VWR � 1

The VirginiaWetlands ReportThe VirginiaWetlands Report

Fall 2000Vol. 15, No. 3

Increasing the Probability of Success in theConstruction of Marshes in Coastal Virginia

Kirk J. Havens, Lyle M. Varnell, and Bryan D. Watts

IntroductionThe expansion of human popula-

tions and the anthropogenic impact onsensitive natural systems, such as wet-lands, has spurred increased use ofcreated marshes to offset the loss ofdeveloped natural marshes. Mitigationof the loss of valuable marshes hasbecome increasingly important to regu-latory agencies and consequently tothe development community. The con-struction of marshes to compensate forpermitted impacts to natural marshes isbecoming pandemic. Emphasis on thesuccessful construction of marshes hasgained increased scrutiny with therecent passage of the Federal Guidancefor the Establishment, Use and Opera-tion of Mitigation Banks (CFR Vol. 60,No. 228, 1995) which allows the con-struction of marshes and the sale ofcredits to compensate for the destruc-tion of natural marshes. Information ondesign criteria for the successful con-struction of marshes is vitally importantfor mitigation bank creation. Marshconstruction, however, is a relativelyyoung science, and the “successful”establishment of a constructed marsh isfraught with many difficulties, vari-ables, and unknowns (Mitch and Wil-son 1996). The question of if, and howlong does it take, a constructed marshto achieve the same level of function assimilar natural marshes remains unan-swered. In addition, the ability of con-structed marshes to withstand invasionby non-native or aggressive, undesir-

able plants is questionable (Havens etal 1997).

This study involves the comparisonof ecological conditions in a twelveyear old artificially created tidal marshexcavated from upland and two nearbynatural reference tidal marshes. Thesemarshes were extensively studied in1992 and baseline data is available forcomparison (Havens et al 1995, Varnelland Havens 1995, Varnell et al 1995).The 1992 study was among the first touse the reference wetland concept andto use replicate sampling methods ap-propriate for robust parametric statisti-cal analyses in the comparison ofnatural versus constructed marshes.This study builds on the extensivedatabase of the previous study in orderto compare over time the habitat func-tion of a constructed marsh with refer-ence natural marshes.

MethodsThe study site is located in Sarah’s

Creek, a tributary to the York River nearGloucester Point, Virginia, USA(37o16’30"N 76o29’40"W) approximately10 km from the Chesapeake Bay and 40km from the Atlantic Ocean. The tidalamplitude is 0.75 m.

The same methods and equipmentused in the 1992 study were duplicated(Havens et al. 1995).

Physical characteristics of themarshes were determined from low alti-tude aerial photographs of a scale of1:4200. The vertical aerial imagery was

digitized using the vector-based GISsoftware ARC/INFO. Topcon infraredsurveying equipment was used to sur-vey elevations within each marsh.Each marsh was surveyed at transectsof 10-m intervals with survey pointsalong each transect every 10 m and atdistinct elevation transition zones suchas vegetation community margins andchannel edges. At least five surveypoints were included in marsh channelsfor each transect. The gridded eleva-tion topographies were overlaid withcalculated mean high water to deter-mine volume using LI Contour V+ soft-ware.

The total area of the constructedmarsh is 0.65 ha. An adjacent marsh tothe west is 0.58 ha and is located justupstream of the constructed marsh butis separated by a 15-m wide woodedpeninsula. The other natural marsh islocated approximately 150 m down-stream (east) of the constructed marshand is 0.42 ha in size. It is separatedfrom the constructed marsh by approxi-mately 16 ha of wooded upland. Theconstructed marsh is bordered on thenorth side by a shopping center com-plex and receives drainage from theshopping center parking lot via a sedi-ment detention pond. There is addi-tional freshwater input through adrainage ditch along the northeastborder. The west marsh receives onlyincidental freshwater input while theeast marsh receives freshwater inputthrough a drainage ditch along the

2 � VWR

The Virginia Wetlands Report is aquarterly publication of the WetlandsProgram at the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science of the College ofWilliam and Mary. Subscriptions areavailable without charge upon writtenrequest to: Wetlands Program, VirginiaInstitute of Marine Science, P.O. Box1346, Gloucester Pt, VA 23062 USA.Address corrections requested.

