Ecological Engineering 26 (2006) 1–5

Editorial

Advances in coastal habitat restoration in thenorthern Gulf of Mexico

Piers Chapmana,∗, Denise Reedb

a CREST Program Office, Energy, Coast and Environment Building, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USAb Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA

Accepted 26 September 2005

Living on the coast of Mississippi and Louisianafor centuries has been a story of coping with thespring floods and fall hurricanes. They are both thedriving forces of the coastal landscape and the con-trols on what and where people can base their liveli-hoods. The Pascagoula River in Mississippi remainsalmost the only unaltered river drainage in the conter-mtbppryadwad

f

d

northern Gulf coast, but it seems clear that much of theregion will be rebuilt and that communities can still beviable despite the annual hurricane threat.

These two forces also drive the diverse and pro-ductive array of coastal habitats found in the region– but in the 21st century we must also consider howthese habitats both support and are affected by the

and-eoplestoret begot

tion

haseltaual

heringtedednualrely

deep

0

inous United States, with floods that truly representhe interaction of climate and landscape; elsewhereetween the Pearl and the Sabine Rivers, controls torevent flooding, aid navigation, or enhance water sup-ly have steadily reduced the natural dynamism of theseiver systems (Fig. 1). Storms are less manageable,et, despite the Category 5 Hurricane Camille dev-station of coastal Mississippi in 1969, massive newevelopment has since occurred along the coast. Theidespread destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrinand Rita in August/September 2005 caused even moreisruption to the social and economic fabric of the

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 225 578 0069;ax: +1 225 578 0102.

E-mail addresses: pchapman@lsu.edu (P. Chapman),jreed@uno.edu (D. Reed).

coastal communities. For the most part these lscapes have developed in the last century as phave battled natural catastrophe. Our attempts to reand sustain these habitats into the future musset in a human context. Understanding how weto where we are is the first step in that restoraprocess.

The history of settlement in southern Louisianabeen an attempt to come to terms with living on a din a state of dynamic equilibrium and subject to annflooding. The first “scientist” to study the region, FatPierre Charlevoix, who was sent to America by KLouis XV of France in 1720, realized this and stain his report to the King that anyone who intendto settle the delta should be prepared for the anfloods, which did not cover huge areas and were ramore than 1.2 m, and generally less than 0.6 m,(Charlevoix, 1744; see alsoCondrey, 1997).

925-8574/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.09.003

2 P. Chapman, D. Reed / Ecological Engineering 26 (2006) 1–5

Fig. 1. The Louisiana–Mississippi coastline, showing the major river systems (1. Sabine, 2. Calcasieu, 3. Atchafalaya, 4. Misissippi, 5. Pearl,6. Pascagoula, 7. Alabama/Tombigbee, 8. Perdido) and the landfall sites of several recent hurricanes (Rita, 2005; Lili, 2002; Bill, 2003; Isidore2002; Danny, 1997; Katrina, 2005; Camille, 1969; Georges, 1998; Ivan, 2004). Note that Danny and Katrina crossed the delta and made landfallagain in Mississippi.

In Charlevoix’s words:

Je pense meme qu’on gagneroit beaucoup en abandon-nant le champ librea l’inondation annuelle du Fleuvesurtout le terrein, qui n’est pas bien sec, & ce terrein neresteroit pas inutile. Le limon, qui y demeure, quand leseaux se sont retirees, le renouvellent & l’engraissent.

[I even think it would be very advantageous to leavethe country free to the annual flooding by the river,especially the ground which is not very dry, and thisground would not be useless. The clay which remainsupon the land after the waters withdraw fattens andrenews it. . ..]

He then went on:

It appears to me that the best place for settlements isnot on the banks of the river, but at least a quarter, ifnot a league back in the country. . .. Having landedtwice or thrice every day when I was going down theriver, I may affirm that there is almost everywhere, at avery small distance from the banks, high ground wherehouses might be built on a solid foundation. . ..

