C.I
United States office of Water (4503F) EPA 841 -B-94-003
Environmental Protection Washington. DC 20460 May, 1994
Agency
<&EPA Symposium on
Ecological Restoration
Proceedings of a
Conference,
March 1993
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
f~\ Q> Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
-------
Symposium on
Ecological Restoration
Chicago, Illinois
March 2-4,1993
The Palmer House Hotel
PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE
Prepared by the
Terrene Institute
in cooperation with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Office of Water
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Washington, DC
1994 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under assistance agreement CX-820957 to the Terrene Institute. It has been
subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
TO OBTAIN COPIES CONTACT:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4503F)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
n
-------
Foreword
Past and present human activities have severely degraded and at times destroyed natural
ecosystems, resulting in the destruction and fragmentation of critical habitats, the
endangerment and extinction of species, and a loss of biological diversity. We must
reverse or reduce these impacts if ecosystems are to be restored. But what is restoration?
On the most basic level, restoration can be defined as a process that returns a damaged ecosystem
to a previous natural condition by recreating both its structure and function. A successful
restoration effort results in a natural, self-regulating system in harmony with the surrounding
landscape and the environment as a whole.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of exploring opportuni-
ties to support and encourage ecological restoration activities. The Symposium on Ecological
Restoration provided an avenue for managers and scientists at EPA, state and local govern-
ments, academic institutions, and private environmental organizations to begin to focus on
the use of restoration techniques to address environmental problems. The symposium's pri-
mary goal was to provide an open forum for dialogue on the many policy and technical issues
related to ecological restoration. However, the symposium also enabled participants to ex-
plore and debate the strengths and weaknesses of various existing restoration programs and
techniques and opportunities for future restoration activities. In addition, participants were
able to come together to brainstorm priorities for data collection, research, and management
actions.
We hope that this proceedings will provide a useful overview of many of the issues sur-
rounding ecological restoration. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the
presenters and participants in the symposium. Their insights and enthusiastic discussion
helped to make the symposium a success.
Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Christopher Grundler, Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Frederick W. Allen, Director
Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Contents
Ecological Restoration and Protection: Issues and
Opportunities
The Importance of Ecological Restoration 3
William Jordan
The Status of Restoration Science
Aquatic Ecosystems 11
HJ. "Bud" Harris
Wetlands Ecosystems 21
Mary E. Kentula
Terrestrial Ecosystems 25
Alan Haney
PANEL: Decisionmaking and Priority Setting
Goal Setting and Targeting in the Landscape 33
William (Bill) Jordan
Identifying Biological Priorities in the Great Lakes Ecosystem 35
Sue Crispin
Current Partnership Efforts in the Great Lakes 39
Charlie Wooley
Approaches to Ecological Restoration 43
Robert P. Brooks
PANEL: Using Existing Authorities More Effectively
Appendix: Principal U.S. EPA Legal Authorities for Ecological
Restoration 58
Bertram Frey, Wayne Schmidt, William G. Painter, and
William (Bill) Kruczynski
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for Restoration
Ecological Economic Issues of Wetland Restoration 65
Dennis M. King and Jennifer L. Stevens
On the Watershed Ecosystem Approach 73
Daniel Willard
v
-------
Wetland Restoration in the Section 404 Program 75
Steve Eggers
Water Quality Regulations and Approaches to Support Ecological
Preservation/Restoration 79
Clayton Creager, Benjamin Parkhurst, and Jon Butcher
Reinvest In Minnesota: A State's Approach to Ecological Restoration 99
David H. Behm
General Panel Discussion 105
Dennis M. King, Daniel Willard, Steve Eggers, Clayton Creager, and
David H. Behm
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools
Integrating Ecological and Engineering Design Elements Ill
Edwin Herricks
Stream Habitat Restoration Using Best Management Practices on Lower
Boulder Creek, Colorado 119
Jay Windell
Successional Restoration in Midwestern Grasslands 125
Ed Collins
Restoration of Riverine Habitat Diversity on the North Shore of Lake
Superior 129
Ed Iwachewski
General Panel Discussion 133
Edwin Herricks, Ed Iwachewski, Jay Windell, and Ed Collins
PANEL: Measuring Success
Establishing Quantitative Performance Criteria for Wetland Restoration 137
Mary E. Kentula
Restoration Evaluation 139
John J. Berger
Uncharted Territory—Relocating Threatened Plants and Reconstructing
Lakeplain Prairie Habitat 143
Kim D. Herman
General Panel Discussion 155
Mary E. Kentula, John J. Berger, Kim Herman, and Gerould Wilhelm
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Restoring the Grand Calumet: The Beauty and the Beast 163
Joseph D. Thomas
Citizen Activists: Key Partners in Ecological Restoration 167
Charlotte Read
vt
-------
Natural Resource Trustee Cooperation 169
Wayne Faatz
Cooperation on Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDA) for
Habitat Restoration 171
Dan Sparks
Natural Resource Restoration at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 173
Richard Whitman
General Panel Discussion 177
Joseph D. Thomas, Charlotte Read, Wayne Faatz, Dan Sparks, and
Richard Whitman
PANEL: Incentives for Restoration
There's More to Restoration Opportunities than Mitigation 181
David H. Behm
Incentives on Private Lands 183
Don Butz
PANEL: Emerging Issues in Restoration
Ecosystem Management 191
Dave Ckland
Landscape Ecology as a Restoration Tool 199
Christopher P. Dunn
General Panel Discussion 203
Dave Ckland and Christopher Dunn
Recommendations for Action
Research Needs 207
Edwin Herricks
Management Issues 209
Daniel Willard
Priority Ecosystems 211
William G. Painter
-------
-------
Ecological
Restoration and
Protection: Issues
and Opportunities
-------
-------
Ecological Restoration and Protection: Issues and Opportunities
The Importance of Ecological
Restoration
William Jordan
Society for Ecological Restoration
Madison, Wisconsin
Fifty-seven years ago this spring, a little
group of Civilian Conservation Corps
enrollees walked out to an old horse pas-
ture on the outskirts of Madison, Wiscon-
sin, and began digging holes. In those holes they
planted sod stolen from a patch of the old tall grass
prairie that still survived on a steep hillside over-
looking the Wisconsin River near Sauk City, about
20 miles away.
This was the beginning of the restoration of
the John Curtis Prairie at the University of Wiscon-
sin (UW) Arboretum—now regarded as the oldest
restored ecosystem on the planet. For many years
we at the Arboretum did not know what to make
of this historic site—the Kitty Hawk, as it were, of
ecological restoration. Only in recent years have
we reflected on this odd little experiment and
come to see it as an historic event—as important
in its way as Thoreau's stay at Walden Pond, or
John Muir's experience in the Sierra Nevada.
The Curtis Prairie, however, is not yet widely
recognized because the importance of restoration
itself is not yet fully appreciated. My purpose here
is to offer a few thoughts on the importance of
ecological restoration, based mostly on my expe-
rience as an editor working in this area and an
observer of restoration at the University of Wis-
consin-Madison Arboretum and, during the past
few years, through my work with the Society for
Ecological Restoration (SER).
The Work of Ecological
Restoration
What can we say about the importance, the sig-
nificance, and the value of the work of ecological
restoration?
This is a question environmentalists have not
yet clearly answered. Ecological restoration has
developed rather slowly as a craft and as a conser-
Ecological restoration pioneers begin restoring prairie soil to its original state (1935).
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
vation strategy, in part because ecologists and
environmentalists have been uncertain about its
value in achieving conservation goals. They have
welcomed ecological restoration as a way of re-
pairing environmental damage, but they have
been concerned that it might be accepted as an
alternative to preservation and used to undermine
arguments for preservation. They have also been
skeptical about the quality of restored ecosystems
and about prospects for restoration on a scale large
enough to be ecologically significant.
My contribution here is quite personal. It is
based mostly on my reflections on restoration
and my experience, not as a restorationist, but as
an editor and observer of restoration—a restora-
tion-watcher. Restoration has two kinds of value
or benefit. One benefit, obviously, is for the land-
scape. The other is the people involved: the
restorationist and those who merely observe the
process—the audience. Most discussions and
criticism of restoration have concentrated on the
first—its value for the landscape—and have ig-
nored the second. For this reason and because I
think it is equally important, I will concentrate on
the latter.
Value to the Environment
The benefits of restoration to the environment
are obvious: when successful, restoration leads
to an upgrading or expansion of habitat for na-
tive species, and often to an increase in an area's
native biodiversity. Questions remain, however,
about the quality of restored ecosystems and
about the feasibility of carrying out restoration
on an ecologically significant scale—a scale large
enough to provide habitat for animals such as bi-
son, wolves, or grizzly bears, for example.
These are important issues. At the same
time, we must recognize that restoration is not
merely one option—an alternative to preserva-
tion—-but ultimately is essential to conserve
natural and historic ecosystems in areas influ-
enced by human activities. Wherever we are, we
influence these systems; so if we want to pre-
serve them, we must compensate for our influ-
ence. That compensation is restoration.
Thus the future of the natural landscape de-
pends on restoration, not as an alternative to
preservation, but as a way of achieving it. How-
ever imperfect our restoration efforts may be,
they will ultimately determine the quality of our
"natural" landscapes. Our best, most "natural"
natural landscapes—that is, those most like
natural, historic, or classic landscapes such as
coastal marshes or tall grass prairies—will be re-
stored ones. We have learned this from our expe-
rience here on the prairies of the Midwest, and it
points to a general principle of mutual depend-
ence—of humans on nature, and of nature on
humans—that ultimately holds everywhere.
Value to the
Restorationist—and to the
"Audience"
Restoration is not only a process or technology.
Like other processes carried out by humans, it is
also an experience and an expressive act. Perhaps
the best way to think of it is as a performing art.
i restorationist gathers seed among the grasses
on the Curtis Prairie.
Restoration is a performing art that provides
a way to change those who participate from out-
siders into actual members of the land commu-
nity. This is the greatest value of restoration
because it strikes at the detachment and aliena-
tion from nature that are the real roots of most
environmental problems.
Restoration, then, is a model for a healthy re-
lationship between human beings and the rest of
nature, and also as a kind of ritual for achieving
this relationship. Several ideas related to this are
summarized as follows:
• Restoration is a powerful technique for
basic research—a way of raising
questions and testing ideas about the
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
W. Jordan
ecosystems being restored. In 19871
introduced the term "restoration (or
synthetic) ecology" to refer to restoration
carried out for this purpose. We can
change an ecosystem without
understanding it very well, but to change
it back—to restore it—we must
understand it well and understand our
influence on it. Thus, restoration is a way
to increase our understanding of the
natural landscape and our relationship
with it. This is a step toward our re-entry
or re-inhabitation of the natural
landscape.
For the same reason, restoration is a
valuable way of teaching and learning
about the natural environment and our
relationship with it. Thus participation in
local restoration projects now provides
the basis for many school and public
education programs. For example, the
Earthkeeping program being developed
by SER and the UW-Madison Arboretum
provides opportunities for ordinary
citizens to participate in restoration
projects at selected sites to learn about
and form a closer relationship with the
natural environment. This program is
partly based on the experience of
restorationists like Steve Packard, Bob
Betz, and others in the Chicago area.
Their work serves as a model for this
kind of environmentalism. We at the
Arboretum and SER look forward to
collaborating in its further development.
• Perhaps the broadest, most useful, and
the certainly most ecological way to think
about restoration is as an expressive
act—a performing art—and the basis for
a ritual or sacrament to deal with our
relationship to the natural landscape. In
fact, ecology is about relationships—that
is, about each species registering on, or
performing to, all the others.
This is a fruitful way of thinking about resto-
ration. It has led to a number of ideas, most of
which have been presented in my editorials in
Restoration & Management Notes and which I will
outline.
Exploring Ecological History
First, as performance, restoration is a way of ex-
ploring a site's ecological history by reenacting
or trying to reverse it. The key events in prairie
restoration, for example, are reintroduction of
species we have extirpated, attempts to exclude
or reduce species we have introduced, and rein-
troduction of fire. When we do these things, we
are not simply carrying out a task more or less
successfully. We are also reenacting activities,
such as the burning of the prairies in pre-contact
times, that shaped the landscapes we are restor-
Relntroduclng fire Is a key event In prairie restoration.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
ing. At the same time, we are trying to reverse
the ecological effects of the reduction in fire fre-
quency in this landscape since contact.
Several components of ecological wisdom
emerge from this process. One is a greater
awareness of the landscape and the history of
our relationship. Another is a kind of ecological
definition of who we are as a species, a society, a
community, and an individual. And yet another
is a dearer sense of the nature of ecological
change—which changes can be reversed and
which cannot.
Second, and closely related to the first value,
is that restoration provides an opportunity for
people to explore nature's classic human experi-
ences by reenacting them. Thus, the restoration-
ist enters the natural landscape as a gardener or
farmer, a gatherer, at times a hunter, and some-
times a scientist. This also points to restoration's
value as a way of achieving, through actual ex-
perience, a rich, satisfying relationship with na-
ture involving a wide array of human interests
and abilities.
Supporting this is a third observation—that
restoration is closely related to rituals of world re-
newal, a major element of many indigenous cul-
tures. What the Australian Aborigine or the
California Indian did ritually to renew the world
each year in the consciousness of the community,
the restorationist does literally. What remains is to
add the classic dimension of meaning and expres-
sion to the restoration process, making it, too, a rit-
ual for renewing the world and achieving a
healthy relationship with it.
The restorationist enters the landscape as a
gardener, a farmer, a gatherer, a hunter, and
sometimes a scientist.
In a 1986 prairie restoration competition experiment, restorationists plant an old
nursery at the McKay Center.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
W. Jordan
Exploring the Relationship
between Nature and Culture
In a similar way, restoration has a close relation-
ship to pastoral, the artistic exploration of the re-
lationship between nature and culture. Not
surprisingly, considering the frontier experience,
pastoral themes are common in American writ-
ing and painting—classic examples are Mark
Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or
Thoreau's Walden. In both the protagonist with-
draws from civilization to seek renewal through
contact with nature.
The restorationist does the same thing in a
different way. Rather than leaving civilization by
moving across the landscape from the city to the
countryside, he or she stays in the same place
and attempts in effect to remove the city from
the landscape to reconstitute "unspoiled" na-
ture. This is a different way of carrying out the
pastoral experiment. So, while restorationists
have much to learn from pastoral art, they also
have much to contribute.
Finally, we arrive at a single conception of
restoration that synthesizes these ideas and ob-
servations:
• The relationship between humans and
the rest of nature—like many other
relationships, including those between
the sexes or between species (predator
and prey, for example)—involves
problems that cannot be resolved in
purely literal terms.
• Such problems can be resolved only in
ritual terms, so that the relationship itself
depends on suitable rituals.
• The work of ecological restoration
provides an ideal basis for developing a
tradition of rituals and public liturgies
for negotiating and articulating a healthy
relationship between the human
community and the landscape it occupies.
These, then, are the main elements of the value
of ecological restoration. It has value to the envi-
ronment directly, and also indirectly, by affecting
the restorationist and the community. It provides
ways for both the individual and the community
to reenter nature, to become working, "voting"
members of the larger biotic community.
Restoration's Critical Role
For all these reasons, I believe that restoration is
not an activity of marginal value. It has a crucial
role to play in conservation as the basis for a
healthy relationship between ourselves and the
rest of nature.
Two programs have emerged in part from
the experience of restorationists in the Chicago
area that reflect the previously outlined concep-
tion of restoration. The first is the Earthkeeping
program being developed by SER and the UW-
Madison Arboretum, which focuses on public
education through restoration. The second in-
itiative, the Earthkeeping Academy (EKA), has
emerged during the past year in the course of
planning for the first program. Its purpose will
be to train field managers to conduct successful
Earthkeeping projects. We believe that this expe-
rience can be so rewarding that, like the kids in
the parable of Tom Sawyer painting the fence,
people will actually pay to participate. In this
way, the Earthkeeping projects will become self-
supporting, and an inexorable force both for res-
toration and environmental education.
We think we can make this work. But we
also know from experience that success will de-
pend on field managers capable of making the
most of the restoration experience. Such people
are hard to come by—hence our plan for EKA. A
detailed prospectus for the first EKA center
plans to establish it in the Chicago area as part of
the Chicago Wilderness program being devel-
oped by the Nature Conservancy. We are excited
about this project and look forward to working
with many local and regional organizations and
agencies, including EPA, to carry it out. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
The Status of
Restoration Science
-------
-------
I
The Status of Restoration Science
Aquatic Ecosystems
H. J. "Bud" Harris
Institute for Land and Water Studies
University of Wisconsin—Green Bay
Green Bay, Wisconsin
The Great Lakes mirror economic human
behavior on the lands that surround
them. Human behavior takes place pri-
marily on the land, and thus the ecosys-
tems of the Great Lakes are more than just the
Great Lakes—they also include the surrounding
land. To ask questions about the status of restora-
tion science is to ask questions about how well we
understand the behavior—structure and func-
tion—of ecosystems. This must necessarily in-
clude human presence and activities.
Because science is largely an attempt to cre-
ate models of the real world—to approximate re-
ality—we need to examine the models we use
and ask about the utility of using models to re-
store an ecosystem. Traditionally, the scientific
method has followed a reductionistic process—
that is, the development of models of reality
through a more refined understanding of the be-
havior of system parts. The underlying premise
is that if we can understand the "workings" of
the parts, an understanding of the whole will
follow. While the reductionistic approach has
been rewarding, it may be timely to now con-
sider more holistic models to guide ecosystem
restoration.
More Art than Science
Restoration is at present more art than science. But
scientists must determine the status of successful
restoration to appropriately assess science's role in
restoring ecosystems. When we discuss the resto-
ration of ecosystems, questions immediately arise.
What are we going to restore? Sometimes the
bounds are obvious. Speaking for those who have
worked around the Great Lakes, and in particular
Green Bay, the ecosystem's bounds are not all that
obvious. So what shall we restore? How shall we
bound it? And to what do we restore it? Can an
ecological base guide us in the restoration process?
These are the basic questions.
The people of the Great Lakes have a com-
mon mandate. The binational Water Quality
Agreement between the United States and Can-
ada calls for the protection and restoration of the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Great Lakes ecosystems. The emphasis is
placed on ecosystem integrity. We are now faced
with trying to understand what integrity
means—it means different things to different
people.
This consideration brings us back to models
when looking at science and its contribution to
the restoration of ecosystems. Conceptual mod-
els may be no more than a picture, but they are
based on some understanding and on certain as-
sumptions. They may be deterministic models
used for predictions. This raises the question:
how good are our predictions? Or they may be
empirical models or statistical models. We need
and use a variety of models.
In guiding the restoration process, we re-
quire models that will help us understand what
we need to restore and to what degree restora-
tion is possible. We need to emphasize the eco-
system concept. New ideas and new models
relating to ecosystem integrity are appearing
and taking their place alongside accepted con-
cepts and practices. They are holistic in nature.
The following are three such models.
Ecological Succession
A familiar conceptual model is that of ecological
succession, developed independently in the
early 1900s by Frederick Clements and Henry
Cowles. This model deals with the temporal
change in natural communities brought about
by existing organisms, so called autogenic
change. This involves changes in the environ-
ment, making it more suitable for another group
of organisms, causing a type of progressive se-
rial change. This change marches through time
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
in a particular ecosystem, given an unchanging
climate and a certain species pool, and ends in
an equilibrium state. The ecosystem is self-or-
ganizing through the interaction of organisms
(biological community). Certain structural and
functional changes appear to be common to
many forms of succession. For example, organic
matter increases, standing crop biomass in-
creases, diversity increases, food webs become
more detritus based, and primary production is
balanced by respiration. We view certain eco-
logical characteristics or criteria associated with
ecological succession as integrity indicators.
