Ron, Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the report. It is good to have the record straight on wetland loss, as the Bertness numbers are most widely used. While I agree that tidal wetland loss has substantially subsided since the Tidal Wetlands Act of 1969, I think your figure of a 0.25 acres/year current permitted loss may be low. Even so, a loss of 2.5 acres of natural tidal wetlands every ten years is substantial given historic losses and degradation. The tidal wetland restoration projects around the state, as you mentioned, have been dramatically successful and far exceed current permitted incremental loss. Some, but not all of these restoration projects require substantial investments over time to maintain. In Fairfield alone, the cost of replacing and repairing tide gates, culverts, and associated restoration structures significantly affects the yearly town budget. Hopefully, changing town administrations will continue to provide funding to prevent degradation of our restored marshes. While I encourage and applaud the state's efforts and ingenuity in creating and restoring tidal wetlands, I think we all agree that the natural systems function best and should be given our highest preservation priority. A significant loss of tidal wetlands that is increasing along our developed coastline is the proliferation of docks and piers. The right of coastal property owners to "dock out" in order to access navigable waters is in serious need of reformation. The historical reasoning behind this right is unclear, but may have been related to commercial fishermen's need to access the water. The result is that these structures, while not technically considered a "loss" of tidal wetlands, are increasingly constricting tidal marsh fringes along our coastline and negatively impacting our resources, especially birds. DEP does an admirable job to keep these structures in check by limiting resource impacts on shellfish beds and Spartina growth, but the fact that these structures alone, sprouting from our shorelines in some areas like spokes from a wheel seriously impacts the ebb and flow of feeding flocks of shorebirds, especially where they extend out over mud flats. Foraging raptors such as the state Endangered Northern Harrier may be hindered by limited access to open marsh. These structures also increase human activity in what were formerly relatively isolated foraging areas. These are some of the factors we used to base our recommendation to "protect remaining beach and saltmarsh habitats". I'm a little unclear about your reference to reference to "non-native" grasslands of Connecticut, as grasslands have historically been an important component of the Connecticut landscape. European colonists recorded Heath Hens as relatively abundant on our coastal plains and other naturally occurring grasslands. Current grasslands are a mix of native and "non-native" grasses, but nonetheless support a suite of organisms that are disappearing rapidly from the Connecticut landscape. If tidal wetlands are indeed decreasing faster from global warming than grasslands are from box store development, than yes, indeed, our tidal marshes may be more at risk. Finally, the report does not recommend the creation of "marsh islands" as you state, but instead recommends the use of clean dredge spoil to create offshore islands at select coastal locations. This technique has been successfully used in some of our neighboring states to create nesting habitat for listed species such as Least Terns, Piping Plovers and American Oystercatchers. These islands limit land-based predation and disturbance and enhance productivity. In Connecticut, these islands could also provide benefits beyond bird conservation. If properly located near shore and "up-drift" of eroding beaches, these islands, as they erode, could possibly provide a "nutrient" source of sand to replenish that lost on the beaches, thus recycling sand and gravel from harbors and river mouths back to the beaches instead of removing it to the middle of Long Island Sound "dumping grounds". The replacement of one marine habitat for another, although not currently OLISP policy, could be highly beneficial to people and birds alike and far outweigh any loss of benthic environment. It is clear that sea level rise as a result of global warming threatens our resources with little recourse, but we continue to believe we must act responsibly with the tools and knowledge we have to improve and restore all our important habitats. I hope this provides some additional clarity to the Connecticut State of the Birds report. All my best, Miley -----Original Message----- From: Elphick, Christopher [mailto:chris.elphick@uconn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:39 PM To: COMINS, Patrick; Milan Bull; bulbophyllum@charter.net Subject: coastal marsh loss Hi Ron, Thanks for the correction on tidal marsh loss. I've always wondered about the Bertness numbers and have tried to avoid using them in relation to CT specifically, because I knew that your estimates were lower. I meant to ask you about this (and should have) but never seemed to find the time to drop you an email. It's good to have the details clarified. I tend to agree with all the other points you make. My feeling is that the only hope for saltmarsh sparrows (assuming that marsh doesn't migrate - and I doubt it can do so fast enough) are the installation/use of tide gates (!), hence my comment about solutions being potentially controversial. I wouldn't advocate a return to the historic regime, but judicious use of tide gates to limit extreme flooding during spring tides would at least prevent nests from being drowned out. This might not be enough, e.g., if habitat still changed, but it's the minimum that would be necessary. I'm not sure of the rationale for islands in marsh either, but I don't think they'd do sparrows any good even if they were legal (they might help willets). As you know, I'm pessimistic (much more so than implied by the paper we wrote). I also think the ESA will come to CT coastal marshes in the not too distant future .... Chris ______________________________ Chris Elphick Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Connecticut -----Original Message----- From: ctbirds-bounces@lists.ctbirding.org [mailto:ctbirds-bounces@lists.ctbirding.org] On Behalf Of ORCHIDS Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:30 PM To: ctbirds@lists.ctbirding.org Subject: [CT Birds] State of the Birds Report I have read the Audubon report State of the Birds and the recent New London Day article and offer these points of clarification. Chris Elphick cites an estimate of 'salt marsh' loss in New England on the order of 80%, estimates prepared by Bertness and others. First, there is no way to use historic maps and charts and differentiate between salt marsh, brackish marsh and fresh-tidal marsh. Connecticut estimates for tidal marsh loss based upon two estimated acreage in the 1800's is on the order of 30% (http://camel2.