noaa restoration center omb no. community based ... during the eelgrass survey effort, light...
TRANSCRIPT
NOAA Restoration Center OMB Approval No. Community‐based Restoration Program (CRP) Expires Progress Report Narrative Format I. Project Title: Eelgrass Restoration Assessment in Baker Bay, Washington
II. Reporting Period (09/21/07 – 4/30/08)
III. Project Narrative Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an important euryhaline species that serves many functions within Pacific Northwest coastal waters and estuaries as well as nearshore coastal ecosystems throughout the world. It inhabits varying depths extending from the intertidal down into the subtidal. Eelgrass growth requires a specific range of conditions for light, temperature, salinity, and currents. In addition, eelgrass is affected by the wave action and bottom composition. Eelgrass has very high light requirements relative to most marine macrophytes is therefore especially vulnerable to changes in available light (Zimmerman 2006). Light is dependant on many factors including water clarity, suspended particulate matter, range and stage of the tide, climatic conditions, and season. Eelgrass meadows perform the fundamental process of primary production that ultimately supports species of fish and avifauna (Heck et al. 2003, Hemminga and Duarte 2000). Eelgrass provides rearing and feeding habitat for fish and wildlife and supplies suitable substrate on which epiphytes may grow. Other processes served by this seagrass include nutrient cycling, wave and current energy dampening, carbon sequestration, and food web support (Hemminga and Duarte 2000, Moore and Short 2006). In the Columbia River Estuary, eelgrass is likely an important habitat for juvenile salmon. While this function has not been evaluated in the Estuary, studies in the Northwest have shown the importance of this habitat for juvenile salmonids and a wide variety of other estuarine fish, shellfish, and birds (e.g., Thom 1987). The functions of feeding and rearing provided by eelgrass may be especially important in an estuary where much of the habitat that provides this function has been lost (e.g., emergent marshes). Baker Bay is located on the Washington side of the Columbia River east of Cape Disappointment. Eelgrass has been observed in Baker Bay in the recent past (Curtis Roegner, NOAA, personal communication), but no quantitative estimates have been made on its abundance or distribution. Eelgrass could potentially be more prevalent now than it was historically due to a decrease in freshwater flows from the Columbia River. Conversely, eelgrass spread may be limited due to low seed production and low vegetative growth rates. Because of this, potential for restoration could be high. In addition, present and past disturbances (e.g., dock, flats, piling structures, ship bottom scour) may have resulted in losses
0648-0472
04/30/2008
on
bia ed
er (EP) and other restoration practitioners
onducting on‐the‐ground projects. Fourth, the collaboration with and education of local
iver estuary. Funding was provided by NOAA through the Lower Columbia River Estuary
provide an account of tasks acc plish ure years. The
tential
ailable information • Determine potential areas for eelgrass restoration
itional efforts were also accomplished through the
of eelgrass from the Bay. These disturbed areas may also present opportunities for restoratiof eelgrass. The importance of this project is multi‐leveled. First, the information gathered during this study will increase our knowledge of the conditions required for eelgrass growth and restoration and will provide a significant contribution to eelgrass science in the region. Second, the results of this study may be transferable to other areas within the lower ColumRiver that may be candidates for eelgrass restoration. Third, the scientific knowledge gainfrom this study will provide an increased scientific understanding of the Columbia RivEstuary that will benefit the Estuary Partnershipcvolunteers through the EP and other organizations will provide a base for community involvement in habitat restoration. This report summarizes work completed by PNNL in 2007‐08 to assess eelgrass restoration potential in Baker Bay, Washington a sub‐estuary located near the mouth of the ColumbiaRPartnership under PNNL project number 54044. This report will
om ed in 2007‐08 and provide recommended next steps for fut
objectives of this preliminary study were the following: • Evaluate existing imagery for eelgrass mapping po• Conduct qualitative on‐the‐ground survey of existing eelgrass in the Bay • Map existing eelgrass locations based on av