Thermodynamic Framework
In another more recent model, James Kay from
the University of Toronto suggests using a non-
equilibrium thermodynamic framework to un-
derstand ecosystem integrity. He is referring to
the first and second law of thermodynamics,
that ecosystems develop along a thermodynamic
branch. This concept has been presented in the
Journal of Environmental Management and paral-
lels successional theory.
The physical environment sets bounds for a
developing biological community because the
soil, geology, and climate differ in different geo-
graphic locations. These physical constraints
cause organisms to develop along certain ther-
modynamic branches. One community replaces
another by dissipating available energy. The
model involves dissipative structures—organ-
isms, including microorganisms. These organ-
isms take advantage of available energy, solar or
other sources. As time progresses, the commu-
nity changes, with different organisms making
more effective uses of energy until some opti-
mum is attained.
Kay calls this an optimum operating point—
the point where the forces that disturb the com-
munity are equal to the community's organizing
forces. Some disturbance will always go on—in-
cluding anthropogenic disturbance. A natural
disturbance may shift the operating point back
along the thermodynamic branch, in effect set-
ting back succession. This results in a different
assembly of organisms.
If the disturbance is relatively small, the sys-
tem might progress back to the original operat-
ing point. However, if the disturbance is great,
Kay suggests that the operating point jumps off
onto another thermodynamic branch. The jump
could be onto the same branch or onto a new
twig. The disturbance, then, is of a magnitude or
quality to restructure the community. Different
organisms, taking advantage of subsidy energy
coming into the community from direct sunlight
or other sources, respond and restructure. Even
if the community is different, it still may be rec-
ognizable on the same thermodynamic branch.
If our ecosystem were disturbed enough to
jump off onto another thermodynamic branch,
do we have the tools to get it back? If stress is be-
ing applied to the system and the stressor is re-
moved, will the ecosystem go back by itself or
must it be encouraged? And how can we do
that? In other words, will the ecosystem's self-
organizational qualities be sufficient to correct
the pathology and restore the original optimum
operating point?
Hierarchy Theory
R.V. O'Neill, D.L. DeAngelis, and others give an-
other view—a hierarchical concept of ecosys-
tems. In ecological literature, hierarchy is
usually identified with the concept of levels of
organization. In a simple example (cell, organ-
ism, population, community ecosystem), each
level is composed of the subsystem on the next
lower level and is controlled in part by the level
above it. This gives rise to the concept of emer-
gent properties. Emergent ecosystem properties
are the result of interactions and behaviors of
various subunits and are not simply the sum of
all parts. This concept is important because, to
restore ecosystems, we must recognize and un-
derstand factors governing emergent ecosystem
properties. Further, this model puts significance
on rate functions—their importance and their
different ecosystem levels. Ecosystems have two
recognizable physical structures—vertical and
horizontal. The horizontal structure can be dif-
ferent units of a landscape. For example, if we
look at the landscape from the uplands to the
lower lands, we see pieces of forests, individual
wetlands, streams, or a receiving waterbody.
DeAngelis and O'Neill point to the impor-
tance of the connections between these seg-
ments, not only the activities within each unit.
They use the term "holon" to define rate func-
tions inside a unit, versus rate functions between
units. They also maintain that the system's be-
havior and organization depends on the mainte-
nance of differential rates within and between
hierarchial units. Behavior of lower level holons
are constrained by higher level. If constraints are
removed, then process rates at lower levels be-
gin to dominate the system. In this sense, system
integrity is lost.
This model can describe elements in the
Green Bay ecosystems. Beginning on the up-
lands in the drainage basin, hydraulic units be-
come larger and larger as you progress
downstream, finally ending up in Green Bay.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
HJ. Harris
The bay enters into the Great Lakes—into Lake
Michigan—and Lake Michigan is part of yet a
larger ecosystem. One nested ecosystem goes
into another. So where do we draw the bounds,
and what have rate functions got to do with any
of it?
Self-Organizing Qualities of
Ecosystems
These three concepts have at their base a funda-
mental premiss—the self-organizing qualities of
an ecosystem. This relates to integrity. When an
ecosystem loses its capacity for self-organization
or its organizational structure, it has lost its in-
tegrity. When that happens, human benefits are
lost as well. The science and art of ecosystem res-
toration is to restore the ecosystems' self-organ-
izing properties.
That aquatic ecosystems manifest self-organ-
izing characteristics is dramatically seen in the
recovery of Spirit Lake after devastation from
the eruption of Mount St. Helens Volcano in
1980. In 1991 Spirit Lake is again stable and life
supporting, but the ecology is quite different
from what it was before the eruption. It appar-
ently developed along a new thermodynamic
pathway.
The Green Bay ecosystem is a large ecosys-
tem. Green Bay is 100 kilometers long and 37
kilometers wide, with 4,000 square kilometers of
surface area. Within the bay's drainage basin are
41 different watersheds covering about 17,000
square kilometers. The ratio of land surface area
to bay surface is over 4 to 1. When addressing
the problems of the bay, the basic question is:
what needs restoring?
Analyzing the Problem
In southern Green Bay, total phosphorous (TP) is
190 micrograms per liter; chlorophyll a is 49.7
micrograms per liter; Secchi depth is .5; meter
the mean depth is 2.9 meters (Table 1 and Fig. 1).
Starting at the head of the bay in the south
where the river flows in, and going north, values
for TP and chlorophyll a decline. One of the
Green Bay system's characteristics is a strong,
abnormally steep nutrient gradient.
A thematic map taken from satellite images,
produced by R. Lathrop and T. Lillesand at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, shows high
total suspended solids (TSS) in the lower bay
and improves as one proceeds north. The prob-
lem is not necessarily the whole bay, but rather
at the head end of bay. At the top of the bay, the
problem disappears. Even more dramatic is
chlorophyll a. In certain spots, it measures 74.2
micrograms per litre. But its presence is patchy,
not homogeneous.
Table 1.—Trophic characteristics and food chain
efficiencies (carbon transfer) of five regions of
Green Bay (Figure 1). Efficiencies are calculated as
ratios of production or yield for fish (FY),
zooplankton (ZP) and phytoplankton (PP). TP =
total phosphorous, CHLOR = chlorophyll a, Z =
mean depth (from Sager and Rlchman, 1984).
TP
J/9/I
1
2
3
4
5
190
76
45.5
40
26.7
CHLOR
vgH
49.8
8.4
5.8
4.4
2.1
2.
2.9
7.6
8.9
17.0
29.0
ZP/PP
2.3%
8.3
5.9
6.8
10.2
FY/PP
0.144%
0.588
0.664
0.22
0.04
The relationship between phosphorous and
algae is well documented. With too much avail-
able phosphorous and with over one million
kilograms per year delivered by the Fox River,
we can see some of the effects. In one of the few
remaining coastal wetlands on the inner (lower)
part of the bay, the seiche runs in and out like a
tide on a fairly regular 10-hour interval. The tur-
bid water, caused about equally by biotic and
abiotic solids (algae and sediment) pushes into
the marsh.
The effect of the turbidity is complex—sim-
ply put, it is shutting out the light. The effect on
submerged aquatic vegetation is similar to that
in the Chesapeake Bay and many other over-en-
riched estuaries—when the light is shut out,
submerged aquatic vegetation can no longer
grow. This changes the lower bay's whole struc-
ture with a major shift in the primary producers,
particularly in the ratio of fixed carbon between
the submerged aquatic plants and the algae.
The submerged aquatic plants are the habi-
tat for other organisms— forage minnows, pan
fish, basses, and northerns and where predator
fish and perch spawn. Predator fish need this
habitat. Without submerged vegetation in the
marshes, the aquatic insects are reduced as well.
The difference in the entire population is sup-
ported by good data.
Emerging insects are important to bird
populations nesting in the marshes. Compared
to marshes with low turbidity, the nesting bird
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—The bay of Green Bay, showing five regions, delineated by trophic characteristics.
GREEN BAY
SCALE
10 5 0 10 20
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
population in this marsh is about twice as high
where submergent vegetation flourishes. While
phosphorous and suspended solids are not the
bay's only stressors, their effect appears to have
shifted the ecosystem to a different thermody-
namic branch.
Ecosystem Interconnections
Everything appears connected to everything else
(Fig. 2). Algae production and suspended solids
affect available light. When submerged macro-
phytes die off, the energy flow shifts from litto-
ral zone aquatic insects that live near shore to
benthic forms that live in the pelagic system.
Much of the algae dies off and sinks to the bot-
tom. With the dominance of the planktivorous
fish, zooplankton populations decline. The
HJ. Harris
zooplankton community also shifts species com-
position, since many zooplankton can no longer
take advantage of the phytoplankton, domi-
nated by blue-green algae; blue-green algae are
too large and unpalatable. Consequently, energy
pathways are altered markedly.
An interesting study by Drs. Paul Sager and
Sumner Richman looked at the different rates
carbon is being used along Green Bay's trophic
gradient About 22 percent of the phytoplankton
produced in the lower bay go through the
zooplankton and then into other forms up the
food chain. In the upper bay, 98 percent of the
carbon produced goes through the pelagic food
chain. Evidence reveals that the lower Green
Bay's trophic structure has been altered, essen-
tially following a new thermodynamic pathway.
We see a change in the structure and we do not
Figure 2.—Interconnections within the ecosystem affect all organisms and alter energy pathways.
INPUTS:
Non-Point Source
Relatively high
nutrient loading
Increased growth ol
epiphytes and blanketing
filamentous algae
Reduction m growth of macrophytes
through shading by epiphytes, algae
and suspended sediments
Decreased rate of secretion of
phytoplankton suppressants and/or
decreased uptake of nutrients
from the water by macrophyies
Increase m internally
produced BOO
During heavy blooms
and calm conditions
Transport to
sedimentary basin
Anoxic bottom
waters
Relative^ turbid water
and further shading of
macrophytes
Patch work of areas
with O? levels
<5PPM
Loss of macrophyies and
predominance of phytoplankion
partKularty blue green algae
Reduces spawning and nursery
habitats for some predatory
fish •
Reduction in predatory fishes
Reduce habitat for
macroinvertebrates
Reduction in important lood
items lor fish and birds
Deluding waterfowl
Increases m plankton
feeding fishes
(planktivore)
Decrease in herbivore
biomass (zooplankton)
or grazing rales
m phytoplankton
Unbalanced fishery with
predominance of PCB-laden carp
Increased disturbance ol sediments
particularly in spring during
macrophyte germination
Reduction
waterfowl numbers
Possible impact on sensiirve
forms such as Burrowing Mayfly
and Fingernail Clam
Contamination of fishes
particularly carp and
walleye
Potential reproductive
impairment in otder
walleye
Loss of carp fishing
and harvest of carp
Reduced fishing mortality
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
like it—we would rather have more piscivores
than planktivores and more submergent plants
on which ducks feed. We would rather have de-
sirable benthos forms—fingernail clams and
burrowing mayflies—that can no longer tolerate
the oxygen depletion in the sediment because of
too much decomposing algae. This situation ulti-
mately connects to human activities on land as
well as the integrity of the bay itself.
Stress Ecology
Stress ecology endeavors to understand ecosys-
tem changes brought about by natural or human
causes. In Green Bay phosphorous and sediment
loads act as stressors at the head of the estuary.
In the midbay region, the stressors have been
ameliorated by the system so that they no longer
constitute a stress but rather appear to act as a
subsidy (Fig. 3).
Figure 3.—Hypothetical performance curve for a
perturbed ecosystem subjected to two kinds of
Inputs (from Odum et al. 1979).
Sub—subsidy effect
Str—stress effect
R—replacement effect
L—lethal effect
Sub
or
Str
. Increasing Perturbation
While the impact of these stressors in south-
ern Green Bay seems real enough, we cannot
predict when the stressor becomes a subsidy or
vice versa. Further, while we are confident that
changes will occur if the phosphorous and sedi-
ments loads are reduced, we are not sure that the
system will be restored to its condition before
human-induced perturbations. Said another
way, we are unable to predict the new optimum
operating point. Nevertheless, we can develop
models that specify tolerance limits of specific
stressors on important Green Bay indicator spe-
cies. Because the combined impact of phospho-
rous and suspended solids is on light
attenuation and loss of submergent macro-
phytes, we need to know the minimum amount
of light necessary to support desirable plants.
From there we can prescribe the necessary re-
duction in phosphorous and suspended solids to
attain the required water clarity. We need to set
meaningful targets for restoration.
A Model in Action
The most critical stressors on the Green Bay eco-
system have been identified as phosphorous,
suspended solids, and PCB loading. By identify-
ing these critical stressors necessary for rehabili-
tation and by knowing about the system's
ecological structure and function, a set of ecosys-
tem properties can be identified and used to
guide restoration. For example, because submer-
gent macrophytes are essential for restoring the
bay's integrity, water clarity must allow light to
be within tolerance limits for desirable submer-
gent species. Likewise toxic substances (e.g.,
PCB) cannot be outside tolerance limits of key-
stone predators. The presence of desirable spe-
cies, such as wild celery and Forster's terns,
results as an emergent system property and can
be taken as a measure of ecosystem integrity.
Consequently, we can focus our attention on
developing models useful in defining the species
limits. Such models have now been developed
and management objectives formulated to meet
these requirements.
Looking at the Big Picture
In considering what to do about Green Bay's de-
graded condition, we cannot merely look at
where the pathology has developed. To restore
the bay, we must go beyond the bounds of the
shoreline. The lower Fox River, which flows into
Green Bay, is heavily industrialized and urban-
ized with many point sources. All of the point
sources, particularly the municipalities, have
phosphorous discharges. We must know how
much is coming from the point sources and how
much is coming from the nonpoint sources.
Long-term monitoring helps us understand
where ecosystems have been and where they are
going.
In 1976, a one-milligram-per-litre phospho-
rous effluent restriction went into effect in the
Great Lakes for communities with the equiva-
lent of 10,000 population. Prior to that, phospho-
rous concentrations in lower Green Bay were 190
micrograms per litre (Fig. 4). In 1984, we began
to see a change in average levels of phosphorous
in effluents from municipalities. Phosphorous
loading from municipalities was reduced 95 per-
cent. As a result, we saw a 28-percent reduction
in ambient bay concentrations—and it lagged.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
H.J. Harris
Figure 4.—The average concentration of all measurable forms of phosphorous, known as total phosphorous, collected
from eight stations In the Inner bay during spring and summer months. Data from P. Sager, UWGB and John
Kennedy, Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District.
PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BAY
Average 1970's
206 ppb
This shows that the system is retaining and re-
generating a certain amount of phosphorous.
Phosphorous also is moving out because of the
bay's short retention time—the residence time is
less than 200 days.
Mass Balance?
Studies by Dr. Val Klump from University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee suggest that only 25 per-
cent of the phosphorous is being recycled. This
kind of information also helps in setting limits.
Various models indicate a need to reduce the
phosphorous load by 50 percent. Empirical data
shows that at least 50 percent of the phospho-
rous currently being loaded into Green Bay is
coming from above Lake Winnebago. The water-
shed contains three main basins—the upper
Wolf, lower Fox, and the upper Fox River—con-
taining 41 watersheds. Empirical models help
determine where the phosphorous originates.
Why Use Models?
Models are tools, primarily used to define limits
and improve our comprehension of natural sys-
tems. Conceptual models have limited utility to
tell specifics about an ecosystem, like how much
to reduce phosphorous loading to Green Bay or
the best place to make reductions. But they are
essential to help us change our notions on how
the system works. For example, Kay's nonequili-
brium thermodynamic framework (model) helps
us understand the role of disturbance in ecosys-
tem dynamics and, in fact, draws our attention
to the system rather than the separate parts. Hi-
erarchical theory (models) places emphasis on
nested functional units and ascribes a system's
integrity to the modifying influence of "higher"
units on lower ones. As we have altered larger
landscape units in watersheds (e.g., removal of
wetlands, changes of stream courses and drain-
age patterns, and land cover), rate functions
such as soil and nutrient loss have speeded up at
the field level. These "run away" rates dominate
the processes in the whole drainage basin and
end up as a major stressor on the receiving body
of water—Green Bay. Green Bay has responded
to these stressors by reorganizing along a differ-
ent thermodynamic branch.
While conceptual models can change our
perspective, they are not particularly useful in
defining ecosystem recovery limits or deciding
on the most effective means of rehabilitating
ecosystems and restoring human beneficial uses.
Consequently, we find ourselves involved with
TB~
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
an array of stochastic models based on determi-
nistic assumptions and empirical evidence.
In Green Bay we have used empirical mod-
els to set limits on ecosystem stressors, such as
phosphorous, suspended solids, and PCBs. They
tell us in useful terms the amount of remediation
needed to initiate ecosystem recovery. Yet these
models do not tell us what is possible in reach-
ing goals of system recovery and restoration of
beneficial uses. To this end, we turn to water-
shed models for a more holistic picture.
Watershed models allow us different per-
spectives with different resolutions. For exam-
ple, a model called EPIC provides edge-of-field
analysis. The EPIC model is a process model, op-
erating on a daily time-step basis, composed of
physical, biological, and economic components.
This model is data intensive and tracks crop
growth under different management practices.
Other models are useful at the edge of water-
shed scale (AGNPS) and at the basin delivery
scale (SWRRB) when attempting to simulate
changes of agricultural practices and the resul-
tant phosphorous and sediment reduction to
down-stream receiving waters.
While problems exist in coupling these mod-
els and ascribing levels of confidence in the re-
sultant outputs, they do give us insights about
the cumulative impacts of individual actions on
receiving waters. They give us the ability to
simulate land use changes and first-order-of-
magnitude estimates about our future direction,
depending on whether or not we make changes
in land use practices.
Human interaction with the environment is
usually at the farm/field or developer/lot scale.
These models at least allow us to see our capa-
bilities, given the present economic conditions
and the projected economic future. Herein lies
the crux of our ability to restore ecosystems—we
need to interface ecology and economics. This is
the challenge. We are dealing with more than the
cost effectiveness of reducing a unit of pollu-
tion—we are trying to understand at what level
we can produce commodities and still have im-
portant elements of integrity restored to the
land. The stress is on the land; we see the mani-
festations of that stress in Green Bay.
Economic Rationality
While ecosystem science is imperfect, it is based
on ecological principles and rationality. Ecologi-
cal models admittedly lack precise predictive ca-
pacity. But then, what can we say about our
economic models? A number of modern writers
(Caldwell, Dryzek, Bartlett) point out that we
could have more than one form of rationality in
our western society; that is economic rationality.
These authors, along with others in the past
(George Catlin, George Perkins Marsh, Aldo
Leopold), call for an ecological rationality on par
with economic rationality in our present deci-
sionmaking system. I agree. The science of resto-
ration ecology is good enough to make decisions
now about the present and the future. To delay
for "better science" is not ecologically or eco-
nomically rational, nor is it in our own best inter-
est to continue making decisions primarily on the
basis of economic, legal, and political rationality.
The science of ecology is mature enough to sup-
port the accepted use of ecological rationality.
References
Bartlett, R. V. 1986. Ecological rationality: Reason and en-
vironmental policy. Environ. Ethics 8:221-39.
Caldwell, L. K. 1971. Environment: A Challenge to Modern
Society. Doubleday-Anchor, Garden City, NY.
Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems.
1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Costanza, R., B.C. Norton, and B.D. Itskell, eds. 1992. Eco-
system Health: New Goal for Environmental Manage-
ment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Dryzek, J.S. 1987. Rational Ecology. Basil Blockwell Inc.,
New York, NY.
Harris, H.J., and P.E. Sager. 1984. Water management
and estuarine productivity: A freshwater view from the
Great Lakes. In proc. Research for Managing the Na-
tions Estuaries. UNC-SG-84-08. Univ. North Carolina
Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, N.C.
