Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 769 – 796. Day, J.W., Templet, P.H., 1989. Consequences of sea level rise: implications from the Mississippi Delta. Coastal Manage. 17, 241 – 257. Duffy, W.G., Clark, D. (Eds.), 1989. Marsh Management in Coastal Louisiana: Effects and Issues. Proceedings of a Symposium. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89 (22), 378 pp.
Dunbar, J.B., Britsch, L.D., Kemp III, E.B., 1992. Land loss rates. Report 3, Louisiana Coastal Plain. Technical Report GL-90-2. US Army Corp of Engineers, US Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Edwards, E.W., McClanahan, J., Bahr L., van Heerden, I.L., 1995. A White Paper: The State of Louisiana’s Policy for Coastal Restoration Activities. State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, 11 pp. Environmental, Protection Agency/Louisiana Geological Survey, 1987. Saving Louisiana’s coastal wetlands: the need for a long-term plan of action. Louisiana Wetland Protection Panel, Grand Terre Island, LA, 102 pp. Field, D.W, Reyer, A.J., Genovese, P.V., Shearer, B.D., 1991. Coastal wetlands of the United States: an accounting of a valuable national resource. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, US, 59 pp. Gagliano, S., 1994. An Environmental-Economic Blueprint For Restoring The Louisiana Coastal Zone: The State Plan. Report of the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities Science Advisory Panel Workshop. Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA, 51 pp. plus appendices. Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8 (1), 1 – 12. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Light, S.S., 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Halbert, C.L., 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1, 261 – 283. Holling, C.S. (Ed.), 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, New York. Knight, R.L., Meffe, G.K., 1997. Ecosystem management: agency liberation from command and control. Wildl Soc. Bull. 25 (3), 676 – 678. Lee, K., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics For the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, p. 243. Llewellyn, D.W., Shaffer, G.P., Craig, N.J., Creasman, L., Pashley, D., Swan, M., Brown, C., 1996. A decision-support system for prioritizing restoration sites on the Mississippi river alluvial plain. Conserv. Biol. 10 (5), 1446 – 1455. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, 1993. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan: Main Report, Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices. US Army, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Commerce, US Department of the Interior, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, 1997. The 1997 evaluation report to the US Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 76 pp. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C.J., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260 (17), 36.
G.D. Steyer, D.W. Llewellyn / Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 385–395 MacArthur, R.H., 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev. 40, 510 – 533. Mendelssohn, I.A., Turner, R.E., McKee, K.L., 1983. Louisiana’s eroding coastal zone: management alternatives. J. Limnol. Soc. South Africa 9, 63–75. Michener, W.K., 1997. Quantitatively evaluating restoration ‘experiments’: research design, statistical analysis, and data management considerations. Restor. Ecol. 5, 324–337. National Research Council, 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and the Public. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nyman, J.A., DeLaune, R.D., Roberts, H.H., Patrick, W.H., 1993. Relationship between vegetation and soil formation in a rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96, 269 – 279. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R.F., Poff, N.L., 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5, 291 – 300. Parker, V.T., 1997. The scale of successional models and restoration objectives. Restor. Ecol. 5, 301–306. Penland, S., Mendelssohn I., Wayne, L., Britsch, D., 1996. Natural and human causes of coastal land loss in Louisiana — workshop summary. Coastal Studies Institute, Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 25 pp. Steyer, G.D., Stewart Jr., R.E., 1992. Monitoring program for Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act projects. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center, Open-File Report 93-01, 85 pp. Steyer, G.D., Raynie, R.C., Steller, D.L., Fuller, D., Swenson, E., 1995. Quality management plan for Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Monitoring Program. Open-File Report 95-01. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Baton Rouge, 97 pp.
.
395
Titus, J.G., 1986. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and coastal zone management. Coastal Zone Manage. J. 14 (3), 147 – 171. Touchet, B.A., 1994. Genesis of the Louisiana Coastal Marshes, p. 11. Turner, R.E., Cahoon, D.R., 1988. Causes of wetland loss in coastal central Gulf of Mexico. In: Technical Narrative, vol. 2. US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, p. 400. Underwood, A.J., 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol. Appl. 4 (1), 3 – 15. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Division of Ecological Services. ESM 102. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 141 pp. van Heerden, I.L., 1994. A long-term comprehensive management plan for coastal Louisiana to ensure sustainable biological productivity, economic growth, and the continued existence of its unique culture and heritage. Center for Coastal, Energy, and Environmental Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 45 pp. Van Winkle, W., Coutant, C.C., Jager, H.I., Mattice, J.S., Orth, D.J., Otto, R.G., Railsback, S.F., Sale, M.J., 1997. Uncertainty and instream flow standards; perspectives based on hydropower research and assessment. Fisheries 22 (7), 21 – 22. Walters, C.J., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McMillan, New York. Walters, C.S., 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. [online]1(2):1. Available from the Internet.http:// www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1 Walters, C.J., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 1992. Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecol. Appl. 2, 189 – 202. Yaffee, S.L., 1997. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conserv. Biol. 11 (2), 328 – 337.