Program Director: Dr. Carl HershnerHead, Wetlands Advisory Program: Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.Produced by: VIMS Publication Center

In this Issue:Increasing the Probability ofSuccess in the Construction ofMarshes in Coastal Virginia .............. 1Fiddler Crab ....................................... 3CCI Develops New OnlineGIS Resources ................................... 4Calendar of Upcoming Events .......... 8VIMS Shoreline Reports to beUpdated and Go Online ..................... 8

This report was funded, in part,by the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science and by theVirginia Coastal ResourcesManagement Program of the Depart-ment of Environmental Quality throughGrant #NA97OZ0181-01 of the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Man-agement, under the Coastal Zone Manage-ment Act, as amended.

The views expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAAor any of its subagencies or DEQ.

Printed on recycled paper

north border. A multiplex theater hasbeen constructed within 15 m of thewest marsh since the original 1992 study(Fig. 1, page 5).

The constructed marsh was createdin 1987 by excavating an upland areaand grading it to intertidal elevations.One-year-old greenhouse-grownSpartina alterniflora, Spartina patens,and Distichlis spicata were planted on50- to 90-cm centers on the graded land.The channel was excavated to a depthof 1 m below mean low water.

An intensive, two-season samplingstrategy was chosen that followed asimilar lunar cycle and time frame as theprevious 1992 study (Fig. 2, below).Spring sampling occurred from 25 to 27May 1999 and summer sampling oc-curred from 9 to 11 August 1999. Bysampling each marsh for three consecu-tive days during two seasons (springand summer), we could account for theshort-term variability associated withassessing mobile aquatic fauna abun-dance in estuarine wetlands (Varnell etal. 1995).

Random sample plots within eachmarsh were selected for analysis of the

vegetation, benthic fauna, and sedi-ment carbon study components. Thewetland boundaries for each marshwere delineated from aerial photo-graphs and digitized. Each digitizedimage was computer overlaid by a gridof scaled 1-m2 cells. Each square metergrid cell was numbered. For each marsh,square meter sample plots were identi-fied by random number generation.Unique sample plots were generated foreach study component requiring ran-dom sampling. Standard field flagsfrom the previous study were located at10-m intervals along the upland-wet-land boundaries of each marsh from

Figure 2. Tidal cycle comparison between 1992 and 1999 sample dates.

Continued on page 5

Tides May 12-14, 1992 andMay 25-27, 1999

Tides July 27-29, 1992 andAugust 9-11, 1999

VWR � 3

Fiddler CrabUca species

by Walter I. Priest, III

Wetland Denizens���

��

�

O ne of the most frequently ob- served denizens of our east coast

saltmarshes, particularly at the lowertide levels, is the fiddler crab. Once youhave seen this small, but pugnaciouscrab, as he waves his single enormousclaw (pincer) to warn you not to ap-proach any further, you won’t forgethim. The fiddler crab is a burrowingcrab, not a swimming crab like ourwell known blue crab, Callinectessapidus. He also must not be con-fused with the small black marshcrab or the often present hermitcrab. The fiddler crabs, like allcrabs, are able to exploit the detritalportion of the saltmarsh foodchain.

There are three species of fid-dler crabs commonly found in ourlocal marshes and all themarshes along the eastern sea-board. The males have the com-mon characteristic of one large pincerwhich can be on either the left or rightside. Male fiddler crabs use this enor-mous brightly colored pincer, generally5 to 10 times larger than their opposingclaw, for several things. Foremost, theclaw is used by the crab to defend theterritory around its borrow and ward offother intruders. Males also entice inter-ested females into their bachelor bur-rows for mating. Male crabs can oftenbe seen fighting over territory or fe-males, but they are very careful in theseskirmishes—a lost pincer spells disas-ter! While a lost pincer can be regener-ated, it takes many months toaccomplish and the new pincer is nor-mally not as large nor as strong as theoriginal. For this reason, most of these“fights” consist of pincer waving andposturing by the rival males. The twoclaws on females are quite small and arethe same size. Only the male has the

larger pincer. (See page 7 for illustra-tions of different pincers.)

Males and females use their smallerclaws when feeding on mudflat sur-faces or in the protection of the veg-etated wetlands. They scoop mud intotheir mouths and filter out the en-trapped detritus using specialized

brush-like mouthparts. Water ispumped from their gills into

their mouth to floatthe

detritusfree of

the mud, andafter swallowing

the detritus, the mud is then redepos-ited on the marsh surface in the form ofneat little mud balls. Fiddler crabs feedon the falling tide and are most activeat low tide when the greatest area ofexposed mudflats exists. As the tiderises, the fiddlers retreat to their bur-rows and seal the entrance with a mudball plug. The everyday life of the fid-dler crab is tied to the tidal cycle whichinfluences its feeding habits and ofteninduces color changes in the crabs’pincer and shell.

