Why Restore Coastal Habitats?

Why Restore Coastal Habitats?

David M. Burdick

Associate Research Professor Jackson Estuarine Laboratory

Department of Natural Resources & the Environment University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824 [email protected]

Why Restore Coastal Habitats? Outline

1)  Habitats, Values and Threats, including Climate Change

2)  Impacts, Perception and Action 3)  Benefits, Ecosystem Services Case

Study: Little River Marsh 4)  Take home messages

Southeastern Masschusetts is endowed with a rich mosaic of coastal habitats

Photo: Sean Woods

Beaches and Dune Systems

Salt Marshes

Sand and Mudflats

Photo: Sean Woods

Shellfish Beds and Reefs

Photo:NathanJohnson,OrionPhotoProduc3ons

Seagrass Meadows

Photo: Fred Short, UNH

Rivers flowing into bays (estuaries)

Functional values associated with these habitats:

•  Plant growth to support grazing and detritus-based food webs

•  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat •  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess

nutrients •  Aesthetic, Recreational & Educational

values •  Self-sustaining ecosystems

Courtesy, Bob Ulanowitz


•  Plant growth to support food webs

•  Secondary production, including finfish and shellfish

•  Plant structure to provide habitat •  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess



Photo: Lawrence Taylor


•  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide

habitat for nursery, refuge and foraging (dunes, tidal marshes, seagrass meadows, algal beds and artificial habitats)

•  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess




•  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat

•  Support of local and regional biodiversity

•  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess



Courtesy Joe Luczkovich

Courtesy Robert Buchsbaum

Functional values associated with these habitats: •  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat •  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding

•  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess



Photo: Dick Nicholson

Functional values associated with these habitats: •  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat •  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess

nutrients (marshes, seagrasses) to increase habitat stability and improve water quality

•  Aesthetic, Recreational & Educational values

•  Self-sustaining ecosystems

Photo: Sean Woods

Functional values associated with these habitats: •  Plant growth to support food webs

•  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat

•  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion

•  Removal of sediments and excess nutrients

•  Aesthetic, Recreational & Educational values


Photo: Fred Short

Photo: Wellfleet Shellfish Dep’t.

Functional values associated with these habitats: •  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat •  Support of biodiversity

Photo: Sean Woods

•  Protection from flooding •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess nutrients •  Aesthetic, Recreational & Educational

values


Processes that contribute to the Habitats:

Coastal Features Coastal Processes

Gulf of Maine

Eelgrass bed Inlet

Fan Salt Marsh

Cusp

Barrier Beach Spit

Rivers

Step

Storms US

ACoE

Succession Evolution

Plate Tectonics Glaciers

Oceanic Currents

soils

Gulf of Maine

Processes that contribute to the Habitats:

•  Primary Production

•  Growth

•  Herbivory

•  Predation

•  Decomposition

•  Secondary Production

•  Migrations of fish (herring, eel, bass) and birds (terns)

Photo: Don DesJardin

Processes that contribute to the Habitats: •  Complex Food Webs - a characteristic of a healthy

diverse ecosystem - some have already lost complexity as a result of: –  Over-fishing and over-harvesting specific species –  Introductions of invasive non-native species –  Human alterations to the landscape –  Eutrophication

P. Erickson, MIT SeaGrant

Wellfleet Shellfish Dep’t. Fred Short, UNH

Michael Moore

Joe Luczkovich

Threats to Ocean Resources: •  Overfishing •  Invasive species •  Pollution, especially runoff •  Habitat alteration •  Coastal development •  Aquaculture •  Climate change

•  Pew Oceans Commission

Restoration is about reversing the effects of all of these impacts

•  Over- Fishing / Harvesting: examples Northern Right Whale; cod declines; bird and turtle eggs; scallops

Photo: Michael Moore

Photo: Lawrence Taylor

Threats to Coastal Processes and Habitats

Threats to Coastal Processes and Habitats •  Introductions of non-native, invasive species: codium,

green crab, Japanese shore crab, others Photo: P. Erickson, MIT SeaGrant

Photo: Ch. Schubart

•  Pollution: •  Contaminants (metals, organic pesticides) •  Bacterial Pathogens •  Nutrient over enrichment and the

cascading effects of eutrophication

Photo: Fred Short

Photo: Vincent DeWitt


•  Human alteration of Habitat •  Restricting or blocking tidal exchange •  Interruption of sediment supply and transport •  Artificial Habitats