Harris, H.J., R.B. Wenger, V.A. Harris, and D.S.
Devault. In press. A method for assessing environ-
mental risk: A case study of Green Bay, Lake Michigan.
Environ. Manage.
Harris, H.J., V.A. Harris, H.A. Regier, and D. J. Rap-
port. 1988. Importance of the nearshore area for sus-
tainable redevelopment in the Great Lakes with
observations on the Baltic Sea. Ambio. 17:112-20.
Kay, J.J. 1991. A nonequilibrium thermodynamic frame-
work for discussing ecosystem integrity. Environ. Man-
age. 15:483-95.
Larson, D. 1993. The recovery of Spirit Lake. Am. Scientist
81:166-77.
Lathrop, R.G. and T.M. Llllesand. 1989. Monitoring
water quality and river plume transport in Green Bay,
Lake Michigan, w>.h SPOT-1 imagery. Photogrammetric
Eng. Remote Sensing 55:349-54.
Ludwig, D., R. Hillborn. and C. Walters. 1993. Uncer-
tainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons
from history. Science 260:17.
Mclntosh, T.H., R.C. Unrig, H. Qlu, T. Sugiharto,
and J.J. Lardlnois. 1993. Use of AGNPS, EPICWQ
and SWRRBWQ computer models for water quality-
land management decisions in northeast Wisconsin.
Poster #33, Agriculture Research to Protect Water Qual-
ity Conference. USDA Soil Water Conserv., Minneapo-
lis, MN.
Nash, R., ed. 1976. The American Environment: Readings
in the History of Conservation. Addison-Wesley, Read-
ing, MA.
Odum, E.P., J.T. Finn, and E.H. Franz. 1979. Perturba-
tion theory and the subsidy-stress gradient. Bio Sci.
29:349-52.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
HJ. Harris
O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis. J.B. Waide, and T.P.H. Sager, P.E. and 8. Rlchman. 1991. Functional interaction
Allen. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Prince- of phytoplankton and zooplankton along the trophic
ton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. gradient in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Canadian J. Fish.
Sager, P. and S. Rlchman. 1984. Fish yield in relation to Aquat. Sci. 48:116-22.
trophic variables in Green Bay. Presentation. 27th Great Yount, J.D. and G.J. Nleml, ed. 1990. Recovery of lotic
Lakes Research Conference. St. Catharine, ON. communities and ecosystems following disturbance:
Theory and application. Environ. Manage. 14(5). Q
~BT
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
I
The Status of Restoration Science
Wetlands Ecosystems
Mary E. Kentula
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
In describing the status of wetlands creation
and restoration science, one question stands
out—can we restore the functions of existing
wetlands? Over the past five years as part of
its Wetlands Research Program, EPA has been
evaluating not only restoration, but also creating
and enhancing wetlands. These approaches fit to-
gether in considering the ability to replace the
functions of wetlands.
A few years ago, the EPA commissioned Jon
Kusler and me to develop a status report on the
science of wetlands restoration and creation. We
enlisted some 30 scientists and experts from
across the United States to prepare this docu-
ment. At that time, interest in creating and re-
storing wetlands was just starting to blossom.
Since then, a lot has happened and much infor-
mation has been published. However, the docu-
ment's overall conclusions still hold true.
Functional replacement has not been dem-
onstrated for two primary reasons. Until re-
cently, project monitoring has been extremely
rare, producing little quantitative information.
More importantly, the vast majority of projects
are ecologically young. An age frequency distri-
bution curve results in almost all projects group-
ing at the scale's lower end, between one and 10
years of age. When evaluating only young sys-
tems, we cannot say unequivocally that we can
get what we wanted when we started out. How-
ever, our growing experience and best profes-
sional judgment indicates which situations
might work.
Functional Replacement
Functional replacement varies depending on the
wetlands type, the function needing replace-
ment, and geographic region of interest. Consid-
ering the ability to replace wetlands, we have
the most information about tidal wetlands and
the least about inland wetlands. In general, as
the hydrological corr.plexity of the system in-
creases, our knowledge decreases as does the
probability of getting a desired result. Tidal sys-
tems are among the more hydraulically simple
systems—at the right elevation, the tides take
care of the hydrology. For the water quality func-
tion, we know the most about the ability to re-
move nutrients. We know much less about
heavy metals and least about the processing of
anthropomorphic substances, complex human-
produced compounds. As to the habitat function
relating to wetlands, we know the most about
commercially or recreationally important species
such as waterfowl, fish, and timber. We know
much less about the species at the lower end of
phylogenetic tree—mosses, algae, microbes, in-
vertebrates and lower vertebrates like amphibi-
ans and reptiles.
Concerning geographic regions, we know
most about wetlands of the Atlantic Coast. Our
knowledge decreases as we go from the Atlantic
Coast to the Gulf and the Pacific, and drops off
again as we move inland. We have the most in-
formation and can write the most scholarly re-
ports on the status of the science of wetland
creation and restoration of the Spartina alter-
naflora (cordgrass) marshes of the lower interti-
dal region of the Atlantic Coast.
Selecting Success Criteria
Preparing the status report required synthesiz-
ing many diverse points of views to reach gen-
eral conclusions and consensus. One difficulty in
reaching consensus was selecting success crite-
ria. Existing information is general and not eas-
ily quantified. Goals for projects are seldom
stated. Another difficulty is limited information
on wetlands. Traditionally, wetlands have not at-
tracted researchers. That wetlands have not been
of interest is illustrated by the lack of wetlands
species in a typical university herbarium. While
many want to collect plants in the prairies and
forests, few are willing to brave the muck and
bugs to collect wetland plants. Only the past 25
years has seen some continuing interest in creat-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
ing a body of science about the general ecology
of wetlands. Therefore, setting goals for restora-
tion is difficult without understanding the sys-
tem being restored.
We have been shortsighted in requirements
for restoration monitoring. It is fortunate to se-
cure five years of monitoring information, which
is an insignificant period on an ecological time
scale. Data from our research at EPA shows that
wetlands projects—particularly those domi-
nated by herbaceous vegetation and one-to-five
years old—were an age class. We need a longer
perspective in looking at these systems, their
changes over time, and information to indicate
what is possible and how it relates to what exists
in natural wetlands.
The following examples come primarily
from studies of the EPA's Wetlands Research
Program that evaluated wetlands mitigation
projects nationally. We looked at the most com-
mon freshwater mitigation project nationally—a
pond with a fringing freshwater marsh. Similar
studies were conducted in three different parts
of the country. Dr. William Niering led the Con-
necticut research, Dr. Mark Brown of the Univer-
sity Florida's Center for Wetlands led research
there, and I led research in Oregon.
Study Findings
Typically, the literature contains status reports
that are the result of case studies. The program
designed for EPA differs in its emphasis on what
is going on in general—not on a "pet" project—
by sampling populations. This approach pro-
vides information on the realm of possibilities
regarding the status of natural wetlands and
wetland projects. The results of the three studies
can be grouped into three categories.
First, some of the differences between the
natural wetlands and the projects are related to
age, since projects are ecologically younger than
existing wetlands. Over time, these charac-
teristics will likely become more like those of ex-
isting wetlands.
The remaining categories are disturbing be-
cause they relate to human decisions and ac-
tions. Studies show fundamental differences in
the way these wetland projects compare with
wetlands typical of the region. In all three stud-
ies, finding natural analogues to the projects was
difficult. Despite attempts to choose an appro-
priate population of natural wetlands, in all
cases—in Connecticut, Florida, and Oregon—
fundamental differences existed between the
natural wetlands and the projects. The most ob-
vious example of these fundamental differences
between projects and natural wetlands is that we
are designing our projects to be systems domi-
nated by open water.
Finally, a number of differences were related
to poor design and implementation.
Result Examples
In the Oregon study, an average 90 percent of the
site was open water. In the natural wetlands,
some 78 to 80 percent of the sites were vegetated.
Therefore, the proportion of the sites with open
water as compared to vegetated is reversed.
In examining water level data from the Con-
necticut project, the pattern of the wetlands pro-
ject differs from that of the natural wetlands.
During much of the year, the natural wetlands
had saturated soils, while the project had water
standing deep on the surface. Also, the natural
wetland had a greater degree of variability with
fluctuation of water depths throughout the year
than in the projects. We do not know the ecologi-
cal effects of these fundamental differences; we
just know they exist.
In mitigation, the most recent status report
on wetland acreage by the National Wetland In-
ventory finds a trend in freshwater wetlands
away from the marshes and forested wetlands to
open water. Regional shifts relating to permit-
ting and national shifts relating to human
changes on the land result in changes from the
original type of wetland in a region to a different
type. We do not know the ecological effects of
these changes, but through our manipulations
we are creating something that is different than
what existed before.
Another example of poor design from the
Oregon project has been seen in other parts of
the nation—areas of projects typically are
smaller than what was permitted or designed. In
Oregon, none of the projects were constructed as
either permitted or designed. Some of the
changes were positive—if the planned slopes
had been accomplished, the sites would have
been dangerous. In fact, some are. The difficulty
is that an acre of ground does not produce and
acre of wetland. No substance other than a con-
crete wall would allow digging straight down to
the water level to create an acre of wetland out
of an acre of land. Steep-sided ponds occur from
trying to maximize wetland size on a small plot
of land.
Despite the fundamental changes in struc-
ture and potential function, there is some good
news. While we do create features different from
those in natural wetlands, some age-related fac-
tors indicate that restoration, creation, and en-
hancement are tools we must learn to use better.
In data from Oregon, also reflected in data from
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
M. Kentula
Connecticut and Florida, the natural wetlands
have higher soil organic matter and a higher de-
gree of plant cover than the projects. However,
the new sites have a greater plant diversity. Over
time as the plant cover increases and competi-
tion for resources rises, diversity will likely de-
crease and become similar to the natural
wetlands. As those plants contribute organic
matter to the soil, organic matter will increase.
Fundamental Questions
In looking at projects, the reason they were es-
tablished in a particular location is not generally
obvious. Siting of projects is an emerging issue
and one of the major themes of the Wetlands Re-
search Program for the next five years. Often ac-
tivities surrounding a wetland can disrupt the
functions that cause the wetland to exist. This
presents a fundamental question that affects the
extent restoration is possible on a site. What will
the site be like in 20 years? How do you guide
the land use in vicinity of the wetland or estab-
lish buffers to protect it from the surrounding in-
fluences? How do these activities—particularly
urbanization and agriculture—affect our natural
systems, and how can we better site restoration
projects to improve the functioning of the land-
scape?
Conclusion
Information on wetland creation and restoration
is increasing. More and more publications are re-
flecting this. In fact, last fall the U. S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pub-
lished the next version of the status report on
creation and restoration. This collection of pa-
pers, edited by Dr. Gordon Thayer, reports on
the restoration and creation of tidal wetlands.
As we learn more, the scientific questions
are becoming more complex. When work began
on the status report, if a site was "green" with
approximately 80 percent cover within two
years, it was considered successful. Today, we
find that "green" does not automatically mean
success. Plants growing on a wet site do not nec-
essarily indicate a fully functioning system.
Work with tidal systems is suggesting that
once hydrology and plants are established, the
next critical factor is soil processes. Some evi-
dence suggests that without happy soil mi-
crobes, there are ramifications throughout the
food chain. This topic will receive much atten-
tion in the coming years.
Once the hydrology is right and the plants
are established, what else makes a healthy eco-
system? The jury is still out. Information is com-
ing out of work in progress. The major problem
is that these systems are ecologically young. We
do not know yet if something restored will be
persistent in the landscape or what kind of ef-
forts are necessary to maintain them.
The status report overwhelmingly main-
tained that a system dependent on significant in-
put from man is likely to fail. So we must design
wetland projects to exist in the landscape the
way natural systems do and be part of an exist-
ing management program. To better understand
how to do this, we need to look at these systems
over a longer time.
Finally, the biggest barrier to potentially using
the tool of restoration as part of resource manage-
ment is the history of poor implementation and
design. Experts in the regulatory arena, including
the new EPA Administrator Carol Browner, favor
restoration over creation of wetlands. In some
cases, however, creation may be the management
tool of choice. But unfortunately, past performance
shows that promises have been broken; and the
disasters left behind have erected a barrier to the
use of wetland creation.
An author of the status report, Mark Fonseca
of the National Marine Fisheries Service and an
expert in seagrass restoration, suggested a ques-
tion to ask when making a decision about a pro-
ject. Can you afford to lose this system?. This
holds true whether in a regulatory situation
looking at a section 404 decision where the site
in question is to be destroyed or in restoring a
degrading system. Even a degraded system is,
by definition, performing some functions. For
example, southern California has highly de-
graded systems, but those systems are an impor-
tant habitat for endangered species. In restoring
them, you take the chance of doing something
harmful, i.e., losing the habitat.
This question must be addressed up front be-
fore proceeding with the restoration, the creation,
or the enhancement—and learn by doing. Current
projects reflect limited attempts to learn from past
mistakes. We must make an effort to see what is
happening and document what was done.
A big difficulty we had in our evaluation
studies was determining what had been done on
projects. We were forced to generate our own
site plans because we could not identify what
was done by talking to the people involved and
by examining the records. We must know what
was done and follow up on that effort to learn
from it. And as Theodore Roethke said, "Learn
by going where we need to go." Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
I
The Status of Restoration Science
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Alan Haney
College of Natural Resources
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Before beginning restoration, one must
first ask: In what way is the ecosystem
degraded? Any restoration process
should start with an assessment. The
assessment should be based on several questions:
What are the processes or functions that are not
working properly? What is missing from the sys-
tem? What are the forces or impacts that are affect-
ing the system?
Second, one must determine how to restore
the system. Again, questions follow: How do we
put it back the way we want it, and how do we
want it? What is the end result to be? How do we
achieve it? Unless we know the problem, we
cannot begin to fix it.
Finally, we must establish criteria for deter-
mining when we have arrived? How do we
know when the situation is fixed? What are the
benchmarks or goals and what is our specific
aim in setting up the restoration strategies?
Interrelated Components of
Ecosystems
A model helpful in understanding restoration
comes from recent work in landscape ecology
and biodiversity mitigation (Fig. 1). An ecosys-
tem contains three fundamental components so
completely interrelated that they cannot be sepa-
rated.
Ecosystems have a compositional diversity
made up of many parts. Genetic entities from
ecotypes to individual species, are the best-known
component but are associated in many ways. The
associations, from micropopulations to communi-
ties distributed across the landscapes, are impor-
tant to diversity. These are often called structural
diversity. A second diversity component is func-
tional diversity. Nutrient cycling, energy conver-
sions, organic accumulation, and soil maintenance
are all part of those functional components neces-
sary for the system to operate.
Figure 1.—Ecological diversity.
Compositional
Diversity
The third component is structural diversity,
particularly important in a terrestrial ecosystem.
Structure is largely provided by the species and
the way they are assembled. In old growth, for
example, structural diversity has received much
attention. This includes big trees and dead trees,
woody debris, and organic debris of various
forms across and within the soil in various com-
binations. Structural diversity, largely related to
vegetation, provides niches for other species in-
cluding other plants.
Dysfunctional Ecosystems
If any part of these components is missing, then
the ecosystem is degraded. It will not function as
well, nor be as tight or as able to carry out eco-
logical processes efficiently or completely. In the-
ory, if any species or single piece of structural
complexity is absent, the ecosystem will not be
fully functional. That raises the question yet to
be answered—is it sustainable? We simply do
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
not yet know. A severely degraded system is
clearly not sustainable; some partially degraded
systems are probably sustainable.
What is a dysfunctional ecosystem? One of
the best indicators of a dysfunctional ecosystem
is water quality. As a terrestrial ecosystem be-
comes dysfunctional, for example, soil integrity
is reduced. The soil maintenance process is elabo-
rate, requiring the interaction of many organisms
and energy. Soil integrity relates to nutrient cy-
cling, among other processes. As soil becomes
degraded and the soil system maintenance be-
gins to fail, soil erosion is an inevitable conse-
quence. While a system may not have particulate
erosion—that is, suspended solids or bed load
leaving the system—it certainly will have dis-
solved materials leaking from the system in a dif-
ferent way than if the system were completely
intact. A change in nutrient cycling results in nu-
trient leakage. This has been well illustrated in
the work of Borman and Likens at Hubbard
Brook.
Second, a dysfunctional system will have
changes in its productivity. While difficult to
measure, productivity can be examined in several
ways. For example, chlorophyll a reflects primary
production. Primary production is the fixing of
energy by green plants—the photosynthetic proc-
ess. A dysfunctional system will be different. The
dysfunction may result in enhanced primary pro-
duction, for example, from more phosphorous in
an aquatic system. In an extreme case, primary
production is degraded. In either case, the change
in the amount of energy entering the ecosystem
will create a perturbation.
The question is whether or not the system
can adjust. If the system is degraded—if species
are missing or functions are not working—then
the system is less able to adapt to the changed
primary production. This leads to the over-
worked analogy of the spider web—as we lose
more and more parts, the system becomes more
unstable or less capable of adjusting to perturba-
tion, such as the change in primary production.
Primary Production
Primary production is obviously related to
bioaccumulation. In a terrestrial system, it con-
tains two important parts—soil maintenance
and standing crop biomass.
The need for soil maintenance is related to
bioaccumulation, with organic matter being con-
stantly replenished in the soil. Organic matter's
half life as it enters the soil system varies accord-
ing to climate, location, typography, and other
factors. But organic matter is constantly being
oxidized and lost to soil organisms. When lost, it
must be restored, because the organic matter is
an important part of the terrestrial system.
This is also true for the standing crop
biomass. How much living energy do we have in
the system? How is it distributed from the roots
up through the plant community to the top of the
canopy? Standing crop biomass is important not
just to plants, but also to the animals that are util-
izing those plants, and animals that live on those
animals. As plants die, primary production is
necessary to replace their structures.
Ecosystem Diversity
We have recently heard much about diversity, a
critical part of the system. A dysfunctional sys-
tem will have different diversities; and almost
inevitably—there are exceptions—diversity is re-
duced. Dysfunctions usually occur if the system
is disturbed by some force—to which species
and associations have not adapted through evo-
lution. Typically something is lost and diversity
declines—sometimes dramatically.
Diversity can decline even with an increase in
primary production. This is frequently true, for ex-
ample, with exotic species, particularly in forestry
and agriculture, used to increase overall primary
production. Monocultures may have high primary
production with extremely low diversity.
Experts do not have hard answers on the ques-
tion of stability. Basic biology and ecology texts for
many years have suggested, without proof, a direct
relationship between diversity and stability—when
diversity goes up, stability goes up, and visa versa.
We could conclude that when diversity goes down,
ecosystem stability goes down. The relationship be-
tween diversity and stability is indirect. The rela-
tionship is linked—one being functional, the other
being compositional.
Proving cause and effect in dealing with such
complex relationships is difficult. Intuitively,
most ecologists accept that if diversity decreases
substantially, the system overall will lose some
stability, but in a nonlinear relationship.
Risk Assessment's Role
Risk assessment, now being applied to analyz-
ing dysfunctional ecosystems, plays a role in res-
toration. Risk assessment involves three steps.
One must analyze the impact's severity. This
goes beyond the basic question of how the sys-
tem is degraded to determining how severe it
has degraded. Usually degradation has more
than one aspect or cause. Each must be assessed.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
A. Haney
Second, one should determine the degree of
scientific confidence in the analysis. This requires
more work. This is important, because unless we
have reasonable confidence that the problem is
correctly analyzed and properly assessed, we
might be taking unnecessary steps and causing
more damage than good.
Finally, how amenable is the problem or prob-
lems to management? Can anythingbe reasonably
done? Do we have the will to act? Are we willing
to pay the cost and put in the effort to do what
must be done to restore the ecosystem?