The Marsh or Black fiddler, Ucapugnax, the smallest of the fiddlercrabs, is about 7/8 inch (22mm) wideand 5/8 inch (16mm) long and in themale is recognized by its dark olive or

almost black carapace shell with a royalblue spot near the center. The female issimilar in color except she does nothave the royal blue spot. The males’large pincer has an oblique (sloping/angled) ridge on the inner surface andis brownish yellow at the base, becom-ing yellow on the hand section withalmost white fingertips. This speciesprefers a muddy habitat and is oftenfound along the banks of tidal marshesand often shares the same habitat withthe next species.

The Sand fiddler, Uca pugilator, isapproximately 1.5 inches (38mm) wideand 1.0 inch (25mm) long and is recog-nized by its purplish or grey-blueblotchy carapace shell. The female issimilar in color but with more subduedcolors. In males the large pincer is con-siderably larger than the opposing,

smaller claw. It is smooth, without arough oblique ridge, on the innersurface and bluish or reddish brown

in color with white fingertips. This spe-cies is found higher on the marsh andmore frequently in locations wherethere is more sand than mud.

The Red-jointed fiddler, Uca minax,is considered the largest of the threespecies, being just over 1.5 inches (38-42mm) wide and 1.0 inch (25mm) long.Males have a chestnut-brown carapace,grayish near the front with olive orgrayish-brown walking legs. The ex-tremely large male pincer has an obliqueridge with low, round projections on theinner surface of the hand, reddish areasat the moveable joints and white finger-tips. This species is found in themuddy substrates of lower salinitymarshes and seems to favor marshesthat are nearly fresh water and less wet.

Unfortunately, when confronted by

PeggyPoole

Continued on page 5

4 � VWR

G i SGeographicInformationSystem

Marcia Berman

CCI Develops New Online GIS Resources

OSCAR(Oil Spill Clean-up and Response Tool)

The Comprehensive Coastal Inven-tory Program with the Chesapeake BayProgram, announce the online mappingtool OSCAR. OSCAR is an interactiveonline tool designed to assist oil spillresponders identify environmentallysensitive resources within the Chesa-peake Bay. Minimizingimpacts to natural re-sources is always aprincipal concern whenan oil spill occurs. OS-CAR is designed torapidly display a col-lection of geographicdata themes whichdesignate sensitiveareas within the Bay.Using software tech-nology developed bythe EnvironmentalSystems ResearchInstitute (ESRI®), OS-CAR is an interactivemap application whichallows a user to selectand display data at any location withinthe Bay. More than 50 themes areavailable. Simple menus instruct usersto select desired themes, define thegeographic extent, and display theresults. The geographic boundariescan easily be shifted with zoom in andzoom out keys. This allows resourcesto follow the flow trajectory of a mov-ing spill. Among the themes, OSCARidentifies a host of coastal habitattypes and prioritizes these habitatsbased on clean-up response. All data

themes include a description and/or aproper metadata record. Data contribu-tions to this project were made by theMaryland Department of Natural Re-sources, the Chesapeake Bay Program,the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, the Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, and others. Due to thecomprehensive nature of the datathemes, the utility of OSCAR is unlim-ited. The site is available to the public,and access is through the ChesapeakeBay Program’s Homepage at http://www.chesapeakebay.net. Users shouldlook for this icon in the lower left cornerof the page to enter the site. OSCARwas developed by the ComprehensiveCoastal Inventory Program with fund-ing through the Chesapeake Bay Pro-gram.

Watershed Map Gallery(James and York River Watersheds)

Final preparations are being made topublish the online Watershed MapGallery for the James and York RiverWatersheds. The gallery is a collectionof map compositions which have beendeveloped over the last several years tosupport resource management activities

within these water-sheds. These mapswere originally compo-nents of the largerhardcopy versions ofthe York River Water-shed, and James RiverWatershed Map Portfo-lios. Numerous re-quests for theseproducts indicated aneed for a wider distri-bution. Funding pro-vided by theEnvironmental Protec-tion Agency allowedthe compositions to beconverted to jpeg filesand published to a

VIMS hosted website. The websiteincludes documentation and metadata,where available, about the developmentof each composition. The documenta-tion is intended to provide users withsource information and potential uses.At the site, a user can scroll through alist of maps available from several dif-ferent primary categories. When atheme is selected, the map can beviewed at two different scales. A postscript file can be downloaded to savethe file locally. The Watershed MapGallery will be accessed at http://www.vims.edu/ccrm/cci.html.