Courtesy Robert Buschbaum, MAS

Town of Wellfleet Web Site


•  Human alteration of Habitat •  Restricting or blocking tidal exchange •  Interruption of sediment supply and transport

(dredging, erosion control) •  Artificial Habitats - from development, aquaculture

Photo: Sean Woods


Climate Change Impacts (Tidal Marshes) •  Increased sea level – retreat of high marsh? •  Increased storm activity - Seaward edges will retreat •  Temperature increases - Vegetation Changes:

•  Range expansions, loss of forb pannes? •  Increased rainfall

•  Vegetation change due to Decreased salinity?


Our Climate is Changing: Global:

Surface temperatures +0.74°C Arctic temperatures 2X

Snow and Ice: Snow cover decreasing Glaciers shrinking Arctic sea-ice decreasing Ice shelf losses

Thermal expansion of the oceans: SLR has increased from 1.7 to 3.0 mm/yr

Our Climate Continues to Change:

Our LOCAL Climate is Changing: Seasons changing (shorter, warmer winters, ice-out sooner)

More info at: http:/

/CarbonSolutionsNE.org

Our LOCAL Climate is Changing: Local precipitation increased 20% since ’30s (42 in/year) Precipitation events larger Tomas (19th named storm in 2010)

Mean Decadal Trend 1” Precipitation Events

1948-2007

Adapting to Climate Change •  Increasing SLR threatens tidal wetlands

– Allow tidal marshes to grow with SLR in elevation – Allow marshes to migrate landward (no barriers)

fromSmith2006

What did we have?�What are we left with?

•  Depauperate system –  70% of tidal marshes, almost if not all with

varying degrees of recurring human impacts – Tiny bits of seagrass – Shellfish beds overfished and predated by

invasive species (green crab) – Most rivers dammed, fish ladders have declining

anadromous runs

from: Portnoy, J. and M. Reynolds. 1997. Wellfleet’s Herring River: the case for �habitat restoration. Environment Cape Cod 1:35-43.

Impacts from tidal restrictions: • Loss of fisheries (esp. anadromous spp.) • Vegetation change • Subsidence • Exotic invaders • Mosquito problems • Loss of self-maintenance • Fish passage & trophic export

Nekton Production and Export: �the Trophic Relay

Ethan Nedeau, Biodrawversity

Fish caught in minnow traps marked and released upstream and downstream of culverts

Vegetated marsh Intertidal

channels Subtidal channels

Open estuary

Ocean

young resident nekton

adult resident nekton

young transient nekton

adult transient nekton

Alyson Eberhardt et al.

Recapture results of fish marking study:

Water velocity (m s-1) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Pass

ag

e ra

te

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

y=-0.1558x+0.2478 r2=0.8517 p<0.0001

Restricted Restored Reference

Fish Passage Rate

Alyson Eberhardt et al. 2011

NEED: New functional indicators: Nekton Production and Export

Vegetated marsh Intertidal

channels Subtidal channels

Open estuary

Ocean

young resident nekton

adult resident nekton

young transient nekton

adult transient nekton

Alyson Eberhardt et al. 2011

Why can’t we see the difference? •  Loss of connection to coastal resources

– Out of sight – Don’t care

•  Acceptance of environmental degradation •  Shifting Baselines http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/lenticulars/index.html

–  ‘better than New Jersey’ – We have more important things to deal with – its not broken . . . yet

•  Change is cryptic & removed from fundamental causes - increased runoff from impervious surfaces

Why don’t we act?

•  Multiple Stable States: change to alternative state is sudden and difficult to reverse

•  Loss of connection to coastal resources •  Acceptance of environmental degradation •  Shifting Baselines •  Change is cryptic and removed from

fundamental causes

Why bother?

•  Climate Change is coming, we must adapt •  So many attempts fail – but not all are equal

– Great track records for success: •  Tidal Marsh Restoration •  Dam Removal (e.g., Wiswall Dam)

– Fair to poor success / Room for improvement and learning:

•  Shellfish Beds •  Seagrass Meadows

So, keep the pressure on! •  New restorations of all kinds •  Integrate habitats

Habitat Interactions

GulfofMaine

SeagrassMeadows SaltMarshes

ShellfishBedsandReefs

Se>lementsitesPreda3onrefuge

PreventBrown3desReducesuspended

sediments

Reducesuspendedsediments

Absorbexcessnutrients

High3derefuge

ReducesuspendedsedimentsAbsorbexcessnutrients

ReduceplanktonLow3derefugeReducewaves

CalmphysicalstressesImprovewaterqualityProvidealternatehabitatReduceeutrophicaBon

So, keep the pressure on!