Once this assessment process is complete, we
can take several restoration approaches. We have
analyzed the system and decided that it is dys-
functional. We have a reasonable idea of the prob-
lem and a reasonable strategy or goals to
accomplish restoration. If we believe that it is
worth the effort, we proceed.
How Do We Proceed?
First, recognizing the dysfunctional ecological
processes that are not working is absolutely es-
sential. In most cases, nature is remarkably resil-
ient. We should never underestimate the
restorative powers within the natural system.
The same concept applies to medicine—the abil-
ity of the body to heal itself is phenomenal. Just
as the body must have a fighting chance to re-
store itself, the same is true of ecosystems. We
must restore, or at least assist the system to re-
store, the ecological processes.
Several ecological processes are often over-
looked; these are mostly the result of human inter-
vention—sometimes purposeful and sometimes
accidental or indirect. The perturbation regime is
often not understood, particularly by those who are
not ecologists. Nature is a dynamic system. The
world is always changing—from day to night,
through the seasons, and through climatic fluctua-
tions, such as glacial periods. Other landscape con-
ditions are also discontinuous—lightening, fire,
wind, insect epidemics, among other phenomenon.
Natural ecosystems have adapted to natural distur-
bances through the evolutionary development of
species and associations.
Often, the problem is as easy as recognizing
that humans have disrupted one of those natural
perturbation regimes and restoring it. Sometimes
that is all it takes. Later I provide examples of
systems restoring themselves in a matter of a year
or two following restoration of disturbance re-
gimes. Obviously, such systems were not horribly
degraded. In addition to a missing or upset per-
turbation regime, the frequency and intensity of
the regime, the pattern, seasonality and size of the
disturbance regime, and the type of the missing
perturbation regime are also important.
Altered Hydrology
Another ecological process often disrupted or al-
tered is hydrology. While we immediately asso-
ciate this with wetlands, we often overlook it
within the terrestrial landscape. Other than fire
suppression, we probably have altered hydrol-
ogy more than any other natural process on the
landscape. In riparian communities, for exam-
ple, species and associations have evolved to
deal with periodic floods—not only frequency,
but also duration, time of the year, and length of
time the landscape is flooded. These factors are
related to primary production, nutrient cycling,
and the other functions and processes discussed
earlier.
In many terrestrial systems, we have lowered
the water table through draining. Landscape flood
patterns have been altered as streams were chan-
neled, dammed, and otherwise changed to alter
the normal water flow across the landscape. Even
highways disrupt natural channels with culverts
that in no way duplicate the natural flow of water
and can cause serious disruptions of the hydrol-
ogy. Hydrology is very complex, costly to restore,
and may have serious economic conflicts.
Bioaccumulation Processes
Bioaccumulation processes are much more diffi-
cult to work with, but some things can be done.
Community structure is bioaccumulation of
sorts. In the previous paper, we see how the
standing crop biomass in terrestrial or aquatic
communities is related to development through
successional processes. Humans can do some
things with community structure, but nature
does this best. Nature only needs a chance to put
the community structure back together.
We can do many things to help encourage
species to come back, even though part of the
structure is missing. Lacking snags, we can use
nesting boxes for birds, for example. Mulching
can replace much of the organic accumulation
missing in a degraded system and begin soil re-
covery, nutrient cycling, protection against ero-
sion, and assist in other ways. We often must
restore organic matter to the soil in a severely
degraded system such as abandoned mine spoil.
We must address the total ecological system be-
cause the pieces are linked together—the pieces
are part of a bigger whole. Green Bay is an excel-
lent example of these linkages. Processes and
structural problems within one ecosystem are
linked to other ecosystems, such as through
water pollution as a result of leakages in the ter-
restrial systems in the watershed. We need to
make sure linkages are positive.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
For example, dealing with organic matter
restoration would be easier if we couple the so-
lution to the organic waste problem in our cities.
On the other hand, we can do little about nutri-
ent cycling and retention; we can restore the spe-
cies and some of the processes and let nature do
the rest.
With diversity, several things should attract
our attention. First, we must be keenly aware of
dominant species. What is missing? What
should be there? The dominant species provide
structure and process for other species, but they
cannot do it all.
Second, keystone species—whose presence or
absence have a particularly important impact on
many other species—occur even among the less
dominant species. On the natural landscape, for
example, a beaver is a keystone species. Its pres-
ence creates structure and opportunities for many
other species that could not exist without the bea-
ver, or at least without some kind of artificial
restoration of the processes and structure that the
beaver represents.
Sensitivity to Rare and
Exotic Species
We probably are overly sensitive to rare species.
While rare species should be a concern, it should
not dominate our restoration efforts. If we re-
store the entire system, rare species may or may
not respond. Some are extinct. We should not
waste our energy trying to restore rare species to
a dysfunctional system, because they probably
will not be successful in a dysfunctional system.
We have much to learn about minimal viable
populations. Degraded systems and populations
can be reduced to a point where they can no
longer maintain themselves. This can result from
broken linkages between communities and asso-
ciations of ecosystems interfering with genetic
exchanges that are essential to maintain species.
Recognizing the critical level of populations, par-
ticularly of the keystone and dominant species, is
an important part of restoring an ecosystem.
Exotic species increasingly are a problem.
Some have the potential to totally disrupt the eco-
system. The best protection against invasion of
exotics is to restore the natural ecosystem to
health. Although a natural ecosystem is remark-
ably resistant against invasion, exotics can still get
in. The healthier the system, the less likely this will
happen or create serious consequences. Once ex-
otics are well established and the system is de-
graded, extraordinary measures often must be
taken to remove species such as buckthorn, zebra
muscles, or purple loosestrife.
Communities are important to protection of
diversity. Some species require certain kinds of
associations and communities for one phase of
their lives, and then spend another part of their
lives elsewhere. Recognizing the linkages be-
tween these systems is important. We might do
a perfect job of restoring a system but fail if we
ignore the linkages. A system will slowly de-
grade if we have not restored the linkages neces-
sary to allow organisms to move from one
system to another.
Consider the Landscape
Landscape features are also important. We
should not become so preoccupied with restor-
ing a single entity to the landscape that we over-
look essential components of the bigger system.
The entity—whether a wetland, a terrestrial
community, or a species—will function and sur-
vive only because the entire health of the land-
scape has been restored. Nothing can survive in
isolation. Ultimately, this affects the entire globe.
While beginning with a local problem, we
should not overlook those processes and link-
ages necessary to restore the entire system to
health, sufficient to be self-sustaining.
In reality, old growth may not be too impor-
tant. In an area where certain species survived
and others could not, old growth becomes part
of the whole. But we cannot restore every terres-
trial and aquatic community to a totally natural
old growth system. Core areas and critical habi-
tats, important primarily to protect certain spe-
cies, are part of a bigger picture. Using gap
analyses and other studies, certain types or asso-
ciations which are missing can be identified to
keep other pieces healthy and allow components
to interact in a natural way. Succession will al-
ways occur and is best seen as a process of eco-
system development. Whether we reach the end
point of succession or not is less important than
allowing the process to occur.
Need to Monitor and Assess
Whatever we do, we must monitor changes. In
the case of processes that will take generations to
repair, others who follow will not know how to
pick up where we left off unless we keep good
records. Monitoring allows us to know mat we
are moving in the right direction.
Populations or indicator populations—asso-
ciations of populations of many organisms—are
a starting point. What occurred before settle-
ment is a common reference point. Water quality
and nutrient fluxes are always good indicators
of the system's health.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
A. Honey
Some natural processes are far more signifi-
cant than we ever will be. Nature has evolved to
deal with phenomenal disturbances, catastrophic
in local areas and important even on a global scale.
Through succession, nature can take the most ex-
travagant event and reduce it to something re-
markably benign. The process of restoration must
work with, not against, nature. Humans have been
responsible for the loss of many irreplaceable spe-
cies—our ecosystems will never become fully
functional again, so the repair processes will for-
ever remain partially impaired.
The Successional Process
In starting with the agriculture process—all too
familiar here in the Midwest—diversity primar-
ily consists of a single species with a few associ-
ated microorganisms and a few insects, which
we do our best to eliminate. Large quantities of
fertilizers cause large amounts of erosion and
nutrient enrichment of our streams, groundwa-
ter, and wetlands. Successional processes will
put the pieces back together, but slowly. Restora-
tion of fallowed agricultural land might take
several hundred years.
Over time species, if they still exist, will even-
tually find their way back. If humans allow suc-
cession to go far enough, the ecosystem will
eventually reach the point where it will continue
to perpetuate itself.
A good measure of the process is water qual-
ity. In a pristine natural system, the quality of
water that drains from the system—lacking some
natural disturbance—is remarkably clear; we
would not hesitate to drink it. This water will have
remarkably few nutrients and very little sus-
pended solids.
Natural processes sometimes involve distur-
bances that return the system to its previous con-
dition. For example, the beaver in a stream
might create a wetland, causing a severe distur-
bance to the surrounding terrestrial community.
This might also open opportunities for species,
such as ducks, that otherwise would not exist.
The beaver move on once the food supply has
diminished, and nature again restores that area
to a wetland meadow and, eventually, to a natu-
ral forest.
This is a totally natural process. The land-
scape itself is a mosaic of different community
types and associations, Successional series, and
topography. Humans disrupt the landscape and
ecology, such as clearing the natural communi-
ties and tilling the soil. In an attempt to recreate
the forest, we can make terrible errors. For ex-
ample, three attempts to reestablish a forest after
a clear-cut in Superior National Forest were un-
successful. The approach was to shear any re-
maining woody vegetation and shrubbery, apply
herbicides to remove competing woody vegeta-
tion, and plant red pine. Left alone, in 200 or 300
years nature will restore the forest very much
like its original condition.
How can an old agricultural field, with per-
sistent exotic species like quack grass, revert to a
natural forest? We can plant it to a forest, but it
will still take 200 or more years to acquire the
natural associations it once supported. After fire,
a natural forest can return in about 50 to 60
years, as opposed to the several hundred years
needed for reforestation from agricultural.
Process and diversity have an interesting
connection. In a natural forest that burned 75
year ago, for example, a goshawk built a nest in
an aspen tree. Goshawks are uncommon and in
some areas are becoming a threatened species.
However, the fire created a community on which
the goshawk depends. So what is the connection
between the goshawk and fire?
In addition to the mix of aspen and conifers
in which goshawks nest, food is also a limiting
factor. Underneath the goshawk nest is the re-
mains of its food. In a nearby area, a widespread
wild fire raged over 10,000 acres. This area of
northern Minnesota is very well adapted to deal-
ing with catastrophic wild fires. A year later, the
Successional processes result in a terrific flush of
growth in the herbaceous layer because of re-
leased nutrients that otherwise were tied up in a
relatively nutrient deficient environment. This,
among other things, means a rapid growth of
fringed binweed, an annual plant related to rhu-
barb, growing luxuriantly. In examining the re-
mains of the ruffed grouse that the goshawk
brought back to its nest, we find its crops filled
almost exclusively with fringed binweed seeds.
The goshawk spends most of its time forag-
ing on the recent burn and nests in a community
that was restored by succession 75 years after a
fire. We must not undervalue these linkages
from one association to the other across the land-
scape; they must be put back together. The com-
munity has structure; each species, the entire
association, and the ecosystem depend on link-
ages with other systems.
Northern Wisconsin has vast areas where
fire, which typically occurred every one to 20
years, has been taken out of the landscape.
When we take that process away, diversity falls
off rather dramatically. We can put fire back into
the system with prescribed or wild fires. Forest-
ers look at the results and are aghast that all the
timber has burned. The diversity, however, will
be three-fold greater in this fire-dependent sys-
tem than in a forest without fire.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Fire or other natural disturbance can help
rare species exist in the system. An open wet-
land in an oak woodland in the upper peninsula
of Michigan contains an aster that grows primar-
ily along the shores of Hudson Bay and a rush
that occurs primarily in the east St. Louis area in
central Illinois. They occur together in a very re-
markable association in a fire maintained sa-
vanna. Take the fire away and those species
would be extinct in Michigan.
A species grape fern once had only two
known locations in Wisconsin. Ecologists recom-
mended that the areas where it grew be burned
because they were historically burned. Rare
plant botanists worried that this would elimi-
nate the ferns. Fire was restored to the system
and now thousands of this species of grape fern
are on the landscape.
The timber wolf can only be restored to the
landscape through the broad associations of
many related ecosystems. All must be reason-
ably healthy and allow the wolf to move be-
tween them. We may not be able to achieve this
level of regional restoration, but if we do not try,
we will never get there.
Conclusion
Restoration should follow logical steps. First, as-
sessment. What is the condition of the ecosystem
that we are interested in restoring? Once we
know the condition and determine that, in fact,
we want to restore it and know what the prob-
lems are, then we can put the processes and the
system back where we want it. Assessment—
analyzing the problem and deciding what steps
to take—is the first procedure for all restoration
and monitoring. Second, monitoring will allow
us to evaluate our progress. This becomes the
measure of our success.
Unless we address restoration at the land-
scape level, we can still fail in spite of site suc-
cesses. In one example, a well-maintained oak
savanna in the Midwest has over 300 vascular
species in 7 acres. It is maintained by fire and
contains remarkable diversity. All the processes
are there. But it will not be able to exist indefi-
nitely unless we restore the surrounding areas
upon which it will ultimately depend for genetic
exchange.
We must give nature a chance to work. Ulti-
mately, we must recognize that the global eco-
system is the system we must restore. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL;
Decisionmaking and
Priority Setting
-------
-------
PANEL: Decisionmaking and Priority Setting
Goal Setting and Targeting in
the Landscape
William (Bill) Jordan
Society for Ecological Restoration
Madison, Wisconsin
The conference organizers have given us
a chance to pull together some wisdom
from the restoration and conservation
community about making decisions and
setting priorities in the restoration business. We
will concentrate on a few areas: what different
methods and approaches exist for setting goals
and targeting actions, and what is the appropriate
scale for restoration projects.
One important question is this: how do we
involve stakeholders and educate the public?
Also, how do we make decisions and establish
priorities in doing restoration work? In conserva-
tion circles when we talk about decisionmaking
and priority setting, we are talking about the land-
scape. Nature is separate from people; the conver-
sation tends to be essentially technical and
scientific.
The Dominant Species
The top priority, however, is to recognize that our
species is now the dominant species in any land-
scape, here in the Midwest anyway. And arguably,
we are a dominant species on the planet. We must
understand that we are shaping these ecosystems,
and that we will shape them whether we do so de-
liberately or not. Basically, the plans we come up
with and the priority decisions we make will be
projected on the landscape. They are a kind of ana-
logue of the Australian aborigines' song, by which
they believed themselves to be singing the world
into existence.
The plans we make, the decisions we make,
the way we decide to define the ecosystems that
we undertake to restore and manage will, over
time, become the landscape. It is up to us. For
that reason, it is very important to extend conver-
sations like this one beyond the purely intellec-
tual into the realm of the affective and the
performative. I do not think most of us know
how to do this yet. But I hope that over the next
decade we will learn to turn these events into
programs that are appropriate to the task at
hand. This will include the arts of literature, po-
etry, dance, and music. Without these, we will re-
tain a kind of sterility.
Reconstituting the Human
Community
The top priority, then, is the reconstitution of the
human community. The ultimate fate of the
landscape will reflect the quality of the human
community as defined through art, especially
the art of ritual. The experience of restoration is
possibly one of the most important bases avail-
able to develop a ritual tradition. Throughout
your work and as it pertains to environmental
restoration and management, think of yourself
as contributing to the invention of a ritual to re-
constitute the human community and integrate
it into the natural landscape. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Decisionmaking and Priority Setting
Identifying Biological Priorities
in the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Sue Crispin
The Nature Conservancy
Chicago, Illinois
In the 1970s, the Nature Conservancy (TNC)
developed the Heritage Program Technology
as a priority setting system for biological di-
versity conservation. State-by-state teams of
biologists working on these programs, invento-
ried the elements of biological diversity, their
status, and locations.
These elements are fundamental but practi-
cal units for conservation; they involve two
scales. One scale is the coarse filter that repre-
sents biological communities. If we could iden-
tify naturally occurring communities of species
and protect examples, then we would capture
most of the existing species diversity. The second
type of element, the "fine" filter, is represented
by rare species not consistently occurring in
typical biological communities. Protecting both
representative communities and rare species
should capture all biological diversity repre-
sented in a landscape.
The Heritage program staff coordinates sys-
tematic inventories of these elements which
show relative rarity and species endangerment
in communities, globally and locally. They also
show the quality of the occurrences to help pro-
tect the best or most viable of the most endan-
gered elements. These inventories of biological
diversity have been established throughout the
United States, state-by-state, in four Canadian
provinces and some 15 Latin American and Car-
ibbean nations (Fig. 1).
This technology developed in the 1970s
when TNC's focus was on buying land, or "habi-
tat." After investing millions of dollars into the
stewardship of biological diversity on preserved
lands, however, it became dear that considering
large-scale ecological processes on the landscape
was important to secure indefinitely the biologi-
cal diversity captured in land parcels.
Figure 1.—The Natural Heritage Program and
Conservation Data Center Network.
Process Restoration
TNC has become increasingly engaged in restor-
ing ecosystem processes in order to conserve
biodiversity. Our first efforts were directed at re-
storing fire and grazing to prairie ecosystems.
Protecting and restoring ecological processes has
also become important in conserving aquatic
species, whose survival depends on hydrologic
integrity.
Ultimately, protecting species and communi-
ties requires addressing the integrity of entire
ecological systems, rather than simply securing
habitat. The relationship of habitats to ecosys-
tems is like that of seats on a jet airliner. Without
the airliner providing structural support and
powering the whole system, the seats cannot
serve their intended purpose of carrying passen-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
gers. Similarly, ensuring the structural and func-
tional integrity of ecosystems is fundamental to
protecting species' habitats.
The Long Point Marshes on Lake Erie's
northern shore are recognized both regionally
and globally as an outstanding freshwater
aquatic and wetland mosaic. A World Biosphere
Reserve has been designated to help protect this
area's outstanding coastal communities. How-
ever, sediments and pollutants draining from the
watershed continue to negatively impact water
quality in the bay and damage the communities
targeted for protection. This example illustrates
that conservation efforts must often be targeted
at large-scale systems and processes to effec-
tively protect key resources.
Conservation Priorities
Prioritization is crucial because ecosystem con-
servation is complex, time consuming, and capi-
tal intensive. The Heritage data system guides
TNCs targeting for ecosystem protection. Even
though Heritage data are not collected and or-
ganized at the ecosystem scale, ecosystem con-
servation work is driven by the same biological
criteria TNC has traditionally used to protect
smaller scale sites.
In the Great Lakes Basin, using Heritage data
to target biologically important ecosystems was
especially difficult. The basin involves eight
states and two nations. No Heritage data or in-
ventory program in Ontario comprises 40 percent
of the Great Lakes shoreline. So in 1990, with
support from the Joyce Foundation, TNC under-
took a two-year project to create a database for
Ontario. It collected and added information on
rare plants and animal species in quality commu-
nities to the Heritage database. The common da-
tabase architecture shared by all Heritage
database programs electronically synthesized
that data into one data sack, allowing sorting by
community site and species to determine re-
gional conservation priorities.
Based on the regional information and the
Heritage Data System, we identified three types of
sites representing priorities for Great Lakes eco-
system conservation, emphasizing coastal, wet-
land, and aquatic areas because of their obvious
functional relationship.
The first of the three areas contained concen-
trations of imperilled species—several to many
of global significance in good quality habitat.