These objectives were met and addcollaboration with other projects as discussed below. Collaboration with Other Studies PNNL has a separate project funded by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to evaluatethe lower Columbia River estuary for potential eelgrass restoration sites by modeling bathymetry, water clarity, salinity, and wave exposure. This modeling work has providadditional opportunities to evaluate existing bathymetry data in Baker Bay and to evaluatlight data collected as
ed e
part of this larger study. The work from the study described in this port in Baker Bay is complementary to the larger effort by providing information on
lgrass currently exists and the potential for success of future eelgrass
IV
these
reconditions where eerestoration actions. . Methodology Acquire, Evaluate, and Interpret Aerial Photos Imagery (i.e., satellite imagery and aerial photographs) can be very useful in mapping largeareas of eelgrass; however certain specifications are necessary to glean information from sources. For example, the imagery must have a high resolution (at least 2.5 meter) to detect eelgrass patches and ideal environmental conditions including clear skies, clear water, low
rgest and most visible in the summer and fall fter the primary growing season; however, green algae can confound mapping efforts during
ived
use in the eelgrass mapping effort. Two QuickBird images were acquired prior to e field ground‐truth effort (Figure 1). The majority of the bay was covered in an image
004 was
tide, and high sun angle. In addition seasonality can improve the likelihood of correctly identifying eelgrass from imagery. Eelgrass is laathat period because of the difficulty discerning eelgrass from algae. Therefore late spring or early summer may be the ideal time for imagery collection because eelgrass is visible, but algaeproduction is lower then later in the summer. Sources searched for imagery included Washington State Department of Transportation, US Army Corps of Engineers, National Agriculture Photography Program (NAPP), and ArchQuickbird satellite imagery. Considering all the criteria listed above, existing imagery wasevaluated to determine use in mapping eelgrass in the bay and the best possible imagery was selected forthcollected on February 18, 2006 during a moderately low tide, however to complete the coverage in the western portion of the bay, a second image collected on September 6, 2acquired.
Figure 1. Quick Bird satellite images from September 2004 and February 2006 Ground survey of existing eelgrass round truthing efforts, directed by the results from evaluating the imagery, were conducted
aboratory (PNNL) scientists and volunteers on foot and by Gby Pacific Northwest National L
in
ons. In order to rectify the difference between the two types of sensors a series f PAR and LI sensors were set up at the lab (Figure 2). The sensors collected data at a fixed
depth, with varying water with a constant water level of 1 meter. Data from these whether the two types of data can be correlated.
boat using GPS to log coordinates. Divers were employed to gather eelgrass information deeper areas. Evaluation of Eelgrass Conditions In order to help determine areas where light might be adequate for eelgrass growth, two autonomous light intensity (LI) and temperature sensors (HOBO pendants, Onset Computer Corp.) were deployed at selected locations near where eelgrass was found in the bay. The LIsensors are self‐contained and require little maintenance except periodic cleaning; however thedata they collect on light is not as directly applicable to eelgrass growth as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR; the wavelengths of light used by plants). To measure PAR requires a more sophisticated sensor (LI‐193 Spherical Quantum Sensor, LI‐COR Biosciences) and also requires a data logger, cables, and frequent battery changing making them difficult to deploy in remote locatio
levels (off a dock) and also in a tank sensors were evaluated to determine
Spherical PAR
Sensor (4pi)
Flat PAR Sensor (2pi)
Figure 2. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and light intensity sensors at Marine Sciences Lab, Sequim, WA The data from the experiment at PNNL showed that the two types of data (LI and PAR) wcorrelated in the lab setting and deemed further evaluation. In collaboration with the BPA study discussed above, PNNL deployed PAR sensors in Baker Bay in March 2008. A LI sensorwas located at the same location and depth as the PAR sensor in an attempt to determine whether PAR and LI could be correlated in situ. The PAR sensors were placed within thestimated elevation range eelgrass was found in the bay. The sensors were placed 1 m apar
ere
e t
Light Intensity (LI) &
Sensor Temperature PAR
sensors
growing season and allowed an estimation of the lower depth limit (based n light availability) of eelgrass. Because these sensors are not autonomous, requiring roximity to a dock for the data logger and frequent maintenance, they were located at the
ntists and volunteers to prevent accumulation of algae growth on the sensors in the pring months.