VWR � 5

Figure 1. Marsh site.

Increasing the Probability of Successin the Construction of Marshes inCoastal Virginiacontinued from page 2

mouth to head and specific sample siteswere extrapolated from the flagged loca-tions.

Salinity, dissolved oxygen, andtemperature were measured each morn-ing of the sampling period immediatelyafter setting the block nets using a YSI85 Temperature, Conductivity, Salinity,and Dissolved Oxygen meter.

Sediment was sampled in three habi-tat types within each marsh: highmarsh, low marsh, and nonvegetatedintertidal. Three sediment cores wererandomly collected within each habitattype and divided into two fractions: 0-2cm and 14-16 cm. Total organic matter

and organic carbon were calculated foreach habitat type and by depth. Or-ganic matter was measured by loss onignition at 450oC and converted intoorganic carbon by multiplying by 0.45(Craft et al. 1988).

Vegetation in each marsh was di-vided into community types: saltmarshcordgrass (dominated by Spartinaalterniflora), saltmeadow hay (domi-nated by Spartina patens), and salt-bushes (dominated by Iva frutescensand Baccharis halimifolia). Thesaltmarsh cordgrass community wasrandomly sampled using a square meterquadrat. The saltmeadow hay commu-

nity was randomly sampled using a 1/4square meter quadrat. The saltbushcommunity was randomly sampled us-ing a 2-m radius plot. Percent cover andstem density data were collected foreach sample within each community.

Benthic invertebrates were sampledusing a 232.25-cm2 benthic grab. Sevensamples (with duplicates) were col-lected from each marsh in June. Thesamples were sieved through a 0.5-mmmesh, stained with rose bengal, andpreserved in 10% formalin. Taxonomic

Continued on next page

6 � VWR

identification to species level was de-termined where possible. The data wereanalyzed for community structure pa-rameters such as species richness, di-versity, and equitability usingShannon-Weaver analysis. Totalsampled populations were tested fordifferences by nonparametric methods.

Fish and blue crabs from each wet-land were sampled by simultaneouslysetting a Priest Modified Hoop Net(Havens et al. 1995). The nets were setat the slack at high tide and emptied onthe hour until low tide. The two naturalmarshes drain close to dry at low tidewhile the constructed marsh maintainsless than 0.5-m depth in some places atmean low tide. At low tide the con-structed marsh was seined to collectremaining fish and shellfish. Fish andcrabs were identified, counted, mea-sured and released. Sciaenids and otherfood fish (those commercially exploited)were separated and returned to the labfor further analysis.

The three marshes were surveyed todetermine bird use during three sea-

sons (winter, spring, summer) and attwo tide stages (low and high tide).Marshes were surveyed between 0.5and 3.0 h after sunrise and between 2 hbefore and 2 h after predicted low orhigh tide. Each of the 18 surveys (3marshes x 3 seasons x 2 tide stages)was replicated three times within thesame tide series. Each survey consistedof walking the perimeter of the marshand recording all birds seen or heardwithin the marsh. Each marsh took ap-proximately 20 minutes to survey. Allthree marshes were surveyed on eachsampling day. This sampling effort wassimilar to that used by Burger et al.(1982) and identical to the method usedin the previous study (Havens et al.1995).

DiscussionAs of the summer of 1999, the con-

structed marsh was 12 years old. Theprevious study revealed that organiccarbon levels at depth were signifi-cantly lower in the constructed marshwhen compared to the natural marshes.This is due, in part, to the excavation ofthe upland to create the marsh site.During the excavation process the or-ganic top layer of soil is usually re-moved in order to reach a depth that

will allow a tidal connection. It has beenassumed that as the marsh maturesorganic matter will accumulate. Thisprocess is important to the overall func-tion of the marsh since organic mattersupplies the base for higher trophiclevels. Organic matter levels at the sur-face of the marshes are similar, howeverthe constructed marsh still containssignificantly less organic matter atdepth. This is similar to other studieswhich found that the accumulation ofsoil nutrients to levels similar to thoseof natural reference marshes may re-quire more time (Craft et al. 1999). Whilesome parameters such as the formationof microtopography within the con-structed marsh may be affected by thesignificant lack of organic matter in thesoil, the abundance of fish, blue crabsand benthic infauna appears not to beaffected. Amending the site with or-ganic substrate at the time of construc-tion could have helped speed thedevelopment of a sediment profile simi-lar to the natural marshes.