The second priority was the best representative
coastal community types—large, high-quality
examples that reflect either the hydrological,
long-shore, or microclimatic processes of the
Great Lakes. This includes degraded but restor-
able areas if they represent the last of the type.
The third priority was the best representatives of
noncoastal wetlands—the largest, highest qual-
ity examples of wetland types up in the basin,
representing communities or systems with ma-
jor impact on water quality lower in the basin.
These areas are strategic for protection be-
cause they (1) represent reservoirs of biodiver-
sity, (2) exist as models of ecosystem functions in
places where the ecosystems still work relatively
well, and (3) represent areas where degradation
prevention is still possible and ecological conser-
vation work has a low cost but high benefit.
Ecosystem protection includes ecosystem
restoration because no site, at least in the Mid-
west and arguably worldwide, is still pristine.
Even though conditions may still support rare
species, some loss of function or process has oc-
curred, with processes showing some corrup-
tion. Working at sites still in fairly good
condition is valuable. By restoring processes in
an earlier state of degradation, most conditions
will self-heal because ecosystems are so resilient.
This contrasts with highly degraded areas where
major cleanup is required and restoration and
reconstruction efforts are intense.
While restoration and conservation of high
quality areas are cost effective, such areas in the
Great Lakes Region are too numerous for effective
simultaneous work. Since regional sites easily
number 50 or 100, further strategic targeting is
necessary to determine where best to focus efforts.
Beyond identifying areas with concentrations of
biodiversity, we must identify areas with the high-
est experimental value for ecosystem manage-
ment and ecosystem restoration. Working closely
with EPA, TNC is developing strategic considera-
tions to guide project selection and work in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Strategic Analysis
First, we identified areas, described previously,
where maximum biological diversity and eco-
logical integrity can be restored and maintained
for a relatively low cost. Areas targeted for early
action should represent an array of ecological
systems and processes so that the results of in-
itial work will yield a broad spectrum of conser-
vation knowledge and tools. Projects should also
be selected to engage a wide variety of partners,
in order to build new models of institutional co-
operation.
Project areas should encompass various so-
cioeconomic settings in which to test the local
sustainability of conservation tools. Local project
ownership is critical because local communities
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
will be the long-term stewards of restored eco-
systems. Finally, windows of political and finan-
cial opportunity will play an important role in
project selection. Ecosystem conservation will be
difficult, even at the easiest sites. Opportunities
must be sought to move quickly and demon-
strate short-term results that can pave the way
for sustained, long-term commitment.
Individual project areas will need to be ana-
lyzed to identify stresses that threaten key eco-
system processes and components. Major causes
of those stresses can then be pinpointed and con-
servation strategies designed to address stresses
at their sources.
Practical Technology Transfer
Ecosystem conservation strategies must be tech-
nology feasible, cost effective, and politically ad-
S. Crispin
vantageous to make technology transfer practi-
cal. Even if we work at exemplary sites, select
strategic project areas, and develop good ecosys-
tem restoration and conservation programs, we
must transfer successes to other sites in order to
produce basin-wide benefits. This requires pol-
icy incentives coupled with funding incentives,
institutional cooperation, and partnership, en-
suring that similar partnerships occur at various
sites. It also requires accessible information sys-
tems so that people, particularly local communi-
ties, have good access to information on
ecosystem management and restoration. We
have much to learn about transferring technolo-
gies effectively—this is probably the area most
in need of new approaches and techniques. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Decisionmaking and Priority Setting
Current Partner ship Efforts in
the Great Lakes
Charlie Wooley
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
East Lansing, Michigan
The responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) are environ-
mental protection in Michigan. It is re-
sponsible for wetlands protection and
enhancement, endangered species, contaminants,
and various Great Lakes programs. The following
perspective is from a front-line ground pounder's
viewpoint on hands-on, pro-active ecological res-
toration activities primarily in the Great Lakes or
the Great Lakes Basin.
Three types of programs will be considered.
One is an aquatic program based primarily in
the Great Lakes, the second is a wetland pro-
gram based throughout North America, and the
third is a micro-wetland habitat. The first two
programs are public oriented with government
assistance provided. The last is very private,
very personal—almost a private celebration of
ecosystems restoration by private individuals.
Preventing Ecological
Destruction
The Service places high priority on preventing
the need for ecological restoration. We like to
prevent problems. Obviously, that does not al-
ways work. But we take a proactive view of eco-
logical service activities, such as wetlands and
habitat issues, throughout the country. That role
is well known through the Endangered Species
Act, particularly relating to the spotted owl in
the Pacific Northwest.
We also have proactive ventures under the act
that do not receive attention similar to the spotted
owl. In the Great Lakes, we are receiving money
for prelisting recovery activities. The Great Lakes
sturgeon is a prime example. By some state stand-
ards, the species is endangered. It may be endan-
gered by federal standards in a few years if we do
not proactively work with the species and the
ecological system that supports it. Thus, we put a
lot of stock in prevention.
The Service's role in ecological restoration ac-
tivities refers primarily to our "trust resources."
Trust resources are defined as interjurisdictional
and anadromous fish, migratory birds, wetlands,
service lands, and certainly endangered species.
Restoring the Lake Trout
An excellent example of ecological restoration
that involves Fish and Wildlife activity is lake
trout restoration in the Great Lakes. The Service
decided that this was a high priority issue. It in-
volves an interjurisdictional fish species present
in the Great Lakes lakes that had declined over
the last 50 years. The goal was to restore this spe-
cies to a self-sustaining level in the Great Lakes
and involves working with a healthy Great
Lakes ecosystem.
These goals are not mutually exclusive. A
healthy self-sustaining fish population goes hand
in hand with an ecosystem approach within the
Great Lakes. It includes interconnecting air, land,
and water resources within the basin. Compo-
nents or priorities are the physical integrity of the
Great Lakes and protecting and restoring habitat
within the basin.
The second goal was improving the chemical
integrity of the Great Lakes by reducing, and in
some cases eliminating, toxics that impact a par-
ticular species. And a third goal is improving the
biological integrity or species protection and man-
agement where necessary.
Integrated Management
Regarding the lake trout, along with a healthy
Great Lakes ecosystems we also need "inte-
grated management" of an exotic, which in this
case is the sea lamprey. So we have an integrated
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
approach to ecological restoration with the fish
as the pivotal point in Lake Michigan. Numer-
ous institutional stakeholders are involved in
this process. Government has a role, as do the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Canadian re-
source agencies, the private sector, and EPA. All
are working to restore the system's ecological in-
tegrity, manifested in the recovery of lake trout.
We obtained information on one species—the
lake trout—to provide an ecological or ecosystem
restoration approach in the Great Lakes to benefit
the species. We bring all the tools from our tool
box to this issue, such as watershed manage-
ment, pollution prevention, and natural re-
sources damage assessment.
A North American Problem
A second example is a North American prob-
lem—waterfowl and its relationship to the North
American waterfowl management plan. This is
the delivery vehicle to address an ecological res-
toration goal. We have a goal established by the
United States, Mexico, and Canada stemming
from a historical data base more than 50 years old
that relates to waterfowl and, most importantly,
to habitat. An important highlight of this integ-
rity approach is working directly with the people
who are responsible for managing the waterfowl
and the habitat. Ecological restoration experts
know that obtaining this goal knows no political
boundaries. We have tried to seek out and ad-
dress disturbances affecting North American eco-
systems through numerous government
programs here, in Mexico, and in Canada and de-
veloped with farmers and developers.
This partnership intertwines government,
the private sector, developers, farmers, and agri-
cultural interest in ecosystem restoration to the
benefit of North American waterfowl, shore
birds, and neotropical migrants. So from a sim-
ple goal of protecting waterfowl and increasing
their population numbers comes a massive swell
of people who want to make a difference
through ecosystems restoration.
Restoration at a Local Level
The third example is ecological restoration that
occurs at a local level in someone's backyard,
"back 40," or on their grandparents' land. This is
a very personal linkage of people to ecological
restoration. Approximately five years ago, a co-
operative program was started in the north cen-
tral United States involving a multitude of
agencies and, most importantly, the private sec-
tor. Since then, agencies working through the
private sector under ecological restoration
guidelines have restored 12,000 separate wet-
lands for a total of 45,000 restored acres.
In working as partners with landowners and
other segments of the private sector, we have con-
centrated on restoring drained wetlands to their
original condition. We are not creating wetlands,
but restoring wetlands on private property. The
decisionmakers in this particular venture are not
government bureaucrats—they are our constitu-
ents, the private landowners. And they are coming
to us. They voluntarily pick up the phone and call
the resource agencies or private conservation
groups to express a desire to get involved in eco-
system restoration on their land.
Over the last two years, the tone has broad-
ened from wetlands restoration to include prai-
rie restoration on private lands. Some have even
expressed interest in helping the endangered In-
diana bat or Karner blue butterfly on private
lands. This concept of ecosystem restoration
comes from a huge program that relates to Can-
ada, the United States, and Mexico. It is very
meaningful for residents to buy in to wetland
restoration and ecosystem restoration on their
own private lands.
In many cases, these are the same people
who drained their wetlands 20, 30, or 40 years
ago. They have been educated about the value of
wetlands. The scientists and experts have edu-
cated them through their teachings and writings
and have created allies. In Michigan, people con-
stantly call to ask for help with ecosystem resto-
ration on their own lands. The people out in the
field answering those phone calls and seeing
things work are responsible for pushing these
concepts and for providing the writings, teach-
ings, and the students.
DISCUSSION
• Question: What is the status of Lake Trout
restoration in the Great Lakes?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: The resource
management agencies involved in lake trout res-
toration in the Great Lakes under the leadership
of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission are opti-
mistic that lake trout restoration will continue
throughout the Great Lakes Basin. We are cer-
tainly on track in Lake Superior, and things are
getting better in Lake Michigan. We are still
barely holding our own in Lake Huron, though.
Over the last 20 years we have seen a tremen-
dous amount of progress. We still have some ma-
jor obstacles to overcome in Lake Michigan and
Lake Huron.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C Wooley
• Question: How does water quality relate to
lake trout restoration?
| Comment—Charlie Wooley: We are push-
ing for an ecological restoration of water quality
and habitat within a system that will support
other species, but most importantly that will sup-
port the native lake trout species. We have had to
deal with sea lamprey; if we do not, we will never
be able to see our lake restoration goal occur in
some of these areas. So again, it is a difficult front
line—a roll-up-your-sleeves management ques-
tion. But we are positive and confident that we
can continue to see great progress in cleaning up
the Great Lakes and increasingly better water
quality. Lake trout restoration will begin the total
ecosystems restoration.
• Question: Are you continuing to rely on
chemicals to control lampreys in the Great Lakes?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: That is correct
unless we can develop biological control, which is
costing at least $1 million a year to develop.
• Question: Will chemical control of lampreys
continue as the only type of control over the next
five years?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: That is a pos-
sibility, but foremost in the minds of the Great
Lakes Fishery Committee is developing a biological
control. Right now, we are involved in a massive
sterile male lamprey program in which we actually
sterilize male lampreys and put them back in the
system. They spawn unsuccessfully with females
and eliminate the population. So we are currently
taking experimental biological control.
• Question: Are people part of the Great Lakes
restoration equation?
| Comment—Charlie Wooley: At least in
one sense, restoration will involve a continual sub-
sidy or something similar to compensate for hu-
man influence that is simply unavoidable. This is
because you cannot disengage from these systems.
• Question: What is the incentive for people to
become involved in wetland restoration?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: The incentive
primarily is that people want to make a difference.
The monitoring incentive is free to them. They call
us, they call Soil Conservation Service, they call
some of our partners, and we pay for it. We feel that
the benefits of society certainly are much greater
than the couple of hundred dollars' cost to involve
people in the problem of wetlands restoration.
• Question: Is the Partners for Wildlife Pro-
gram found in Pennsylvania and New York?
j§ Comment—Charlie Wooley: The program,
Partners in Wildlife, is very successful in Pennsyl-
vania and New York. Instead of the typical 1-, 2-,
and 5-acre restorations that follow most develop-
ment projects, these projects involve 10s, even
over a 100-acre single restoration projects done for
a few thousand dollars. They are restorations be-
ing done on formerly hydric soil, so the success
rate is fairly high. It is really a great program.
• Question: How about monitoring of projects
after they are completed?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: The tradi-
tional, or resource agency, approach to wetland
permitting and monitoring has been not to get in-
volved in monitoring, declare victory, and move
on to the next battle. That is changing. In central
and southern Michigan, individuals are putting
pressure on us and our congressional delegation
to get money to monitor these programs.
Throughout the country, we have selected key ar-
eas with ongoing monitoring programs. And we
would like to continue to promise these land
owners that we will monitor and tell them what
is happening biologically in their backyards.
• Question: Are any wetland restoration pro-
grams occurring in Indiana?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: They have a
tremendous private land program in Indiana
with, I would assume, some component of moni-
toring. It may be through the University of Indi-
ana or one of the state or federal agencies.
• Question: How long have some of these pro-
gram restorations been developed?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: We have pro-
jects in Minnesota and Wisconsin right now that
are approaching 15 years in duration.
• Question: Do you provide follow up advice
and support for projects?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: We offer
technical support at any time over the life of a
project. When landowners call, we have someone
out as soon as we can to answer their questions.
This is an opportunity to have our constituents
supporting all sorts of wetlands, endangered spe-
cies, and ecological protection programs. We do
not want to lose a single person, so we strive to
provide good support and service.
• Question: What about the impacts of non-
regulatory programs?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: Enough non-
regulatory funding and projects are coming out
of an agency like EPA; particularly in nonpoint
IT"
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
source, I hear a lot about nonregulatory pro-
grams trying to help states get their programs in
line. This is to encourage rather than adhere to
regulations. EPA and other regulatory agencies
have a lot of nonregulatory options, particularly
in after-the-fact permit decision. A lot of data has
been collected on how permits are issued but
much less on how many actually go through the
process.
• Question: How can you tell that you are actu-
ally restoring an area that was formerly a wetland?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: First, we
must look at our historical data base. On our Na-
tional Wetland Inventory maps, we want to iden-
tify current or former wetlands. So before we
even leave the office, our biologists have an idea,
based on data, whether we are looking at true
drained wetland or dealing with someone who
wants a bass pond in the backyard. We don't do
bass ponds; we do wetland restorations.
Before we go out in the field, we determine if
we are looking at hydric soils; if so, we go onsite.
If, based on soil sampling, we think we can turn
a site into a wetland restoration, we meet with
the land owners; we tell them what is involved.
If we can go forward, we find out how much
land is available and whether they can keep the
land in a wetland state for at least 10 years. They
must sign a document to that effect. We concen-
trate on hydric soils and areas that have been
drained.
• Question: Do land owners have to sign any
type of easement for this program?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: We need an
easement signed by the landowner for another
10 years. We have some in perpetuity but most
are just 10-year agreements. In Minnesota, Wis-
consin, and the Dakotas, once people restore the
wetlands and see the benefits, they do not want
them drained. And more importantly, their chil-
dren and grandchildren do not want them
drained either.
• Question: Are you involved in any type of
prairie restoration?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: The prairie
restorations that we are starting to develop—a
little bit in Minnesota, some in the Dakotas, and
in the southern part of Wisconsin—are based on
prairie plant species. We are not building bass
ponds or providing a food plot for someone to
hunt quail on their back 40. Prairie restoration is
done with certified seeds and professional ad-
vice, considering what was there historically.
• Question: How can EPA become more in-
volved in assisting the Fish and Wildlife Service
in ecosystem restoration?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: If we are us-
ing similar targeting criteria and procedures, we
will end up helping each other. EPA can provide
leadership in directing the course of ecosystem
restoration and conservation, not only within
this region but nationally; not only through the
regulatory power, but more importantly through
its funding power. EPA can require that ecologi-
cal restoration take a true broad-based ecosys-
tem perspective.
While working in a narrow geographic level
and on a particular project is easy, EPA can com-
pel us, as it is doing with The Nature Conser-
vancy, to look broadly at ecosystem stresses so
that our work has transferability. It can also help
and compel us to effectively transfer it. That is
one of the biggest challenges on the horizon, to
figure out how to transfer technologies to other
areas.
• Comment: Region III in Philadelphia is at-
tempting a terrestrial habitat restoration initia-
tive that goes way beyond its water quality
jurisdiction. Is this region thinking along the
same lines, or attempting that? Do they have the
justification to do what they are doing?
• Question: Are we going to have to take a
different approach to dealing with people on
these type of issues in the future?
• Comment—Charlie Wooley: We are talk-
ing about a different approach, a different pos-
ture between the human community and the
environment, and it suggests a different kind of
relationship between elements of the human
community as well. In the future, we may not
need to think so much about regulation, about
keeping bad guys in line. People just want to do
this. What's their incentive? Now we have the
outline of that kind of relationship with nature.
EPA, which grew up in the '70s and had to build
some walls around precious ecosystems, may
now begin to be an advocate. One thing EPA
may do is get more involved in education. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Decisionmaking and Priority Setting
Approaches to Ecological
Restoration
Robert P. Brooks
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
We do ecological restoration for a
number of reasons. The first two
reasons—the legislative mandate
and the health and safety issues—
are mandatory, things we cannot avoid. We are
guided by the regulatory compliance on a specific
site, an immediate need to respond to an emer-
gency, and other instances. These get done whether
we plan for them or not. The voluntary areas are
where we need to discuss how to get projects
started and build constituencies to help us.
Coordination Levels
Projects in different categories require a different
level of coordination (Figs. 1 and 2). In the man-
datory category, for example, the Endangered
Species Act requires a recovery plan for individ-
ual species. It is very specific on how plans are
constructed. The Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act fortunately requires reclaiming
the mining landscape. However, because it is
driven by specific regulatory guidance, little
flexibility is permitted.
For health and safety, issues include an imme-
diate threat to the community water supply, a
hazardous waste spill, or a landfill leakage. These
situations receive immediate attention.
Research is usually driven by some kind of
hypothesis that we want to test. A book edited by
William Jordan discusses using ecological restora-
tion projects to test scientific hypothesis.
For educational projects, many have tried to
encourage a demonstration site, show the technol-
ogy for a particular watershed, and get other peo-
ple to buy in to build a larger constituency.
Community-based projects are increasing. This is
necessary since the scope of restoration needed
cannot be funded from the government's pocket-
book. We must involve people—large public
groups, special interest groups. Usually, people
have some particular interest; then they decide to get
organized and get involved. The project may be a
cleaning up a river system or a park restoration.
Coordinating Within a Regional
Landscape
The area that is most difficult is looking at a regional
landscape and trying to coordinate multi-group ac-
tions, multiple agencies, and nongovernmental or-
ganizations. We are working towards major
watershed protection—like the Chesapeake Bay or
the Great Lakes area. We are trying to link major
habitat corridors across the landscape, involving
both public and private lands. These are extremely
difficult to coordinate and to get everyone thinking
along the same lines.
Administrators are familiar with strategic
planning: Why are we doing this restoration? What
are we going to do? How are we going to focus our
goals into specific objectives? Starting with a small
informal group to hammer out issues is preferable.
Some feel that the public meeting process is a better
approach to get all the interest groups on board
and reach agreement. But for larger scale restora-
tion projects, this is difficult. This situation needs a
small technical group—some policy people, some
technical people—talking and defining the agenda
before it goes before the public. Without this, the
project will be difficult to sell. Complex projects
require many back and forth iterations to deter-
mine how much can be done and what procedures
to use and to define specific goals, objectives, and
targets for restoration.