r
lso during the eelgrass survey effort, light profiles were conducted throughout the bay gh tide to get an indication of light attenuation properties of the water in the bay
vertically, which allowed us to determine the amount of integrated PAR available to eelgrass in a day during theopCoast Guard Station near the mouth of Baker Bay. All sensors were periodically cleaned by
PNNL scies Figure 3. Schematic of PAR and HOBO lights sensors deployed at Coast Guard Station in BakeBay, WA Aduring hiunder various tidal and weather conditions (calm vs. windy). Salinity and temperature were also measured at this time on the surface of the water and on the bottom (or at a maximum of 3 m depth). Mapping
from the imagery and the field Field notes were compiled and GPS points from the field effort were imported into GIS with the existing imagery. Maps were developed in a GIS frameworkefforts. In addition, YEAR bathymetry data was acquired and processed as part of the BPA tud ential areas where eelgrass could grow. The upper and lower
d were estimated from the field and light data n areas
V.
d‐
image analyst with both of these tasks an image was acquired prior to aving for the field and analysis occurred during the field exercise based on knowledge
in the bay based on this analysis. Upon return from
all
e conducted by both
PNNL scientists and volunteers on foot, by kayak, and by divers using snorkeling and dive
ne
in l areas known to not have eelgrass, with some potential eelgrass areas identified. In
e afternoon, during high tide divers were employed to search in areas that were thought to
, a similar schedule ensued with the team splitting up in the morning to conduct earches on foot, in kayaks, and by boat of areas identified during the previous days searches. the afternoon, during high tide the areas were evaluated with divers. An additional 2 areas
ss, while several others were ruled out. Field notes were
s y to help determine the potelevations of where eelgrass would be expectecollected as part of the study described here. Polygons of potential, probable, and knowof eelgrass were developed from these data sources. Results/Progress to Date Acquire, Evaluate, and Interpret Aerial Imagery Satellite imagery was acquired immediately following contract initiation at the end of September and just prior to the scheduled field work (Figure 1). The field schedule for grountruthing was set for the last week in September due to the limited low‐tide window. This resulted in a short amount of time for imagery acquisition and analysis, however, due to the expert abilities of thelegained at the site. Eelgrass was locatedthe field, efforts were made to find additional lower‐tide imagery that might show further information on eelgrass in the bay. However, no additional imagery was available that metthe desired criteria. Ground survey of existing eelgrass An extensive ground‐truthing effort was conducted in Baker Bay September 24‐26, 2007 (sephotos in supplemental material section). As anticipated the work was
gear (PNNL only). Large areas of the bay were covered by PNNL scientists in a boat on the first day to narrow the search range for the next 2 days with scientists and volunteers. This first‐day (9/24) reconnaissance and the image analysis discussed above allowed the PNNL scientists to focus the search to specific areas on the next two days.
On the morning of the 25th, the group was split up into three teams (one on each boat and oin kayaks) and taken to separate parts of the bay to conduct searches. This search resulted additionathpotentially have eelgrass based on previous search efforts. Eelgrass was found in a silty sandsubstrate on the eastern portion of the bay. Again the imagery was consulted to find other areas with the same potential depth. Based on this analysis a second area of eelgrass was found. On the 26thsInwere identified as having eelgra
Evaluation of Eelgrass Conditions The LI and PAR data from the experimentalbetween the two types of data. A linear 0.56 over the entire data collection period. that at times the fit was better then others
compiled and GPS points from the field effort were imported into GIS with the existing imagery.
setup at PNNL indicated there was a correlation regression between the data sets resulted in an R2 of
However high variability between weeks indicated(Figure 4).