The King, of course, knew better, and decreed thatlevees would protect New Orleans from flooding. Since

1700, virtually the whole of the middle and lower Mis-sissippi has been leveed, most levees having been builtsince the disastrous flood of 1927, and these levees,together with dams in the upper reaches of the Mis-sissippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers, have preventedriver-borne sediment from reaching the marshes andswamps of the Delta Plain. What sediment there is inthe lower Mississippi is now discharged to the deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico. Similar floodplain man-agement and maintenance dredging on the Pearl, theAtchafalaya, the Sabine, and other rivers has massivelychanged the sediment dynamics of the shoreline alongthe northern Gulf Coast.

Control of rivers is not the only way in whichhumans have altered the coastal landscape. The cypress(Taxodium distichum) logging industry had a majoreffect on the local geography, since historically itrequired boats both to access the valuable timberresources of the delta region and to extract the cutlogs. Even though current logging may use helicoptersto transport the product from the source, the legacyof prior activities criss-crosses many of our remainingcypress areas. Many other human actions have left scarson the coast, some affecting large areas. These includethe construction of canals and spoil banks to extract ortransport oil and gas that disrupt the internal hydrologyof the estuaries and wetlands, as well as increased boat

P. Chapman, D. Reed / Ecological Engineering 26 (2006) 1–5 3

traffic and the construction of jetties and other struc-tures to facilitate navigation. This in turn causes erosionof channel banks and interferes with natural patterns ofsediment transport.

The cumulative effect of these stresses has led to theloss of more than 4000 km2 (1 million acres) of landin Louisiana since the 1930s and, on average, a further65–78 km2 (16,000–18,000 acres) continues to be losteach year (CRCL, 2000). In Mississippi, the situationis also telling with over 34 km2 (8500 acres) of coastalwetlands lost between the 1950s and 1992. About 25%of this loss has been to open water (Meyer-Arendt et al.,1998), and nearly 40% has been related to replacementby land development.

Although many studies of the problems and poten-tial solutions of coastal land loss in Louisiana andsouthern Mississippi were published during the periodfrom 1960 to the 1980s (Reed and Wilson, 2004),coastal restoration in Louisiana began in earnest onlyin 1989 when the state legislature passed Act 6; the fol-lowing year the federal government passed the CoastalWetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act,commonly known as the Breaux Act or CWPPRA.These two acts have resulted in over 140 projects totry and stabilize or restore portions of the Louisianacoastal region, at a cost of US $40–50 million per year.In 1998, the Coast 2050 plan, subsequently adopted bythe Louisiana legislature, built on the early lessons ofthe Breaux Act and provided a coherent plan to save orrestore the coastline. Since then, a great deal of efforth entsa si-n nsiveL ingc

vel-o areasw ingr cit-i ristsw otectt andp ande isla-t Acti ateda eas.T the

conservation, reclamation, and preservation of Mis-sissippi’s tidelands, while also proudly enhancing itscurrent public access areas. Annually, it provides grantstotalling more than US $5 million to meet these needs.

Because the problems of coastal land loss and habi-tat degradation within the central Gulf region dwarfthose of other parts of the U.S., scientists have, fromthe start, been involved in the planning process. Amajor scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss,restoration and management in Louisiana, sponsoredby the W. Alton Jones Foundation, was released in1994 (Boesch et al., 1994). Among other activities, theassessment proposed “scientific and technical needs forresearch, modeling and monitoring, including criteriafor assessing the effectiveness of wetland restorationand creation” (Boesch et al., 1994, p. 2).