Getting Operational
Just as administrators are familiar with strategic
planning, managers are familiar with how to get
projects operational: how to accomplish specific
things like timetables, deliverables, construction
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Reasons for engaging In an ecological restoration project
LU
<
Z
Q
DC
O
O
O
O
(-
Q
UJ
LU
Z
O
Z
LU
cc
O
IMPETUS
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
HEALTH / SAFETY ISSUES
RESEARCH / EDUCATION
PROJECT
COMMUNITY CONCERN
REGIONAL INITIATIVE
EXAMPLES
ENDANGERED SPECIES
MINE RECLAMATION
THREAT TO WATER SUPPLY
HAZARDOUS LANDFILL
EXPERIMENTAL PLANTINGS
SCHOOL DEMONSTRATION AREA
RIVER CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN
MUNICIPAL PARK RESTORATION
WATERSHED PROTECTION
LINK HABITAT CORRIDORS
Figure 2.—Differences In rationale and approach for ecological restoration projects.
LU
D
IT
O
O
O
O
H
D
LU
LU
Z
CD
Z
LU
CC
O
IMPETUS
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
HEALTH / SAFETY ISSUE
RESEARCH / EDUCATION
PROJECT
COMMUNITY CONCERN
REGIONAL INITIATIVE
TARGETING GUIDANCE
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
AND CRITERIA
SITE SPECIFIC
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE VS
LONG TERM REMEDIATION
HYPOTHESIS,
TARGET AUDIENCE
AD HOC INTEREST
NEED FOR TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE
SCALE AND COST MANDATES
INTERORGANIZATIONAL
COORDINATION
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
R Brooks
equipment; deciding who is going to pay; what
kind of methods to use; who is in charge. That is
where the organization comes in. Whether the
project is a two-acre restoration or a watershed,
having a key contact person is critical.
Monitoring and evaluating wetlands must be
discussed. How are we going to assess the pro-
ject? What are our criteria for assessing success
and failure? Monitoring and evaluation should
be an explicit part of any restoration project, com-
plete with deliverables, and not be confined to
the project report for the file. Coming up with
ecological milestones or thresholds or measures
of success is sometimes difficult. But useful ways
to do this exist.
If we expect to have large-scale restoration,
we need to share our information—not only with
the technical and policy people, but also the pub-
lic—to encourage involvement.
An Ecological Sandwich
Restoration is an ecological sandwich. You must
deal with the various layers—physical, biological,
and cultural—that are part of the system and per-
tain to a particular project restoration site. Every
site has a landscape position. Too often, we only
see the consequences of site-specific restoration
projects. An ecological sandwich allows you to po-
sition the project in a landscape setting. Where is
it? Did you look around? Did you look beyond the
boundaries? What are the inputs to the system?
What are the seed sources? Who is the constitu-
ency? Who are the supporters of this project out-
side the project area? Maintaining the landscape
perspective is important for any project.
In order to be successful and build support
within organizations and the community, tackle
problems that have real solutions. Avoid setting
yourself up for failure by trying to achieve some-
thing that is decades beyond where we are now.
Look toward that, but set some intermediate goals
along the way. This means establishing small pro-
jects that are somehow integrated, either physi-
cally or from a management perspective.
Passion in Policy
And the last question: Is it possible to have pas-
sion in policy? To be successful, restoration must
include a certain amount of passion from those
involved in the day-to-day project management
and those that see it to final conclusion. The Cur-
tis Prairie was not started because somebody
thought, "I'll just try this for a day." They were
passionate about getting that project started.
DISCUSSION
• Question: How does a restoration project
begin?
• Answer—Robert P. Brooks: There are
starting points. In some cases, a couple of citi-
zens sitting around the dinner table or meeting
in the park can be the source, the beginnings of a
project. In talking with some agency people in
Harrisburg about a park needing restoration,
one problem was traffic from one township driv-
ing through another township. While this was a
safety issue, another aspect was park ownership.
I suggested that citizens in the two townships
talk to each other—they thought that was hys-
terical. These were different townships with dif-
ferent economic levels. However, unless the
people started talking to build intertownship
support, they could not proceed on an particular
issue.
There are many ways to get started. You can
start with a piece of regulation that demands
that a site be restored. You can start with com-
munity grassroots, or you can start with a broad-
based regional approach involving agencies,
organizations, and the public. All are equal.
• Comment: Something remarkable is hap-
pening in the restoration world. A major restora-
tion project, for example, in Central Park in New
York City is being driven to a considerable ex-
tent, plan by plan. Politically, this is a very com-
plex situation.
• Question: When the citizens' perception of
where the problem is or where the work should
occur differs from the professional agency or res-
toration people—when citizens rise up and want
to work on an area—that draws resources and
the agency responds. Most of us in the public
sector translate that as taking resources from
somewhere else. How do you reconcile this?
• Answer—Robert P. Brooks: I will turn
that around and ask the collective audience to
answer because I do not have a candid answer.
Any suggestions?
• Comment: We have some experience with
that at the Arboretum through volunteer groups.
The Arboretum has always been a professional
operation—we make decisions and hire a crew.
In the last few years, we have begun turning
projects over to the public. We were immediately
concerned that the projects would be ruined.
The public's idea of what a project requires is not
the same as an ecologist's.
However, this has not turned out to be a
problem. A year ago, we had neighbors enraged
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
about a project that required cutting brush in an
area that served as a thick screen. They were an-
gry and swore in meetings. In the year since,
with just a little bit of gracious response from
our staff, one person in particular who was the
noisiest is now a master restorationist on that
project. And so, who won? Everybody won.
I have very limited experience; there are
people with a lot more. Sue, can you address this
in connection with the work around Chicago
with Steve Packard's group? They have 4,000 or
5,000 volunteers working and are finding that
they get smart. Sooner or later, they get smart.
They also teach the experts something.
• Comment—Robert P. Brooks: For con-
flict resolution, you need to look at the educa-
tional aspects in your bag of tricks. You go to the
leadership of competing groups and get them to-
gether. There will be compromise and learning
both ways; you just try to resolve this and focus
energies toward the real issues and not the
squabbling.
• Comment: You also need to let people make
little mistakes. They are better off making a mis-
take and then they fix it later
• Question: I can put you in touch with 20
people with extensive experience in this area.
Monitoring has come up several times; I always
hear monitoring brought up in this kind of duti-
ful way: "We have to be sure to do a monitoring;
monitoring is really important." I sense that peo-
ple do not do monitoring for a reason; or when
they do it, they do not use the results.
People love to get out and plan or tinker
around with the grade or bring water back in
where it has been excluded. And then you get
into this monitoring. Is it boring? Or what is it?
• Answer—Robert P. Brooks: I think it is
fun, actually. I have found agency cases often
have no budget because it was not put on the ta-
ble up front. Particularly with construction pro-
jects, whether a transportation agency or major
subdivision, the project ends and therefore the
budget ends. We do not have monitoring money
for five years. So we need a pool of money or a
well-organized volunteer network. You need to
specify that as an early objective in the planning.
• Comment: The interest taken in monitoring
will depend on the clear perception of the pro-
ject and defining a context for the monitoring so
that the result is not just numbers. If I know why
I am taking a Secchi disk reading every week
and that it will produce some really useful infor-
mation, then I probably will have a greater in-
centive to do it. Is that part of the problem?
The projects are set up in a restoration ecol-
ogy sphere. They say: "We are going to test sedi-
ment rates, or nitrogen cycling recovery, or
nitrogen recycling system. We are guessing that
certain parameters are critical. We have done an
experiment here. We are really curious to know
what becomes of nitrogen cycling in this system."
• Comment: I think that can inspire some vol-
unteer monitoring. But generally the people
footing the bill explicitly state the objective. As
far as monitoring, they don't care. They will
have to pay for it; it is just another cost. Lef s get
it done as quick as possible. But I do think that is
an aspect that should be included.
• Comment: Might it be that kind of policy is
backed up by the attitude that once we have re-
stored a system, then it is up to nature? We do
not have to do anything more with it. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Using
Existing Authorities
More Effectively
-------
-------
PANEL: Using Existing
Authorities More Effectively
Bertram Frey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Wayne Schmidt
National Wildlife Federation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
William G. Painter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C
William (Bill) Kruczynski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
In this panel, each panelist will briefly intro-
duce a topic—hopefully, a controversial one,
after which the other panel members will re-
spond. The four topics to be discussed are as
follows: (1) Why are ecological restorations taking
so long? (2) What are the tools to accomplish res-
torations? (3) How can EPA do a better job in coor-
dinating its restoration efforts with other federal
agencies? (4) What approaches can agencies take
to ensure that restoration will provide maximum
benefits to the environment?
PANEL DISCUSSION
• Question—Bertram Frey: Why are eco-
logical restorations taking so long?
• Answer—Wayne Schmidt: The quick an-
swer is we wish we knew. No one argues that ar-
eas in the Great Lakes need restoration—we
have waited long enough for cleanup to begin,
so why aren't the dozers and the draglines out
there today making progress?
Talking to this diverse audience is a special
privilege, particularly the cross section of EPA
staff, including the Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office. Whatever our disagreements over
programs and priorities and no matter how
many times we may sue EPA, we do not ques-
tion your individual commitments to restoring
our environment. The public owes you its
thanks.
Our primary interest at the Great Lakes
Natural Resource Center is in large-scale ecosys-
tems restorations; our main focus is on Great
Lakes aquatic systems. While prevention is an
equally important component, we have other
programs to deal with that. We are interested in
restoration of areas that make a difference—like
the benefit of regional species diversity and rich-
ness, continental waterfowl populations, and
others. The benchmark for restoration progress
in the Great Lakes are those 43 areas of concern
identified by the International Joint Commission
of the United States and Canada and noted in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement be-
tween the two parties.
For example, in the Detroit River—an area
near where I live, boat, and fish—50 percent of
the endemic fish species are gone. Grassy Island
in the downriver area, part of the National Wild-
life Refuge, has been a dumping ground forever.
The woodcock on the island have some of the
highest levels of contaminants found anywhere.
The answer is really quite simple. Stop the input
of bad stuff going in, clean up the gunk at the
bottom of the river, allow nature to restore that
substrate, get the wild celery and the Hexagenia
growing again, and the diving ducks will return.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Our objectives are defined by the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. Its purpose is to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin ecosystem, as well as the objectives
in the Clean Water Act. A good share of our criti-
cisms for the slow pace of progress is directed at
EPA. The EPA gets the largest share of the fund-
ing for these programs and bears the largest
share of legal responsibility.
Some of you may not like or find fair my
comments throughout the panel discussion.
They may seem harsh, but they do represent a
consensus of a number of our colleagues. De-
spite piecemeal progress, Great Lakes ecological
restoration is stalled.
Before this meeting, I tried to get a candid as-
sessment of how people around the area felt.
People close to the Grand Calumet remedial ac-
tion plan assessed it as "a farce." Regarding the
Kalamazoo River remedial action plan—the Kala-
mazoo River and the Grand Calumet are two of
the most egregious sources of PCBs to Lake Michi-
gan—"little progress." What about the Lake
Michigan Lakewide Management Plan now under
review? The candid assessment is that it should be
written over again; it is nearly worthless for what
it was designed to accomplish.
EPA cannot do or fix a lot of things. But two
things are lacking that can be remedied. One is
leadership and a commitment to restoration
from the top down. We do not think it is there.
We see a major inertia on a commitment to Great
Lakes' ecosystem restoration. Second is a very
precise blueprint for restoration. Who is going to
do what? What is going to get done? Where will
it get done? How much will happen? And when
will it happen — load reduction strategies, dead-
lines, and milestones?
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: I am happy
to see that we are addressing the same issues all
over the country. I come from Florida and work
out of the Atlanta office. We have the same is-
sues talked about this morning—the same issues
Wayne brought up—about things not working
the way they should. Getting anything done
takes so long because of the many special inter-
ests to be appeased. That boils down to the word
"politics" in allocating funds.
We have been trying to start a program in the
southeast called the Gulf of Mexico program,
which competes with the Great Lakes program,
the Chesapeake Bay program, and every other
program in the country. And if it were not for a
group in Congress—"The Sunbelt Caucus"—that
program probably would not have gotten to first
base. This points out that with a limited budget,
everyone is competing for the same resources.
Proceedings • March 1993
Another problem is too much fragmentation
of authority and reluctance to create another
government entity. However, we may need some
sort of national oversight for restoration.
| Comment—Bertram Frey: Wayne raised
four points. We should focus on areas of concern
in the Great Lakes—I think we have—and that
the Region V Great Lakes National Program of-
fice is not really focusing on great areas of con-
cern. I would disagree. He attacked remedial
accomplishment plans (RAPs) for northwest In-
diana. The RAPs are the states' prerogative and
they have the lead.
In responding with what we have done in
northwest Indiana, I head up an enforcement in-
itiative centered in southeast Chicago and north-
west Indiana. We are restoring probably the last
dead river in the Great Lakes Basin—the Grand
Calumet—which is a river running through the
sand. The Little Calumet is the southern river,
and the Grand Calumet is the northern river.
Our enforcement initiative is part of a
broader initiative to address a whole host of en-
vironmental problems in northwest Indiana.
One concern is floating oil. One area contains 15
to 17 million gallons of petroleum distillate float-
ing on top of groundwater. We are certainly try-
ing to address that. We are also addressing
sediments in the Grand Calumet. And we are
trying to set our goals. By 1996 my goal is to re-
duce environmental toxic loadings by 50 percent
through enforcement and other means.
The enforcement component, particularly on
the Grand Cal, is to sue everybody. You name a
site, we have an ongoing action. We have settled
with the city of Gary, which calls for penalties of
$1.25 million to comply with the Clean Water
Act. The settlement also calls for some sediment
remediations, the cleanup of the Rallston Street
Lagoon adjacent to the Grand Cal and highly
polluted with PCBs. We have a major suit
against Bethlehem Steel, of which we have set-
tled part. We had a case against USX Gary; the
decree called for a $34 million package to get
sediment remediation and toxics out of the sedi-
ments. We settled a case with LTV, whose prop-
erty is adjacent to Inland Steel's property. LTV
committed to spending roughly $10 million to
remediate 10,000 pounds of sediment from the
bottom of the Grand Cal.
In the Indiana Harbor area, we have done a
multi-media inspection of Amoco. We have a
case against Federated Metals, recently settled
for some $675,000 in penalties. Each matter has
resulted in significant penalties; we have ex-
changed some of the penalties for valuable in-
junctive relief or supplemental environmental
-------
B. Frey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
projects. The planning for the RAP for this area
may not be as far along as it should be. But fed-
eral and state governments are doing much to
clean up and restore some of the very heavily
polluted areas of the Grand Calumet River.
The third salvo was a concern that our
lakewide area management plan, particularly
for Lake Michigan, is not out yet; therefore, it is
hard to criticize before it is final. I would
strongly disagree with the characterization that
the plan is worthless. On the commitment to res-
toration throughout the lake, the Great Lakes
National Program office is developing a five-
year plan. That plan represents a fundamental
commitment to restoration in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, by
statute, gave EPA a schedule to promulgate the
Water Quality Guidance and other documents.
The principal objective is to develop uniform,
stringent, and scientifically defensible water
quality standards throughout the Great Lakes
Basin. It also has other objectives like antidegra-
dation goals. We are behind schedule, but we are
also under court order to get something out by
April 15. We have resumed the course to accom-
plish that. My office has recently defended five
suits against the National Wildlife Federation.
• Comment—William G. Painter: I am not
involved in all aspects of the Great Lakes pro-
grams, but it is sobering to hear Wayne's com-
ments. From my perspective in Washington, the
Great Lakes is one of EPA's flagship efforts to re-
store the entire ecosystem. And former EPA Ad-
ministrator William Riley made it clear that this
is important to him. I wonder what that tells us.
Obviously, the agency could do more with
more people and more courage. In thinking
about the people in the Gulf—you are where
they were in the Great Lakes 10 years ago. It al-
most makes me want to give up and go open a
fishing camp.
• Comment—Wayne Schmidt: First,
whether you agree with that assessment or not, I
think it should be sobering. The fact alone that
the perception exists is sobering. Second, I refer
you to a report from our office called "A Pre-
scription for Healthy Great Lakes," done before I
worked there. It lays out the specificity and a
strategy needed for the type of ecosystem resto-
ration we are talking about. Whether or not you
agree with the specifics of the plan, it outlines
the elements needed.
• Question—William Painter: But what
does this tell us about the possibility of doing
things on the scale of the Great Lakes, or the
Chesapeake Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico to any-
body's satisfaction. Or will we have more suc-
cess in dealing with smaller places?
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: Before you
open a fishing camp in the Gulf of Mexico, you
ought to give us some money to get some fish
back. We have serious habitat loss problems
there, which I will discuss later.
• Comment—Jim Giattina: I have been
providing assistance through EPA to certain
states that have opted to go through the water-
shed protection approach—North Carolina,
Washington, and Delaware. They are making
great strides to bring together different parts of
research programs to come up with national re-
search management on a watershed basis. So,
the agency is contributing in areas other than the
Great Lakes.
• Question— Has EPA actually collected any
of the penalty money that has been imposed for
violations along the Grand Calumet River?
• Answer—Bertram Frey: We have gotten
some checks from a federal consent decree. That
is, after all, a judicial order. The date in those or-
ders has passed; they sent the money.
• Question: What is the money being used for?
• Answer—Bertram Frey: The money for
penalties goes to the treasury. But in many cases,
we have negotiated far more in supplemental
environmental projects or injunctive relief. In the
USX case, for example, the penalty was a rela-
tively small fraction of the $34 million the com-
pany must spend to clean up sediments, as well
as cleaning up discharges at the plant.
• Question: When are they supposed to start
doing the study?
• Answer—Bertram Frey: USX has done a
study to characterize a lot of the sediments. Quite
frankly, the situation is far worse than we origi-
nally had thought. Our authority to proceed rests
on certain regulations like those promulgated un-
der the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). PCB
problems are bad in some sediment hot spots. We
are now talking to USX about additional viola-
tions as well as additional restoration in that area.
It was a part of $7 million for sediment remedia-
tion that includes some for these studies and for
actual sediment remediation. That is digging
them out of the Grand Cal and removing them so
they do not pollute the lake for another 50 years.
• Comment: The big problem is that the
Army Corp of Engineers has been studying the
lower portion of the Grand Calumet River,
called the Indiana Harbor Canal, for about 20
~HT
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
years, on and off. They do not know where to
put the stuff once they dig it up. Everybody
knows it must come out, but no one knows what
to do with it. It continues to sit there, and no tell-
ing how much longer it will continue.
• Comment—Bertram Prey: That is an apt
criticism. The Ed site in northwest Indiana was
a closed site, previously owned by ARCO and
then ECI, and presently owned by East Chicago.
The site went into bankruptcy. We have filed a
claim for a $30 million pot of money in the bank-
ruptcy. The government would get first priority
to clean up the site. If we could use a substantial
portion of the money to clean up the site, we
might be able to create a combined disposal fa-
cility for the dredged spoil from the Grand Cal
projects.
We have not just sued USX; we have also
sued Gary, Hammond, Inland Steel, LTV, and
Federated Metals. We need to put the dredged
spoil from a whole number of projects some-
where. That is a key barrier that I do not want to
underestimate. Putting it in the proper site and
treating some of it before we put it in the site are
both key issues.
• Question: On the Great Lakes, we have seen
the first level of system recovery in response to
phosphorus control. We have seen the species
composition shift and the great response. In
some places, like Green Bay, that recovery is not
yet complete. Remediation still must be done.
Wayne is absolutely right when he said re-
covery is slow. Recovery from toxic substances is
going to be decades long. Is it proceeding fast
enough?
We must have a layer to review these things.
The final ecological recovery is very distant.
How can we find measures that reliably explain
to the public and measure success over a period
of time? That is the question I have for the panel.
Can you identify a means in restoration to realis-
tically mark the steps in recovery so that we do
not leave people frustrated when we know some
kinds of recovery will take 20 to 30 years?