December 16-22
HOBO (lum/ft2)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
PAR
(um
ol s
ec m
-2)
-1
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
R2=0.774
December 15 - February 20
HOBO (lum/ft2)
0 500 1000 1500 2000
PAR
(ec
-1 m
-2)
umol
s
-200
0
200
600
800
1000
400
R2=0.566
k
he results indicated that perhaps the relationship between LI and PAR was better at lower
ided ging
ring various tidal onditions. Overall, the results indicated that given a more stable setup the relationship may be stronger; therefore field at Baker Bay. Results from the field strong relationship between the two with values removed when the se A polynomial regression yielded
A B
Figure 4. Regression analysis of PAR and LI data from experiment at PNNL for A) one weein December and B) the entire study period. Tlight levels as would be present during higher water levels (the experiment was in a tank with a constant water level of 1 m). The data from the experimental setup at the dock also provinconclusive results, possibly because the sensors were not stationary, but on a frame hanfrom a line. This setup may have resulted in shading of the LI sensor duc
a PAR/LI setup was designed for deployment in the
deployment of the PAR and LI sensors resulted in a datasets. The results were evaluated over 5.5 week period,
nsor was exposed to air (during extreme low tides). the best fit for the data with an R2 of 0.86 (Figure 5).
March 12 - April 192008
Lux
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
PA
R u
mol
sec
-1 m
-2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
14
1600
00
1800µ{Y|X} = β 1X2
0 + β1X+ β
R2 = 0.860
Figure 5. Polynomial regression results for PAR and LI data collected in Baker Bay. T explanation fohe r the data fitting a polynomial curve rather then linear is likely because of e gths the PAR sensor measures relative to the full‐spectrum measured by e equation resulting from this analysis is as follows:
+ 0.0554(LI) ‐0.000000538(LI2)
th limited wavelenth LI sensor. The polynomial
PAR = 31.8
By applying this equation to the LI data at the three stations where LI sensors were located we can calculate integrated daily PAR (Figure 6). These values provide an indication of whether enough light is available for eelgrass growth. Other studies from the Pacific Northwest (Thom et al., in review) indicate that irradiance levels of at least 3 mol quanta/m2/day on average are required in the spring and summer for long‐term maintenance of eelgrass. The plot in Figure 6 indicates that this level was achieved at the elevation of all sensors for most of the period between March 13 and April 19. The exception is the MB sensor at the beginning of April when the sensor may have been fouled by heavy algae growth. The locations of the sensors are shown in Figure 8 and the elevations relative to MLLW of the three sensors are as follows: CG = ‐0.102 m MB = ‐0.451 m WB = ‐0.334 m Original field observations indicated that the MB and WB sensors were located near the upper elevation limit of eelgrass in the bay.
Integrated Daily PAR
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
3/13/2
008
3/15/2
008
3/17/2
008
3/19/2
008
3/21/2
008
3/23/2
008
3/25/2
008
3/27/2
008
3/29/2
008
3/31/2
008
4/2/20
08
4/4/20
08
4/6/20
08
4/8/20
08
4/10/2
008
4/12/2
008
4/14/2
008
4/16/2
008
4/18/2
008
PAR
(M/m
2/d)
.MB - PredictedWB - PredictedCG - PredictedCG - Actual (-0.1 m)CG - Actual (-1.1 m)
Figure 6. Plots of integrated daily PAR at three locations in the Bay: CG = Coast Guard Station,MB = Mid Bay site, and WB = West Bay site. The actual and predicted PAR values are shown for the two sensors at the Coast Guard Station. In order to get an estimate of the lower limits of eelgrass in the Bay based on the light requirements of the plant, we used the second PAR sensor at the Coast Guard Station. This sensor is located one meter lower in the water column than the sensor discussed above. By analyzing the integrated PAR values at both sensors over time, we calculated the estimated depth at which 3 mol quanta/m2/day would be reached to be ‐1.165 m, MLLW (Figure 7).