Despite the efforts of all concerned, it remained clearthat the Gulf coast region needed a more comprehen-sive plan to improve the science behind coastal restora-tion efforts. In 2001, a Memorandum of Understand-ing (MOU) was signed between the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 11 uni-versities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi (sinceincreased to 12 with the addition of Loyola Univer-sity in 2005,Table 1). This MOU set up a cooperativeprogram, called Coastal Restoration and Enhancementthrough Science and Technology (CREST), to “helppolicymakers, planners and coastal resource managersuse the latest science and best technologies to ensuresustainable and productive coastal habitats and com-m i-t thep

TU

LLLLMNSSTUUU

as been expended by state and federal departmided by input from university scientists, industry, buess, and other stakeholders, and a compreheouisiana Coastal Area (LCA) plan is presently beonsidered by the U.S. Congress (LCA, 2004).

The main problem in Mississippi, as coastal depment expanded in the 1980s, was that wetlandere being filled in for development at an alarm

ate. These ‘tidelands’ provide recreation for thezens of this state and support thousands of touho visit the coast area each year. They also pr

he main land areas against soil erosion, flooding,ollutants and provide a home to many threatenedndangered coastal species. The Mississippi Leg

ure passed the Mississippi Public Trust Tidelandsn 1989 to protect the coastal wetlands, and cre

trust fund from the leasing of state tidelands arhe Tidelands Trust Fund Program is dedicated to

, unities” (CREST, 2001). It is anticipated that addional agencies and universities will join CREST asrogram develops.

able 1niversities making up the CREST Program

ouisiana State Universityouisiana State University Agricultural Centerouisiana Universities Marine Consortiumoyola UniversitycNeese State Universityicholls State Universityoutheastern Louisiana Universityouthern University at New Orleansulane Universityniversity of Louisiana at Lafayetteniversity of New Orleansniversity of Southern Mississippi

4 P. Chapman, D. Reed / Ecological Engineering 26 (2006) 1–5

It is hoped that CREST will lead to improvementsin the following areas:

• System-level assessments of the effects and impli-cations of restoration actions for coastal habitats,coastal resources, fisheries and coastal communities.

• Coordinated model development to allow predic-tions of future coastal conditions and their con-sequences for important economic resources andcoastal communities, including evaluation of theconsequences of large-scale restoration efforts.

• Development and evaluation of new approaches andtechnologies for decision-support, habitat evalua-tion, real-time monitoring, and restoration actions.

• Continual evaluation and improvement of the toolsand techniques used in coastal restoration, resultingin more efficient and effective on-the-ground restora-tion projects.

• Training opportunities to facilitate transfer of newfindings, approaches and technologies to resourceagencies and the private sector.

• Improved communication and interactions amongthe private sector, academia, and government agen-cies involved with coastal restoration work.

• Clear communication with citizens concerning theconsequences of coastal habitat loss, the impacton future threat preparedness, and the communityactions necessary for sustainable social, economicand environmental health.

Thus, the aim of the program is not only to improvet r thes ther ablet hilee , asa ita.E er-o ers.

d-i then lyr n isr wayf , SanF tuary,t m ofC tiona eers

and coastal managers. As a start, CREST sponsored asymposium “Advances in Coastal Habitat Restorationin the Northern Gulf States” in July 2003, at NichollsState University, Thibodaux, that brought together ple-nary speakers from various coastal habitat restorationcenters around the U.S., together with local Gulf areascientists, federal and state resource managers, and thepublic. The symposium was based around the follow-ing four themes:

• using science in coastal restoration;• achieving restoration goals for fish and wildlife

resources;• achieving restoration goals for water quality; and• achieving restoration goals for coastal wetlands and

vegetation.

Apart from the 14 invited talks, the meetingalso included panel discussions on each of the fourmain themes and a display of posters. Several of thepresentations, and particularly the panel discussions,stressed the challenges of integrating science withcoastal ecosystem management. A brief descriptionof the meeting has already been published (Nuttle andChapman, 2004), and this volume includes a suite ofpapers from the main presentations from each theme.Boesch (2006)discusses the theory of ecosystem-based management, drawing on examples from thenortheast and Louisiana.Simensted et al. (2006)coveraspects of how different time scales affect possibler nn tuar-i ti s inrl lifep

i-l bitatr rtingm ingfi

R

B asedoastal

he science and technology, but also to consideocio-economic aspects of coastal restoration inegion, since it seems clear that we shall be uno restore much of what has already been lost, wvery new storm only makes the situation worsemply demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rven retaining what we now have will require numus compromises between the different stakehold