• Comment—Bertram Frey: One of scien-
tists on the panel should answer that question.
Measures of success will be covered by a panel
or two later on. I do not know whether that is
our primary charge, but we will answer that
question as best we can.
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: I have dealt
with that for years in trying to establish some
sort of standard for success criteria for different
ecological systems. I cannot speak for the Great
Lakes, but we have come up with standards for
phosphorus mining in forestry systems in Flor-
ida. We must sign off on those as being accept-
able without waiting for them to become self-re-
producing systems. So, at a point in the
continuum from time zero to 40 years, we must
say that enough has been shown to think this
has a good probability of success. The standards
that we have used to achieve this, for example,
are 400 cypress trees per acre and 70 percent
ground cover over a couple years, maybe two
growing seasons. Seeds are being produced by
at least 5 percent of the cypress trees by year
five, or year 10 for deciduous trees. Cypress
trees will put out some seed balls in five years.
A1 percent accumulation of organic matter in
soil would be approaching success. There is
some accumulation; it is not all burning away.
The hydrological components are very difficult
to measure, unless we can measure them against
a "referenced" wetland. So you need reference
wetland forested sites to show that the timing,
frequency, duration, and height of the water that
comes up on the site is similar to your reference
site. So we must put some time and effort into
developing standard success criteria.
• Comment—Wayne Schmidt: One interim
measure of success is when the bald eagles on the
shores of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan success-
fully reproduce and sustain their populations.
• Comment—Bertram Frey: Another might
be the number of fish advisories for any of the
lakes.
The second issue is what are current legal
regulatory public policies to accomplish ecologi-
cal restoration? Since I am a lawyer, I am focus-
ing more on command and control—the narrow
part of the equation. Is the scope of those tools
effective? Are they sufficient? Are new laws,
regulations, policies, or programs needed? What
level of authority is most effective? Are state,
federal, or local authorities dealing with ecologi-
cal restoration?
I have tried to show in the laws (see Appendix
following discussion) where restoration is either
a key goal or something used to force a private
party or governmental agency through com-
mand and control. If you look at key parts of the
Clean Water Act, the principle objective is to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of waters in the United States.
That is echoed in the International Joint Agree-
ment for the Great Lakes Basin that Wayne men-
tioned. In particular, you can restore wetland and
enforce a violation under a 404 permit, whether it
is illegal discharge without a permit or violation
of a permit.
Without a permit, EPA will enforce; the Corp
of Engineer enforces the violation of a term of a
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
B. Frey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
permit. One of the key goals in the 1990 amend-
ments to the Clean Water Act, in particular the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, furthers the
goal of maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin wa-
ters. The requirements for implementation of
both the RAPs and lakewide management plans
(LAMPs) specifically mandate the development
of documents in an organized, systematic, com-
prehensive, ecosystem approach to restoring
and protecting beneficial uses of waters, both in
the case of the LAMPs and for designated areas
of concern in the case of the RAPs.
Another effective law is the Superfund law. We
have many powers to remediate sites. We can
dean up sites and send liable parties the bill. For
restoration goals, I want to focus on cost for natu-
ral resources damage, the principal issue in the
Exxon Valdez. The lawsuits will drag on for years,
but resource damage is the largest cost at a lot of
our sites.
With hazardous substances at superfund
sites, and in many cases of oil spills on the water,
the greatest cost is restoring natural resources
damages. The measure of damages for natural
resources is the cost of the past damage or the
cost of restoration, whichever is greater. That is
clearly an authority we can use to pursue eco-
logical restoration in conjunction with the super-
fund sites in northwest Indiana.
The key to using that law is doing the assess-
ment. The Fish and Wildlife Service is generally
the trustee for fish and wildlife. States are usu-
ally trustees for sediments. The problem is that
they do not have money to make a good assess-
ment, so we have more difficulty claiming natu-
ral resource damages as part of a superfund
action either for enforcement or cost recovery.
The Oil Pollution Act, newer than the Super-
fund, even better addresses the cost of restoring,
rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the
equivalent of the (1) damaged natural resources;
(2) the diminution in value of those natural re-
sources, pending the restoration; plus (3) the rea-
sonable cost in assessing those damages. So we
can get all those back in response to oil spills di-
rectly under the Oil Pollution Act.
We have already discussed the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement and its principle goals.
You can look at some of the other legal authori-
ties, but they are inadequate. For sediments for
example, a pastiche of authorities address sedi-
ments—the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA), the Water Act, and Superfund.
No laws are tailored to effectively deal with eco-
logical restoration on a river basin, let alone a
larger ecological system. I want the panel mem-
bers to address some present regulatory public
policies that are effective or where new laws are
needed.
• Comment—William G. Painter: EPA's
policies are not. But I don't think the answer is to
give EPA new authority to enable us to do the
job from soup to nuts. We have a lot of other fed-
eral agencies, state agencies, and private organi-
zations with a great deal more experience in
certain key aspects of ecosystem restoration than
EPA has or should ever have. On the other hand,
EPA is starting to realize that, generally, address-
ing chemical contamination will not achieve full
ecological restoration—physical, chemical, and
biological integrity. We are doing well on the
chemical integrity, but we do not have the ability
to address some of these other areas. Therefore,
how can EPA work more effectively with other
organizations that have greater expertise in the
field?
Several things were not brought up here—in
particular, money. We have a state revolving
loan fund program. The federal government is
still putting about $2 billion a year into capitali-
zation grants to allow states to make loans to
municipalities and others for programs. Up to
now, most of this money has gone into building
sewage treatment facilities. But you can fund
projects under a state section 319 nonpoint source
program that can include stream and wetland
restoration. You can fund projects in a national
estuary program, which is not so relevant to this
region as it is to other parts of the country.
If the Clinton economic stimulus goes
through, $47 million in supplemental money
will be available in the current fiscal year. The
money would run through the section 319 non-
point source program. EPA sold this to the White
House by painting the image of people restoring
streams and wetlands, planting things, and
moving rocks around. The White House does
not want to see the money go into developing
nonpoint source plans or similar things.
Another tool that has hardly been tried is
point/nonpoint source trading. This involves a
municipal sewage plant that, instead of spend-
ing money on removing point source pollution,
puts money into nonpoint source controls for ag-
ricultural and similar activities. This is an attrac-
tive idea because the costs are usually less for
nonpoint source controls than for advance
wastewater treatment. In at least one place, EPA
is allowing the community to restore the stream
channel and the riparian zone instead of install-
ing the advance wastewater treatment
And as a result, we will not only solve the
water quality and chemical problem, but we will
see a greater restoration of the entire biosystem
than if we had just, in this case, cleaned the am-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
monia, leaving in place a denuded riparian zone
and a degraded stream channel. Clayton
Creager will talk more about this. But this is an-
other area of EPA authority to explore.
| Comment—Wayne Schmidt: Obviously,
the program has holes. It would be nice to fill
them. The lack of natural sediment criteria has to
hurt its efforts. It is unacceptable, but we may
have to live with the fact that we are three years
away from proposed criteria for PCB sediments.
In Region V, we may need regional sediment cri-
teria for chemicals of concern, similar to the pro-
posal for wildlife criteria in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative.
Obviously, the Fish and Wildlife Service
Great Lakes Restoration Act program needs
help; we are responsible for helping as well in
the natural resource damage assessment pro-
gram. In its history, the program has only recov-
ered $27 million nationwide. Nevertheless, this
is not an excuse for delay. We think adequate
authority to proceed is in the hands of the vari-
ous agencies, particularly given the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act, and the possibility for "creative
administration" of existing authorities.
We are happy the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative is moving forward. Last week in Chi-
cago, a meeting explored Region V's next phase
of the bill. The Great Lakes Toxics Reduction In-
itiative has great potential, but we are uncertain
about whether that potential will be realized. But
for example, Bert talked about this pastiche of
programs dealing with contaminant sediments.
This initiative can potentially bring some focus,
some forum to that pastiche and provide the inte-
grating measure necessary for an overall strategy
for moving on with some of these programs.
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: In my expe-
rience, restoration programs are performed
quickest and done best if they are managed and
implemented locally by local agencies, cities,
counties, or state governments. In Florida, we
have water management districts that manage
the watersheds. If we can convince local authori-
ties that a restoration effort is needed in a par-
ticular area, the districts are likely able to
quickly sell this to local politicians, developers,
or to whomever needs to be sold locally, because
they are in touch with them. So I am a firm be-
liever in watershed restoration at a local water-
shed level.
However, the overseer should be someone
who develops goals and prioritizes the areas to
be addressed. We are not the first to discuss this.
A book entitled Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems
was published recently by the National Research
Council. Dan Willard is one of the authors. The
book discusses this issue and proposes develop-
ing a national aquatic ecosystem restoration unit
or team to oversee restoration efforts throughout
the country.
I am not one to propose new governmental
entities, but because of the fragmentation and the
historic conflicts between agencies, with each
stepping over the others' turf, perhaps we need
some new oversight committee to prioritize and
implement restoration at the national level.
• Question: The list passed out (see Appen-
dix) has one glaring omission—the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program. Reports indicate that the
program has reduced the sediment input to
streams and waterways by some tremendous
percentage—possibly 50 percent. Can someone
comment on the program's effectiveness? In
some sense, it may be more directly relevant to
restoration, the landscape level, and other things
we have talked about.
• Comment—Don Butz: The Conservation
Reserve Program has been in effect for about
seven years, with 36.5 million acres currently en-
rolled in the program throughout the United
States. I cannot give specifics about the Great
Lakes Basin, however. In erosion control, we
have reduced soil loss approximately 700 million
tons per acre annually; that equals approximately
an annual 19-ton-per-acre reduction on each acre
enrolled in the program. A considerable amount
of this is sediment reduction—over 200 million
tons of sediment reduction in the program.
• Comment—Bertram Prey: EPA has
worked with the Department of Agriculture
through the county agencies in many programs
for erosion control, which may be considered
restoration. Erosion control is preventing the soil
from washing away down our river systems.
The Department of Agriculture does that much
better than EPA.
• Question: Are the stream sod filter strips
eligible to be included as enrolled acreage? How
much of that is going on? Do people know what
having acreage enrolled means? Does everybody
here know that, or does somebody need to ex-
plain? What happens when you enroll acreage?
• Answer—Don Butz: Enrolled means that
private land owners voluntarily bid their land
into a 10-year program and accept a certain dol-
lar value for renting the land to the government.
They agree to take a part of the land that was
originally in crop production and put it into a
long-term vegetative cover—grass or trees. After
10 years, the land can go back to whatever the
landowner has in mind. This is another issue
that needs to be addressed in the next farm bill.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
B. Trey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
Buffer strips, or filter strips, can be enrolled
in the program. They are strips of land along riv-
ers, streams, or lakes that also can be placed in
vegetation to help reduce the loadings flowing
into streams, rivers, and lakes. Buffer strips are a
kind of protection strip placed in the program
for 10 years.
• Comment—William G. Painter: How can
EPA do a better job of coordinating its ecological
restoration efforts with other agencies that have
expertise and resources in the field? Obvious
candidates would include the Fish and Wildlife
Service, which under the Clinton economic
package would receive millions for ecological
habitat restoration. The Park Service received
several hundred million dollars for "infrastruc-
ture," with about half earmarked for natural in-
frastructure, as opposed to fixing up roads and
visitor facilities. So how can EPA work more ef-
fectively with the other agencies that have been
doing this kind of thing? Many more examples
include the Forest Service, Soil Conservation
Service, and others.
Looking at the list of people attending this
conference, I find it surprising that attendees are
mostly from EPA. I counted two people from the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), three from the
Park Service, two from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and two from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers. Why aren't more people from other agen-
cies here? What does that tell us?
In Washington, people often say, "Ah, those
EPA people, all they care about is toxic chemi-
cals. They don't know anything about stream
habitat in the physical sense or that sort of
thing."
This is an example of the problem we work
with—the enormous gulf between agencies. In
the last couple of years, my little staff of a half-
dozen people has worked with the Fish and
Wildlife Service. We have experienced tremen-
dous problems with the different cultures. They
do not really understand what we do. Unfortu-
nately, they think they do, which makes it even
worse; and visa versa—we at EPA are just as
guilty.
So I am interested in what people think about
how we can work together more effectively. This
is one microcosm. What if, collectively, EPA and
other agencies receive a hundred million or
more dollars from this economic package for
ecological restoration. Are we all going to go off
our own separate way and do our own thing
with the money? Or are we going to try to get or-
ganized somehow and work together?
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: In working
on the five-year-old Gulf of Mexico program, my
experience in using other agencies' expertise has
been to bring them along as full partners in de-
veloping "action plans" or "action agendas." The
first thing is to prioritize the issues and the at-risk
habitats. We have taken on our first project with
sea grasses and emergent coastal wetlands. We
are now identifying an interagency task force
where everyone is a partner, and naming hot
spots or pilot projects to put some things into the
ground. The next step is a major large-scale resto-
ration, with SCS providing the plant material, the
Corp of Engineers providing some of the earth
moving, Fish and Wildlife Service providing
some of the monitoring—and EPA clapping, but
being a full partner.
• Question: You are predicting how, with new
money from the Clinton package, the federal
agencies will work together in the newer pro-
grams. You could also look back at how the Corp
and the EPA have been working together and co-
operating in the current 404 programs. Has that
been to people's satisfaction?
• Answer—Bill Kruczynski: Is the existing
404 program, administered by the Corp of Engi-
neers, satisfactorily achieving restoration? Is that
your question?
• Question: No, are the two federal agencies
working together in cooperation?
• Answer—Bill Kruczynski: Not histori-
cally—we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The memorandum of agreement between EPA
and the Corp on mitigation was a major water-
shed in the greening of the Corp of Engineers.
Since that event, at least in our region—we deal
with eight versus nine Corp districts—all but two
have come along. Our response has been to try to
do the ecologically right thing.
• Comment—Milo Anderson: Ditto for the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
which all agencies must comply with to manage
their resources. For instance, every 10 years the
Forest Service must do a forest fly plan that can
be reviewed by every agency. EPA is required to
look at all these plans. In our region at the annual
environmental roundtable—not the last one, but
the one before— an interagency agreement was
signed to set the stage for interagency coopera-
tion. We have 15 signatures from federal agen-
cies, state agencies, and some conservation
organizations. There are some successes, but I
would like to hear any criticisms, too, including
the NEPA action.
• Comment—Wayne Schmidt: I have three
points on the issue of coordination. The first one
regards external EPA coordination. Someone in a
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
state agency that deals with CERCLA (Super-
fund) cleanups and works with EPA made the
comment that frequently the Superfund Branch
has a cavalier approach and does not communi-
cate with other branches because they are so
driven to get a site off the list. They need to in-
corporate others' recommendations. If they did,
they would be erring on the side of protective-
ness. Legally, they have no basis to chose less ex-
pensive remedies if they are not protective. That
is a common theme.
Second is the issue of integration or coordina-
tion with other agencies. A lot of talk today is
about coordination with other agencies; while I
do not see it, it may be there. How many are fa-
miliar with the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990? I did not know it ex-
isted until recently either, but it is a valuable op-
portunity to promote cooperative partnerships
and restore Great Lakes resources. Is there an
opportunity for greater liaison with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, once a coordinator for this pro-
gram is hired by the Service?
Region V needs a renewed commitment to
the national program under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Act. The comments, philosophy,
and the attitudes toward the International Joint
Commission (IJC) is not particularly construc-
tive. Whether or not you like the IJC, it provides
opportunities and authorities for progress that
we lack by working individually. The IJC poli-
cies for zero discharge, sunsetting of chlorine,
and other issues are increasingly under attack.
The last thing IJC needs right now is hostility
from EPA. Sometimes it is embarrassing; cer-
tainly it is not constructive.
The opportunities are there. An appreciation
for the role and the moral authority of the IJC and
its efforts for ecosystem restoration in the Great
Lakes needs to be recognized and supported.
• Question—William G. Painter: While we
hear about toxic chemicals, and I know they are
important, we need to think about more than
just toxic chemicals. Is that all you need to do
here? Are all the streams in great physical condi-
tion? Do you have most of the wetlands you had
before? EPA once again is focusing on human
health because people are frightened about toxic
chemicals. That is what people are most inter-
ested in, but that will not necessarily achieve
ecological restoration. What is the answer to
that?
• Answer: From my perspective from a state
agency in Minnesota, we have talked about the
landscape scale affecting a given resource that we
want to restore, in this case in the Great Lakes.
We need to change what is going on in the land-
scape, which ultimately affects the quality and
value of those Great Lakes. We are talking about
landscape treatment or watershed treatment; but
what is missing in this symposium's program is
the incentive to effect land use changes by pri-
vate land owners across the country.
Charlie Wooley pointed out the fair amount
of interest and first-time knowledge that such a
program existed for private land owners. I will
be talking in a later panel about a program in the
state of Minnesota. I look forward to questions
about private incentives or incentives for private
land owners.
This symposium needs to address what in-
centives are out there rather than just focusing
on what regulations we can all use to achieve
restoration. Restoration will be a small tool in
the overall needs. Incentives, education, and in-
formation will be much more influential and
substantial tools. Perhaps we should have a
separate breakout session Thursday morning to
just focus on incentives.
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: Earlier, your
deputy administrator recognized that we are no
longer in an era of expanding federal budgets
and charged us with coming up with a new slo-
gan to get more bang for the buck in restoration.
Here is my attempt: "ecological restoration,
global 'cents'ability." That gets across several
points. One is that certainly restoration costs
money; it could cost a lot of money. But what is
good for the environment and ecological integ-
rity is good for the economy. Putting fishable,
swimmable streams back certainly makes eco-
nomic sense and gets at the point of global sta-
bility. Our charge is to leave the world a little
better for kids than we found it. That is why we
are here.
I am really optimistic about our ability to re-
place ecosystems. It takes a long time. I know
they are not fully successful until the eagles
land, but a lot in the ground is 20 years old and
showing progress. The goshawk nesting in a re-
stored forest is a good example. And it makes
sense.
In fact, we are really talking about three types
of restorations. One type fixes something bad.
Another type is part of a permitting program,
like the 404 permitting program in which the
National Wetlands Policy forum requires no net
loss. To do that, we need to permit some things
and mitigate for the losses in some compensa-
tory way.
Restoration can also be on a global scale, a
larger scale with no regulatory issue forcing it.
We have inherited the environmental impacts of
our ancestors, resulting in a degraded Great
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
B. Frey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
Lakes system or a degraded Gulf of Mexico. We
need to recognize that the ecosystems are not
functioning optimally, find out what is limiting
to the ecosystem, and restore it. For all three lev-
els of restoration, you must assess and prioritize
the problem, and go out and do it.
In a regulatory program, the goal should be
to maintain credibility. If the Superfund makes
decisions by itself, it will not maintain credibility
because it is not doing the right thing and ignor-
ing other issues. In order to maintain credibility,
any regulatory program must be consistent; it
must have rules and regulations—404b(l) guide-
lines, for example. It needs economy of scale and
a touch of equity—that is, treating Republic Steel
the same ways you treat Mom and Pop in set-
tling an issue.
Finally, everything you do within a regula-
tory program must make ecological sense. The
rules must be flexible enough to avoid a decision
that does not make ecological sense. I have
heard this 50 times out in the field: "Yes, we'd re-
ally like to accept your offer, but our rules don't
allow it." Strictly interpreted, 404b(l) guidelines
lead us to situations where a developer might
propose something good for the system, but we
cannot accept it because he has upland alterna-
tives. But if he is destroying one-tenth of an acre,
preserving 200 acres, and restoring a big system,
our guidelines and our interpretation of the
guidelines need to be flexible enough to allow
that leeway and provide ways to accept offers
that make ecological sense.