Lower Eelgrass Depth EstimateBased on Light Limitation
y = 6.2607x + 10.296
When PAR = 3.0Depth = -1.165 m
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Depth (m, MLLW)
PAR
(mol
/m2/
day)
bathymetry data, and light divided into four categories: in the field the same conditions (e.g., substrate,
the field was not made. h correct elevation range based on the bathymetry
the areas during the field visit.
field visit and eelgrass was not t be adequate for eelgrass growth,
during the field survey to determine calculations and additional field
may be slightly lower than were ge the extent of the polygons, probably
making them smaller because less of the flats would be included.
Figure 7. Lower depth limit for eelgrass estimated from integrated daily PAR values from sensors at two elevations. Mapping The maps of eelgrass created using field observations, imagery,data using GIS are shown in Figures 8‐10. The polygons are Known = areas where eelgrass was positively identified Probable = areas near areas of known eelgrass and with
elevation, slope, salinity, light) however positive ID in Potential = Farther from locations of known eelgrass, wit Within depth range = these areas have the correct elevation
data, however no eelgrass was identified anywhere near The last category covers areas that were searched during thefound. This is likely either because other conditions may nosuch as salinity, or because the tide was not low enough eelgrass presence. Since the maps were created, the light observations have indicated that the upper and lower limits
estimated for the mapping exercise. This would chan
Figure 8. Areas known, probable, and potential eelgrass in Baker Bay with location of light sensors indicated by the red and blue X’s.
Figure 9. Close up of Mid‐Bay (MB) area of eelgrass.
Figure 10. Close up of West‐Baker Bay (WB) area of eelgrass. Conclusions
. sessment of conditions necessary indicate that additional areas
may be present in which eelgrass could grow, but was not observed. The explanation for this
is that conditions may have become more favorable since the installation of the dams, causing
polygons shown in Figures 8‐10. Further research on the conditions necessary for eelgrass growth will help us understand the factors limiting eelgrass in the Bay. In addition, experimental planting as planned as part of the BPA funded study discussed in the Narrative section will be conducted in the summer of 2008. Monitoring of this effort will also help to understand the potential for eelgrass restoration in the Bay.
VI. Monitoring and Maintenance Activities A portion of this study was based on monitoring light at locations in the Bay. The development of the relationship between LI and PAR was a significant accomplishment of this study. Monitoring light levels for eelgrass is always problematic because to date autonomous sensors have not been available. The data collected as part of this study demonstrated that in some conditions LI sensors can be used to estimate PAR requirements for eelgrass.
Eelgrass was found to occur in Baker Bay in limited areas and in a patchy distributionPreliminary results from the as
could be that the areas are periodically stressed by high freshwater periods or low light levels, which have periodically limited growth and expansion of existing beds. An alternative theory
the hydrograph to change but the existing eelgrass beds have not had time to expand. If the latter case is true then eelgrass could feasibly be expanded into the areas of probable and potential eelgrass
VII. Community Involvement embers of the US Coast Guard, assisted PNNL scientists with s. Volunteers also helped with conducting the light profiles and
aintaining the sensors.
discussing the purpose and goals of the project.
References Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluationseagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123 Hemminga, M. A. and C. M. Duarte. 2000. Seagrass Eco . Cambridge University Press.
Ecology, and Management. In: Larkum, Biology, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer,
Pacific No
Environmental Journal 3(1):21‐42. Thom, R.M., S.L. Southard, A.B. Borde, and Peter Stoltz. In re and survival of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Pacific Northwest Coasts. Zimmerman, R.C. Light and photosynthesis in seagrass mead Orth, and C.M. Duarte (eds). Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology, and Conservation Netherlands.