•  New restorations of all kinds •  Integrate habitats •  Measure results

– Critical for Adaptive Management (site) –  Improve knowledge and future projects (regional) – Share information (international) – Demonstrate value

•  Case Study: Little River Marsh

Case Study: Little River Marsh, NH

Restoration can be costly – is it worth it?

Goals: To restore natural functions To provide benefits or values to people

-a disconnect

Assessment: Structural indices (hydrology, soils, vegetation, nekton)

Functional values associated with tidal marshes: •  Plant growth to support food webs

•  Secondary production •  Plant structure to provide habitat

•  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding

•  Protection from coastal erosion

•  Removal of sediments and excess

nutrients •  Aesthetic, Recreational &

Educational values •  Self-sustaining ecosystems

•  Long term carbon storage

Gulf of Maine “GPAC” Protocols

•  Hydrology Tidal Signal (WL Recorders), Elevation

•  Soils and Sediments Salinity (and Sulfide, Eh, %C, accretion)

•  Vegetation Abundance, Composition, Invasive spp, Ht.

•  Nekton ID, Density, Length, Biomass, Richness

•  Birds Abundance, Richness, Behavior

Neckles et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology. 10(3):556-563.

Konisky et al. 2004.

RPI – An Evaluation Tool

Calculates % Change towards Reference/Project Goal

Normalizes actual data into a relative index score

Restoration Starting Point

Reference Marsh Value

Restoration Trajectory

Value of Tidal Marsh Ecosystem Services per Annum per Hectare

•  Costanza et al. 1987: $9,900 •  In 2008 $ (Gedan et al. 2009): $14,400 •  Carbon sequestration (European market): $135 •  Denitrification (Piehler and Smyth 2011): $6,128

Take:EcologicalValua3on‐structuralandfunc3onalindicatorsusedtomeasuremarshresponsetorestora3on

New Valuation Strategy

Reference Marsh 100%

Restored Marsh

89%

Impacted Marsh

39% Time

Net Gain in Ecosystem Services = $7200/ha/yr

100% = $14,400 /yr

39% = $5,600 /yr

89% = $12,800 /yr

Setitequalto:EconomicValua3on–ecosystemservicevaluesofCostanzaetal.1997(2008:$14,400/ha/yr)

RPI Scores for Little River Marsh

Calcula3onofValueofNetBenefitsfromEcosystemServicesRPI=0.91inYear7;ValuelostduetoimpactsfromBdalrestricBon=41%Year7valuerelaBvetoreferencemarsh=0.91%SO..Restoredbenefits=$14,400/ha*0.41*0.91*70ha=$376,000

RPI Calculations for Little River Marsh

OVER first 5 years (2001-2005) = $1.2 million�OVER next 6 years (2006-2011) = $2.2 million�Cost $1.3 million

From: Chapter 15: TidalRestoraBon:aSynthesisofScienceandManagement

CharlesRoman&DavidBurdick,editorsISLANDPRESSSSummer2012

So, Why restore coastal habitat? •  Investment in Natural Capital (self maintenance) •  Increases Resilience (Climate Change is coming) •  Improves functions of adjacent habitats •  Reconnects public to local resources •  Returns value to economy every year (no

depreciation) •  $$ goes to hire more people (30 / $million)

–  RAE

Humboldt Field Research Institute PO Box 9, Steuben, ME 04680-0009 207-546-2821, Fax 207-546-3042 [email protected] www.eaglehill.us

Information is available on . . . • other natural history science seminars • graduate and undergrad university credits • continuing education units/recert. credits

A Natural History Field Seminar at Eagle Hill on the Eastern Maine Coast

An Interactive, Intensive Seminar with Susan C. Adamowicz and David Burdick

Quantifying Ecosystem Services of Restored Tidal Marshes July 29-August 4, 2012

Why Restore Coastal Habitats?

Education

Transcript of Why Restore Coastal Habitats?