While CREST provides relatively small-scale funng for individual and group research projects,orthern Gulf of Mexico is certainly not the onegion of the U.S. where coastal habitat restoratioequired. Major restoration efforts have been underor several years in regions such as the Evergladesrancisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware es

he Pacific northwest and others. Thus, another aiREST is to make information on coastal restoractivities elsewhere available to planners, engin

estoration activities.Paerl (2006)concentrates outrient input to and subsequent degradation of es

es, whileMitsch and Day (2006)look at how we mighncrease the role of upland and river or wetlandeducing such eutrophication. Finally,Gawlik (2006)ooks at what we can learn from changes in wildatterns as a monitor of restoration effectiveness.

It is anticipated that CREST will sponsor simar meetings on particular aspects of coastal haestoration on a regular basis, as well as suppoeetings of other groups concerned with this evolv

eld.

eferences

oesch, D.F., 2006. Scientific requirements for ecosystem-bmanagement in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and cLouisiana. Ecol. Eng. 26 (1), 6–26.

P. Chapman, D. Reed / Ecological Engineering 26 (2006) 1–5 5

Boesch, D.F., Josselyn, M.N., Mehta, A.J., Morris, J.T., Nuttle, W.K.,Simenstad, C.A., Swift, D.P., 1994. Scientific assessment ofcoastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana.J. Coast. Res., Special issue 20, 103 pp.

Charlevoix, P.F., 1744. Histoire et description generale de la NouvelleFrance, avec le Journal historique d’un voyage fait par ordre duRoi dans l’Amerique Septentrionnale Paris, Chez Rollin fils. 6vol.

Condrey, R., 1997. The Priest and the King: sound advice for wiseuse and the consequences of royal greed. CoastWise 8 (1), 6–12.

CRCL, 2000. No Time to Lose: Facing the Future of Louisiana andthe Crisis of Coastal Land Loss. Coalition to Restore CoastalLouisiana, Baton Rouge, 57 pp.

CREST, 2001. Text of Memorandum of Understanding to create theCoastal Restoration and Enhancement through Science and Tech-nology (CREST) Program.

Gawlik, D.E., 2006. The role of wildlife science in wetland ecosys-tem restoration: Lessons from the Everglades. Ecol. Eng. 26 (1),70–83.

LCA Plan, 2004. Louisiana Coastal Area, LA – Ecosystem Restora-tion: Comprehensive Coastwise Ecosystem Restoration Study

Draft Main Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans,336 pp.

Meyer-Arendt, K.J., Oivanki, S.M., Yassin, B., 1998. Wetlandchanges in coastal Mississippi, 1950s to 1992. pp. 377–402.Marine Resources and History of the Mississippi Gulf Coast,Vol. II. Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Biloxi,Mississippi, 502 pp.

Mitsch, W.J., Day Jr., J.W., 2006. Restoration of wetlands in theMississippi-Ohio-Missouri (MOM) River Basin: Experience andneeded research. Ecol. Eng. 26 (1), 55–69.

Nuttle, W., Chapman, P., 2004. Advances in coastal habitat restora-tion in the northern Gulf States. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 85 (1),23–24.

Paerl, H.W., 2006. Assessing and managing nutrient-enhancedeutrophication in estuarine and coastal waters: Interactive effectsof human and climatic perturbations. Ecol. Eng. 26 (1), 40–54.

Reed, D.J., Wilson, L., 2004. Coast 2050: A new approach to restora-tion of Louisiana coastal wetlands. Phys. Geogr. 25 (1), 4–21.

Simensted, C., Reed, D., Ford, M., 2006. When is restoration not?Incorporating landscape scale processes to restore self-sustainingecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 26 (1),27–39.