Volunteers, including two mlocating existing eelgrass bedm
VIII. Outreach Activities PNNL scientists explained the importance of eelgrass (habitat) to the volunteers, as well as
of the nursery role hypothesis for ‐136.
logy
Moore, K.A. and F.T. Short. 2006. Zostera: Biology,A.W.D., R.J. Orth, and C.M. Duarte (eds). Seagrasses:Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Thom, R.M. 1987. The biological importance of rthwest estuaries. Northwest
view. Light criteria for growth(USA) estuaries. Estuaries and
ows. In: Larkum, A.W.D., R.J. . Springer, Dordrecht, The
IX. Supporting Materials
ld operationPhotos from fie
hotos from light sensor deployment operationP Hobos in th ie f eld
Eleof Hse
detewith
GPS
O nsor at w tide
vation OBO
nsors rmined RTK-
HOBselo
PAR sensor
Light sensors atGduring low tid
Coast uard Station
e PAR sensor
HOBO sensor
In‐ to exa ple be
ma i s. Budget categories should correspond to those described in the approved
2. Budget Narrative: Briefly describe expenditures by category and explain any ween actual and scheduled expenditures. Include documentation of
of two ird satellite images, the time spent to search for these and other images, and the
pretation of the images for potential areas of eelgrass. Less time was spent on this a ted availability of adequate imagery.
ompilation of field data, bathymetry data, and This task also involved less time
the lack of adequate imagery.
s xpenditures included the deployment of light as higher then
om time was analys light and
to interpret existing and potential areas for eelgrass.
anagement expenditures included field planning, development of the Scope of at Manifest, and project reports.
time
project.
Funds Contributions Expenses nd)
and Source of Match
X. Funding Information (Cash and kind)
1. Itemized Budget table (similar m low) showing expenses incurred during the reporting period, for both NOAA funds and tching contr butions, asfollowproposal.
Budget Category (e.g. personnel, supplies, contractual,
NOAA Matching Total Nature (cash or in‐ki
etc.) Acquire and interpret
imagery $4,264 $4,264
Field assessment for eelgrass $26,536 $1,280 $27,816 Volunteers Mapping $3,590 $3,590
Determine conditions for $11,eelgrass 016 $11,016
Project management and $9,695 $9,695 reporting Total $55,
differences betvolunteer hours and in‐kind donations.
Acquiring and interpreting imagery expenditures were spent on the acquisitionQuickBintertask then nticipated because of limi Mapping expenditures included the cimagery and the delineation of eelgrass polygons.then anticipated due to Determination of conditions for eelgras esensors in the field and at the Marine Science Lab. This expenditure w
and l lightexpected because of the availability of bathymetry additiona data fr In the absence of imagery, more put into is ofanother project.
bathymetry data Project mWork, the Field Safety Plan, the Dive Plan, the Bo
Volunteer Time – 14 volunteers contributed time to this project. Valuing volunteerat $20 hour, and with 64 total volunteer hours, the total value of volunteer time was$1,280 for this
101 $1,280 $56,381
NOAA Restoration Center OMB Approval No. Community‐based Restoration Program (CRP) Expires
ONTACT INFORMATION y Borde)
Project Data Form CContact Name: Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory – Dr. Ron Thom (secondary Am
Sequim Bay Rd
Contact Title: Project Manager
Organization (Grantee): Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Street Address: 1529 W.