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/arbo/publications/34/FRAME.HTM ). The most accurate historic maps for CT are the "Coast & Geodetic Charts" of the 1880 series. The older charts lack the accuracy of this series and should never be used to estimate tidal wetland acreage. The 1880 series cannot be used to derive an absolute historic acreage for the emphasis was mapping shore areas and so for many large tidal rivers (e.g., Hammonassett, East River), the mapping does not extend to the head of the tide. DEP did develop estimates of wetland losses in individual towns by comparing the same extent of mapped wetlands in the 1880's to the same area of wetlands mapped in the mid-1990's. Stamford's losses are on the order of 90% but the losses for the lower Connecticut River (a DEP/USFWS project resulted in the designation of these wetlands as "Wetlands of International Importance" under the Ramsar Convention in 1994) are less than 5%. The report calls for the protection of tidal wetlands and to actively prevent their degradation. Not sure what the basis of this recommendation is for the passage of the tidal wetlands act of 1969 stopped wetland losses from new activities. The loss rate prior to 1969 was estimated at 70 acres/year and the current permitted losses are 0.25 acres/year or less. The Tidal Wetland Acts does not permit new activities that could cause wetland degradation (e.g., installation of new tide gates, undersized culverts) but the tidal wetlands act (TWA) had no provision to reverse the degradation caused by pre-1969 structures such as tide gates. The failure of the TWA to foresee the need for restoration was corrected by the Coastal Management Act of 1980 which established a state policy that encourages the restoration of degraded tidal wetlands (and also other coastal resources such as beaches, dunes, intertidal flats). This policy became the foundation or driver for the state's tidal marsh restoration (nearly 30 years old) originally spearheaded by the Coastal Management Program. It is estimated that over 80 tidal flow/ restoration projects have been implemented, resetting over 1800 acres of tidal marshes on a trajectory to becoming a self-maintaining ecosystem. It is not clear what the Audubon report is calling for with regards to tidal wetlands. The Audubon report describes (the non-native) grasslands of Connecticut as the most threatened environment. The most threatened environment in Connecticut are tidal wetlands and the chief threat is global warming. The expansive tidal marshes we know today formed 3000 years ago when sea level rise slowed to a rate of 1 mm/yr. Today ocean sea level is rising at 3 mm/yr. We know that nearly all low marsh west of New Haven has been gradually (over several decades) converting to mudflat and this process began by at least the late 1880's. The rebound of northern New England from deglaciation has caused southern New England to warp downward and thus increase the relative sea level rise. The rates of sea level rise are highest in western LIS and lowest in eastern LIS. Presently there appears to be unprecedented changes in marsh vegetation, at rates that have not been observed by wetland scientists in the last 50 years. Chris refers to Black Grass as an important high marsh indicator. This non-native grass is fleeing the high marsh and is invading the terrestrial forests of the coast and the former Kentucky bluegrass lawns at Hammonassett. The stone dust trail at Great Meadows in Stratford is now the habitat for Black Grass. Spartina patens appears to be disappearing from the high marsh and is being colonized by Spartina alterniflora. On Cape Cod, the seaward edge of high marsh (several meters wide) is now barren. This same trend has been observed at Hammonassett. All of these changes are not unexpected given the estimated sea level rise rates of the 1990's at 11 mm/yr! If I had to make a forecast, I would predict that we are witnessing the loss of high marsh and in several years low marsh will be the dominant habitat in CT marshes. I wonder too what the impact of the recent sudden vegetation dieback along tidal creeks of marshes from East Lyme to the Housatonic River have had on marsh sparrows (http://wetland.neers.org/). The Connecticut Agricultural Experimentation Station is attempting to determine if the cause of dieback is a pathogen. This emerging wetland issue is not mentioned in the Audubon report. Finally, Audubon recommends the creation of marsh islands. Had Audubon reviewed state policies and practices it would know that such an action cannot be permitted by the Corps of Engineers or DEP. First, to create marsh islands, one must destroy existing healthy intertidal or subtidal habitat thus creating unacceptable adverse impacts. Marsh islands are ephemeral features for they are created in areas that nature wants to sustain as 'deep' water habitat. From the day of their creation, marsh islands are eroded by wave energy until they become submerged features returning once again to subtidal habitat. Ron Rozsa, Phytosociologist, Ashford, CT _______________________________________________ This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA) for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut. For subscription information visit http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.org