The existence of mature saltbushhabitat in the natural marshes, and itslow abundance in the constructedmarsh continues to explain the variationin bird use between the constructedand natural marshes. Of the 162 obser-

Table 1.Differences observed between the constructed and natural marshes over time.

Differences observedParameters 1992 1999

Organic carbon at depth Y Y higher organic carbon in natural marshes

Salinity Y N

Dissolved oxygen Y N

Low marsh stem density Y N

Saltbush stem density Y Y higher stem densities in natural marshes

Saltbush percent cover Y Y higher percent cover in natural marshes

Blue crab abundance Y N

Blue crab size Y N

Total fish abundance Y N

Commercial fish abundance Y N

Fish richness Y Y higher richness value in constructed marsh

Fish diversity Y Y higher diversity value in constructed marsh

Bird richness Y Y higher richness value in natural marshes

Bird diversity Y Y higher diversity value in natural marshes

Bird abundance Y Y higher abundance in natural marshes

Increasing the Probability of Successin the Construction of Marshes inCoastal Virginiacontinued from page 5

VWR � 7

vations of bird activity in the westmarsh, 60% were recorded in the salt-bush habitat. In the east marsh, 37% ofthe observations of bird activity were inthe saltbush habitat. In the con-structed marsh, which has very littlesaltbush community, 24% of the obser-vations were recorded in the saltbushor dead saltbush.

In the three marshes, all theneotropical migrant songbird activitywas recorded in the saltbush commu-nity (dead saltbush community in theconstructed marsh). Planting sectionsof the constructed marsh with maturesaltbush species could have increasedthe attractiveness of the marsh to birdsby providing nesting, perching andforaging sites for temperate andneotropical migrant species.

The constructed marsh has reacheda general level of function similar tothat of nearby natural marshes for theparameters measured (Table 1). Somemorphological differences remain suchas the differences in community typeratios. Significant differences in habitatfunction remain in three areas: sedimentorganic carbon at depth, mature salt-bush density, and bird utilization (hy-

pothesized to be related to saltbushdensity). Data from this study sug-gests that the addition of an organicsoil amendment at the constructionphase and the planting of a maturesaltbush community would help in-crease the probability of a success inthe construction of artificial marshes toreplace the habitat functions of naturalmarshes.

The study was funded in part bythe Virginia Coastal Resources Man-agement Program (NOAA Grant # NA-87020253-01). The full report can beviewed on the VIMS Center for CoastalResources publications websitewww.vims.edu/ccrm

AuthorsDr. Kirk J. Havens is Assistant Di-

rector for the Center for Coastal Re-sources Management, VIMS, College ofWilliam & Mary.

Mr. Lyle Varnell is Assistant Direc-tor for Advisory Services, VIMS, Col-lege of William & Mary.

Dr. Bryan Watts is Director for theCenter for Conservation Biology, Col-lege of William & Mary.

References

Burger, J., J. Shisler and F.H. Lesser. 1982.Avian utilization on six salt marshes in NewJersey. Bio. Conserv., 23: 187-212.

Craft, C.B., S.W. Broome and E.D. Seneca.1988. Soil nitrogen, phosphorus and or-ganic carbon in transplanted estuarinemarshes. In: D.D. Hook (Ed.), The Ecologyand Management of Wetlands. TimberPress, pp. 351-358.

Havens, K.J., L.M. Varnell, and J.G. Bradshaw.1995. An assessment of ecological condi-tions in a constructed tidal marsh and twonatural reference tidal marshes in coastalVirginia. Ecological Engineering 4: 117-141.

Havens, K.J., W.I. Priest, III, and H. Berquist.1997. Investigation and long-term moni-toring of Phragmites australis withinVirginia’s constructed wetland sites. Envi-ronmental Management 21(4): 599-605.

Mitsch, W.J. and R.F. Wilson. 1996. Improv-ing the success of wetland creation andrestoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6(1): 77-83.