City: Sequim State: WA Zip: 98382
Phone: (360) 681‐3657 Fax: (360) 681‐3681
E‐mail: [email protected]
Organization website (if applicable):
P RM
ass Restoration As aker B hing
ROJECT INFO
Project Title: Eelgr
ATION
sessment in B ay, Was ton
Project Award Number: 07‐2006 eportin 09/21/2007 – 4/30/2008
roject Location ‐
Project R g Period:
PCity: Ilwaco
County: Pacific State: WA Code: 98624
k (e.g. road intersection, beach): Baker Bay, WA
Land Ownership (check one):
decimal degrees):
o Rive bia
ect End Date: 04/30/2008
roject Volunteers:
If multiple project sites are part of the same award, please duplicate this form and submit required
Congressional District(s): Washington CD #3
Landmar
Geographic Coordinates (in
Longitude (X‐coord): 123° 45’59”W Are there multiple project sites for Latitude (Y‐coord): 46° 5’36”N this award?* __ Yes X N
r Basin: Colum
Project Start Date: 09/21/2007 Proj
PNumber of Volunteers: 14 Volunteer Hours: 64
* information for each site
0648-0472
04/30/2008
(1-2 sentences) describing project and what it hopes to accomplish:Brief Project Description ntial eel grass restoration projects. Map existing eelgrass beds in
d temperature data ill be collected to help determine potential restoration areas.
Assess Baker Bay for poteBaker Bay and determine areas for potential eelgrass restoration. Light anw
List of Project Partners and their contributions (e.g. cash, in‐kind, goods and services, etc.) If permits are required, please list the permits pending and those acquired to date: RESTORATION INFORMATION‐ Please complete this section to the best of your ability. Information below will be confirmed via site visit or phone call by NOAA staff before theclose‐out of an award.
tive) /enhanced/protected or created (projected) with CRP funds by the
nd date of the award. If the project restores fish passage, list the stream miles opened pstream and downstream for fish access. Actual and Projected columns should add up to the tal(s) for acreage to be restored with CRP funds indicated in the approved proposal.
Habitat Type (e.g. tidal wetland,
oyster reef, mangrove)
Actual Acres Restored (To date‐
cumulative)
Projected Acres(i.e. Remainder to be restored with CRP funds by
award end date)
Actual Stream Miles Opened for Fish Access
Projected Stream Miles Opened for Fish Access
(i.e. Remainder to be restored with CRP funds by award end date)
List the habitat type(s) and acres restored/enhanced/protected or created to date (cumulaand remainder to be restoredeuto
What indirect benefits resulted from this project? (e.g. improved water quality, increased awareness/stewardship) List of species (fish, shellfish, invertebrates) benefiting from project (common name and/or genus and species):
MONITORING ACTIVITIES List of monitoring techniques used (e.g. salinity, fish counts, vegetation presence/absence):
1. Light (light intensity sensors and photosynthetically active radiation sensors) 2. Temperature 3. Eelgrass presence/absence
Report Prepared By: Amy Borde 5/28/2008 Signature Date Please send semi‐annual and final progress reports and supporting materials to:
NOAA Restoration Center F/HC3 315 East‐West Highway
AA nity.
tion Program staff.
1Silver Spring, MD 20910 ATTN: NOAA Community‐based Restoration Program Progress Reports The Progress Report Narrative Format and Project Data Form are available on the NORestoration Center website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/commuElectronic submissions are encouraged. Please submit electronic progress reports on PC compatible floppy disk or CD ROM in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or PDF formats. Be sure to save a copy of each report for your records; subsequent submissions of the Project Data Form need only add outstanding information, so that the form is completed in its entirety as part of the final comprehensive progress report. Questions? Please call 301‐713‐0174 and ask to speak with NOAA Community‐based Restora
NOTICE Responses to this collection are required of grant recipients to support the NOAA Community‐based Restoration Program. The information provided will be used to evaluate the progress of the work proposed under the grant/cooperative agreement and determine whether the project conducted under the grant/cooperative agreement was successfully completed. Public reporting burden for completing the progress report narrative and project data form is estimated to average fifteen hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the information needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Responses to this information collection are required to retain funding provided by the NOAA Community‐based Restoration Program. Confidentiality will not be maintained – the information will be available to the public. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation, Restoration Division, F/HC3, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The information collected will be reviewed for compliance with the NOAA Section 515 Guidelines established in response to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, and certified before dissemination.