Ron, You've certainly given a very interesting historical perspective on salt marshes in CT. I think seawalls have also contributed to declines in salt marshes, especially in heavily developed towns and cities such as Stamford and Greenwich, where salt marshes are almost non-existent. You also mention sudden vegetation die-off. Are you referring to eelgrass? Parts of Cape Cod Bay have been experiencing unexplained die-off's in recent years as have parts of the CT coast. Could this be a cyclical phenomenon as what occurred globally in the 1930's? Meredith Sampson Old Greenwich -- ORCHIDS <bulbophyllum@charter.net> wrote: 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 _____________________________________________________________ Free comparison of top car rental companies. Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nMUoD4qAwT7G3yTvbhYWOIrREJgVHsxkhcuC7NdpiQU2vRC/