Varnell, L.M. and K.J. Havens. 1995. A com-parison of dimension-adjusted catch datamethods for assessment of fish and crababundance in intertidal salt marshes. Estuar-ies 18: 319-325.

Varnell, L.M., K.J. Havens, and C. Hershner.1995. Daily variability in abundance andpopulation characteristics of tidal salt-marsh fauna. Estuaries 18: 326-334.

a moving, clicking, muddy hoard offiddler crabs, it is very difficult to deter-mine the minor subtleties in colorationneeded for identification. Identificationbased on the coloration of the femalesis almost impossible. That leaves thepopulation identification by means ofthe male pincer as the only viable op-tion, provided you’re able to catch oneof the little denizens!

Once the male fiddler has attractedthe attention of a female by his “pincerwaving and clicking,” they retire to hisburrow to mate. The female extrudesher fertilized eggs - as many as a quar-ter million - onto her abdominal flap inone small spongy cluster. After several

months the eggs hatch and are releasedinto the nearest tidal creek at high tide.After several moults the young fiddlercrabs undergo metamorphosis andchange into their final form, returning tothe land for the rest of their lives.

Fiddler crabs are at the top of themenu for many other organisms. Wad-ing birds like the great blue heron or thesmaller green heron prize fiddler crabs.Many terrestrial animals like raccoonsand foxes can make a meal from fiddlercrabs. Even other crabs are fond of afiddler crab meal. This, of course, ispredicated on the fact that these preda-tors can actually catch the elusive fid-dler crab before he or she returns to thesafety of their respective burrow.

Hermit Crabscontinued from page 3

pugilator

pugnax

minax

slight ridge

prominentridge

PeggyPoole

8 � VWR

Calendar of Upcoming Events

December 14 - 15 VIMS Winter BotanyFor more information contact Bill Roberts at wlr@vims.edu.

January 8-11, 2001 COASTAL GEOTOOLS, Coastal Resource Spacial Technology Tools Conference.Charleston, S.C. Contact: Steve Meador or Mark Jensen, (843) 740-1200, GeoTools@noaa.gov

March 27-29, 2001 National Hydric Soils Workshop. Atlantic City, NJ.Sponsored by EPA. Abstracts due now. Contact Ralph Spagnolo at: spagnolo.ralph@epa.gov

July 15-19, 2001 Coastal Zone 2001. Hands Across the Water-Linking Land, Lake and Sea.Call for Papers. Abstracts due September 8, 2000. For more information, please call(843) 740-1279, or email Jan.Kucklick@noaa.gov

B eginning sometime after the first ofthe new year, the Wetlands Advi-

sory Program of the Center for CoastalResources Management at VIMS willbegin using an updated format for itsShoreline Permit Application Reports.These reports are presently utilized asenvironmental input to the decision-making process by local wetlandsboards, VMRC, and DEQ, among oth-ers. VIMS will be taking advantage ofnew technology which will allow theincorporation of color photographs,site location maps and detailed vicinitymaps to complement each specific per-mit application and the written envi-ronmental assessment for the proposedactivity.

In addition, the Wetlands Programwill begin putting the reports on theVIMS home page from which they will

be downloaded by the regulatory agen-cies and will also be available to any-one interested in the VIMS assessmentof a particular shoreline proposal. Thisoperational procedure will make theVIMS report available sooner, will elimi-nate time lost in mailing and will allowfull utilization of the color enhance-ments that are part of the new format.

The new report format will alsopresent tidal wetland information on awatershed level, report cumulative tidalwetland impacts pertinent to the sub-ject application over the previous fiveyear period and will tie the wetlandsdata base to other existing GIS effortsin the Center.

The goal is to phase in the newreport format and phase out the mailingof reports in January of 2001. Localitiesare being surveyed to make sure that all

VIMS Shoreline Reports to beUpdated and Go Online

have the necessary access to, and abil-ity to download the VIMS home page.Other steps will be in place to help in-sure a smooth transition to the strictlyelectronic distribution of the reports.

The Center’s web page contains amyriad of other wetland and shorelinemanagement information which may beuseful to local officials and other userssuch as shoreline permit applicants,permit agents, contractors and water-front property owners. Numerous tech-nical reports, self-guided educationunits, newsletters and other featuresprovide information on subjects dealingwith all aspects of shoreline and wet-lands management. The web page willbe updated on a regular basis and willalso contain information on wetlandcumulative losses as derived from theCenter’s tidal wetland data base.