Our goal in a permit situation is to do what is
ecological correct. Are we doing that now in the
wetland program? The answer is no. We are is-
suing permits for wetlands destruction and re-
quiring mitigation where warranted. We are
doing this permit-by-permit and getting on-site
and kind-for-kind restoration. Why? Because it
is easiest.
Our justification is that we are replacing what
has been lost in the watershed. But that is not
what may be limiting to the watershed. We may
have many cypress swamps in a particular wa-
tershed, and some other system may be limiting
it. So we should design compensatory mitigation
plans, not for expediency, but for ecological re-
sults. To do that, we must know what is limiting
to the system. We must do the surveys and
choose mitigation options to help maximize the
ecosystems.
Tampa Bay lost 50 percent of its sea grasses; it
has over 80 percent of its mangroves. If someone
wants to destroy one-tenth of a mangrove acre,
Tampa Bay's best interest may be in water quality
or sea grass improvement instead of putting back
an acre of mangroves when that is not limiting to
its fisheries. Our current wetlands permitting
system puts back all these little restoration sites
in isolation, not linking them in a landscape con-
text. Joy Zedler talks about "shake-and-bake"
wetlands; I call them "postage stamp" wetlands.
We do it because it is expedient.
How can we get better? How can we do
things that make ecological sense? As mentioned
before, we can develop watershed management
plans, making all decisions based on what is lim-
iting to a particular watershed. In Tampa Bay, for
example, coastal emerging wetlands are limit-
ing. So for any dredging project requiring miti-
gation, require coastal emerging wetlands or
bird nesting habitats, if that is what is limiting.
Or require upland spoil piles because tern nest-
ing habitat is limiting to the full function.
In a recent study, we looked at restoration
mitigation and permitting in the wetland pro-
gram throughout all five Gulf states and asked
the question: Is it working? The answer is no, be-
cause the projects are poorly designed and lack
compliance monitoring. Normally, they are done
by low bid. People walk away once they the pro-
jects are in the ground, and we do not see them
again.
The current system is not working. We need
to redesign the system. How can we use existing
authorities to make it work more effectively? We
need to share the load between all the agencies
involved in permitting and compliance monitor-
ing. We need to condition permits with stand-
ardized success criteria and monitoring
requirements and have contingency plans in case
the first choice of compensatory mitigation does
not work. We need to work at the landscape level
in watershed management plans to ensure that
the restoration is meaningful.
How do you develop a meaningful restora-
tion when no regulatory component is driving
it? Tampa Bay, for example, does not have the
speckled sea trout and red fish population it had
in the '50s, because regional dredging has
caused the sea grasses to decline. How do you
develop a restoration plan that addresses that?
What is the driving function? In the Gulf of Mex-
ico program, we brought experts together from
all the agencies, identified the resources in peril,
and prioritized them. Without that, a political
decision, not an ecological one, will be made.
Data is needed. Enough data out there show
that the Great Lakes are loaded with a particular
toxin that needs to be cleaned up quickly before
anything else is done. We need to develop action
plans or action agendas that lay out goals, objec-
tives, and specific action items to address the
relevant issues. The goal might be to achieve no
net loss of wetlands in the Great Lakes. How can
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
you get there? Achieving that goal is very sub-
jective. You need a more effective regulatory
program. You work with SCS in its programs;
the action items fit into those objectives, and
they are very specific. For example, convene a
workshop annually on plant materials availabil-
ity to guarantee enough plants to achieve these
restorations.
Because of the fragmentation among the dif-
ferent agencies, ecological restoration needs
some sort of federal oversight at the national
level. The National Resource Center persua-
sively proposed national oversight in its book.
• Comment: Some have proposed the Presi-
dent's Council on Environmental Quality be
given a rebirth and place establishing restoration
guidelines nationally on its agenda.
• Comment: Regarding the national land use
planning, if you look at the Great Lakes and
other systems, more than half of certain toxins
come in by air. So air issues clearly need to be
addressed very strongly to get certain ecological
restoration, particularly for great waterbodies.
• Comment: In reality, if you were to take a
recommendation from the National Academy of
Sciences Report on restoring aquatic ecosystems,
and restore 10 million acres at a cost of $10,000
per acre—a mid-range cost—that comes to $100
billion. I think that will take more than just en-
couraging land owners to do the right thing, or
more than meeting with local governments and
encouraging them to do the right thing.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's program with
private land is a great thing and should con-
tinue. But restoration works with land owners
by simply restoring the hydrologic regime to an
area humans have altered, allowing those wet-
lands to come back quickly on their own. That is
on the low end of the cost scale. We need to find
ways to finance these things; they are not cheap,
even using volunteers. And I do not know where
we will get that kind of money; it will take mas-
sive amounts of money for a half-way decent
job.
• Comment: Of course, wetland restoration is
not cheap. However, in the pilot program for the
Wetland Reserve Program, the average cost per
acre for restoring 49,000 acres—75 percent of the
cost of restoration—was $52. This did not in-
clude the permanent easement purchase, but did
include bringing back the hydrology and plant-
ing vegetation, if vegetation were possible.
• Comment—Wayne Schmidt: There is no
reason why we in the Great Lakes Basin cannot
live in a garden with pieces of our native land-
scape all about us. Chris Gruendler was abso-
lutely right—toxics are not everything. One of
the fundamental laws of ecology is "save all the
pieces." The work of groups like the Nature
Conservancy to help us save those pieces abso-
lutely complements our work on toxics. Poi-
soned food takes some of the fun out of living in
a garden—that is where we are right now.
APPENDIX:
PRINCIPAL U.S. EPA LEGAL
AUTHORITIES FOR ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION
Clean Water Act (CWA): 33 U.S.C. §1251
et seq. The principal objective of the act is to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of U.S waters. A chief sub-
sidiary goal is to eliminate the discharge of pol-
lutants into navigable waters. Permits are
required for discharges into surface waters. Sec-
tions 1254 (f), 1258, 1268, and 1293a(h) address
water quality in the Great Lakes. Sections 1267
(Chesapeake Bay), 1269 (Long Island Sound),
and 1270 (Lake Champlain) deal with the water
quality of other "great water bodies." Under sec-
tion 1344 (section 404 of the CWA), the govern-
ment can seek restoration of a wetland that has
been filled without a permit or in violation of its
permit.
The 1987 Amendments to Section 118 of the
act (33 U.S.C. § 1268) formally created the Great
Lakes National Program Office to research prob-
lems in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Critical Program Act of
1990, which amended sections 1254(f), 1258 and
1268 of the United States Code (sections 104,108,
and 118 of the CWA, respectively) establishes
deadlines for implementing remedial action
plans (RAPs) and lakewide management plans
(LAMPs) (first addressed under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement between the United
States and Canada), and mandates the speedy
implementation of uniform, stringent, and scien-
tifically defensible water quality standards
throughout the Great Lakes Basin. The require-
ments and timetables set forth in the Critical
Programs Act further the goal of restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Ba-
sin. The requirements for the implementation of
both LAMPs and RAPs specifically mandate the
development of documents that "embod[y] a
systematic and comprehensive ecosystem ap-
proach to restoring [emphasis added] and pro-
tection the beneficial uses of the . . ." waters of
each of the Great Lakes and designated areas of
concern within the Basin.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
B. Frey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
Section 1270 of the United States Code (sec-
tion 120 of the CWA) also specifically requires
the development of a pollution prevention, con-
trol, and restoration plan for Lake Champlain.
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): 42 U.8.C. §§ 9601 et seq. CER-
CLA (also known as "Superfund"), as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-
zation Act of 1986, provides for the governmen-
tally funded cleanup of primarily inactive,
hazardous substances disposal sites. Based on
strict liability, the government can recover its
costs from current site owners, past owners and
site operators, generators, and transporters of
waste sent to the site. In addition to costs in-
curred by the government in conducting a re-
moval or remedial action at the site, costs for
restoration of damaged natural resources
caused by releases of hazardous substances from
the site can be recovered.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990: 33 U.S.C. §
2701 et seq. This act establishes liability for
response costs in cleaning up a discharge of oil
or hazardous substances into navigable waters
or the adjoining shorelines and for damages re-
sulting from the discharge. Under the act, the
measure of natural resource damages is (1) the
cost of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or ac-
quiring the equivalent of the damaged natural
resources; (2) the diminution in value of those
natural resources pending restoration; plus (3)
the reasonable cost of assessing those damages.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by Protocol signed No-
vember 18, 1987. This agreement between
the United States and Canada addresses the issue
of Great Lakes water quality. Its purpose is to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. The agreement places great em-
phasis on the problem of toxic substances.
The agreement gives additional responsibili-
ties to the International Joint Commission (estab-
lished by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909).
The agreement creates the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board and the Great Lakes Science Advi-
sory Board.
The 1987 protocol requires that RAPs be de-
veloped and implemented for all areas of concern
and that LAMPs be developed for each Great
Lake.
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restora-
tion Act: 16 U.S.C. § 941 et seq. This law
requires a comprehensive study of the status,
and the assessment, management, and restora-
tion needs of the fishery resources of the Great
Lakes Basin.
State Statutes and the Common Law
Public Trust Doctrine
STATUTES, INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS, AND
PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY
PERTAINING TO RELEASES OF
POLLUTANTS IN THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN
Statutes
Clean Air Act (CAA): 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et
seq. The CAA was enacted in 1970 and
amended in 1977 and 1990. It regulates emis-
sions from mobile and stationary sources and
commands that air standards be set by reference
to public health. One section specifically ad-
dresses the issue of atmospheric deposition to
the Great Lakes.
• Section 7412(m): Atmospheric
Deposition to Great Lakes and
Coastal Waters. This section calls for a
study to identify, assess, and monitor the
extent of atmospheric deposition of
hazardous air pollutants to the Great
Lakes and other coastal waters.
Clean Water Act (CWA): 33 U.S.C. § 1251
et seq. The goal of the CWA is to eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.
Permits are required for discharges into waters.
Sections 1254 (f), 1258, and 1268 (also referred to
as the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990)
deal with water quality in the Great Lakes.
• Section 1254 (f): Great Lakes
Water Quality Research. Calls for
studies on the waters of the Great Lakes.
• Section 1258: Pollution Control in
the Great Lakes. Permits projects to
demonstrate new methods and
techniques to eliminate or control
pollution in the Great Lakes.
• Section 1268: Great Lakes. This
section facilitates the achievement of the
goals embodied in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended
by the Water Quality Agreement of 1987
and any other agreements and
amendments, by improving the
organization and definition of EPA's
mission, funding state grants for
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
pollution control in the Great Lakes area,
and improving accountability
implementing such agreement.
• Section 1268 et seq.: Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act of 1990. This
act amends section 118 of the Clean
Water Act. Its general purpose is to
improve the effectiveness of EPA's
existing programs in the Great Lakes by
identifying key treaty agreements
between the U.S. and Canada in the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), imposing statutory deadlines
to implement these key activities, and
increasing federal resources for program
operation in the Great Lakes System.
It requires EPA to publish proposed
water quality guidance for the Great
Lakes System that conforms with the
objectives and provisions of the GLWQA
and is no less restrictive than provisions
of the CWA and national water quality
criteria and guidance. The guidance must
specify minimum requirements for Great
Lakes waters in three areas: (1) water
quality standards, (2) antidegradation
policies, and (3) implementation
procedures. The Great Lakes states must
then adopt standards, policies, and
procedures consistent with this guidance.
If a state fails to do so, EPA is required to
promulgate requirements for that state
within a two-year period.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990: 33 U.S.C. §
2701 to 2761. The purpose of this act is to es-
tablish limitations on liability for damages re-
sulting from oil pollution. Two sections of the act
specifically address the Great Lakes.
• Section 3002: United
States-Canada Great Lakes Oil
Spill Cooperation. Pursuant to this
section, the secretary of state is required
to review existing agreements to
determine whether additional
agreements are necessary to (1) prevent
spills in the Great Lakes and (2) ensure
immediate removal.
• Section 4108: Great Lakes
Pilotage. This section designates who
may pilot a ship on the Great Lakes.
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Con-
trol: 16 U.S.C. 8 4701 to 4751. The pur-
pose of this act is to prevent, monitor, and
control the unintentional introduction of nonin-
digenous species into U.S. waters. It was enacted
primarily to address the problem of the zebra
mussel in the Great Lakes.
International Agreements
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by Protocol signed No-
vember 18, 1987. This agreement between
the governments of Canada and the United
States addresses the issue of Great Lakes water
quality. Its purpose is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the waters of the Great Lakes Ecosystem, and it
places great emphasis on the problem of toxic
substances.
The GLWQA gives additional responsibili-
ties to the International Joint Commission (es-
tablished by the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909). The agreement creates the Great Lakes
Water Quality Board and the Great Lakes Sci-
ence Advisory Board.
The 1987 agreement requires that RAPs be
developed and implemented for all areas of con-
cern and that LAMPs be developed for each
lake.
• Annex 15: Airborne Toxic
Substances. This section requires
efforts to be made to research, monitor,
and implement pollution control
measures for controlling and reducing
atmospheric deposition of toxic
substances.
Agreement between the Government of
the United States and the Government of
Canada on Air Quality, signed March 13,
1991. This agreement addresses shared con-
cerns regarding transboundary air pollution. It
references the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment and the Boundary Waters Treaty.
Memorandum Agreements
1986 Great Lakes Toxic Substances Con-
trol Agreement and the 1988 Memoran-
dum of Understanding. This agreement,
signed by the eight governors of the Great Lakes
states, is aimed at promoting greater regional co-
operation and attaining elimination of releases
of persistent toxic substances into the lakes.
In 1988, it was broadened to include Ontario
and Quebec provinces and was signed in a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The
MOU strengthened many of the original agree-
ment's provisions and set timetables for achiev-
ing objectives.
The signatory states acknowledge that a
large portion of pollutants entering the Great
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
B. Trey, W. Schmidt, W. Painter, W. Kruczynski
Lakes system is from atmospheric deposition.
Therefore, the states agree to consider the effects
of airborne pollutants on the Great Lakes system
when setting air emission standards and grant-
ing air emission permits.
A Hi-National Program to Restore and
Protect the Lake Superior Basin, Septem-
ber 1991. This document identifies the re-
sponses of the federal governments of the
United States and Canada; the states of Minne-
sota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; and the province
of Ontario to the International Joint Commis-
sion's recommendation that "the Parties desig-
nate Lake Superior as a demonstration area
where no point source discharge of any persist-
ent toxic chemical will be permitted." (This rec-
ommendation was made in the Fifth Biennial
Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.)
U.S. Pollution Prevention Action Plan for
the Great Lakes. This 1991 agreement be-
tween the U.S. EPA and the Great Lakes states
focuses on reducing toxic pollution and cross-
media impacts of pollution. It also promotes pol-
lution prevention practices throughout the Great
Lakes Basin.
Great Lakes Spill Protection Initiative.
This initiative is the result of a voluntary dia-
logue between the Great Lakes governors and
the region's petroleum companies. Its goal is to
ensure that the Great Lakes are well-protected
against environmental damage from crude oil
and petroleum product spills. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Policy and
Management
Approaches for
Restoration
-------
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches fen-
Restoration
Ecological Economic Issues of
Wetland Restoration
Dennis M. King and Jennifer L. Stevens
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
International Institute for Ecological Economics
Solomons, Maryland
The University of Maryland International
Institute for Ecological Economics
(MIIEE) was established in 1991 to pro-
mote the growing transdisciplinary
field of ecological economics. MIIEE deals with
synthesizing ecological and economic systems to
integrate training and research in science, eco-
nomics, and public policy. Ecological restoration,
a policy and management issue requiring inte-
grated ecological economic analysis, is a signifi-
cant part of my work. The growing controversy
over wetlands restoration is a high stakes eco-
nomic and ecological issue, with applied ecologi-
cal economic research yielding results directly
relevant to important policy decisions.
The wetlands restoration potential is intrigu-
ing. It offers the opportunity to improve and
possibly expand our nation's deteriorated wet-
lands resource base. To date, however, most wet-
land restoration has been mitigation for lost
natural wetlands and has failed to live up to ex-
pectations. Wetland restoration issues illustrate
the following three critical conflicts and chal-
lenges facing ecological and economic re-
searchers and those involved in formulating
environmental policy:
Aligning institutional perspectives to the
scale of the resource problem,
Accepting scientific uncertainty, rather
than waiting to "prove" everything
before we act, and
Accepting that we cannot afford to
measure the economic value of all
environmental benefits.
Aligning Institutional
Perspectives
For effective resource management, institutions
must understand the scale of the resource prob-
lem and the potential stakeholders. The number
and extent of institutional involvement is
roughly proportional to the problem's scale and
complexity. The more interrelationships between
resource systems and linkages through space
and time, the larger the number of institutions
involved in management decisions. In wetlands
restoration, for example, stakeholders include
U.S. EPA, state and local environmental plan-
ning commissions, DOT, and DOE. In addition,
municipal, commercial, residential, and indus-
trial developers and organizations such as
Ducks Unlimited are involved. Ecological eco-
nomics is about synthesizing the ecological and
economic interests—taking a broad perspective
about the causes and consequences of resource
problems.
Because of our historically narrow percep-
tion of resource problems, we have structured
our existing institutions to deal only with frag-
ments of ecological problems. Local, regional,
and even national organizations and resource
agencies deal with only part of each problem, re-
sulting in disjointed environmental policies, es-
pecially affecting wetlands.
Complex modern resource problems require
increasing the number and scale of institutions
involved, thereby increasing institutional over-
lap (see Fig. 1). Wetland restoration issues, for
example, should be treated at the watershed
level as part of a hydrologic system, instead of as
isolated resources. This requires new institu-
tions, since watershed boundaries do not often
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—The scale of resource management.
THE SCALE of RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Figure 2.—Realms of science.
Realms of Science
-,SYSTEM
^BIOSPHERE"'
RIVERA x
-^ BASIN xx x^
,. B83K3N V
N
V
VUAOC \
\ v
\ t
\ \
Scale in Space and Time
adipMd from Norton (1991)
fall neatly within single jurisdictions. To develop
a rational wetlands policy, we must overcome
significant institutional hurdles.
Accepting Scientific
Uncertainty
Our most important national and global natural
resource problems have high levels of uncer-
tainty that simply cannot be reduced in the time
we have to manage them. Scientific research that
accepts uncertainty as a given can, and in many
cases should, take precedence over current re-
search methods based on reducing uncertainty.
Ozone depletion, wetland/watershed manage-
ment, and deforestation are critical issues that re-
quire policy and management decision without
extensive, statistical proof. Figure 2 illustrates a
direct correlation between the importance of the
scientific question and its level of uncertainty.
The scientific community prefers to com-
ment on issues of pure science with low uncer-
tainty (Figure 2, bottom right) based on
controlled experiments, replication, and proof.
The community's reluctance to address policy is-
sues without hard scientific evidence can have
tragic results because their input is more valu-
able in the face of uncertainty. The void is often
filled by lawyers or policy wonks who serve spe-
cial interests and use scientific uncertainty to
their own advantage.
LEVEL of
UNCERTAINTY
adapted from Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991)
A Lack of Economic
Measurements
The economics profession has difficulty devel-
oping credible methods to measure the value of
non-use benefits, life-support functions, key-
stone species, and the like. Some conventional
economists believe only in traditional market
value indicators and that all challenges and
problems can be resolved by internalizing "ex-
ternalities" in an otherwise well-functioning
market system. Alternatively, we can assign safe
minimum standards for natural resource protec-
tion based on measures of ecological importance
and reversibility (King, 1992a).
Wetlands have many ecological and eco-
nomic functions and values (Fig. 3), most of
which are difficult to measure. Sediment trap-
ping, for example, has a multitude of eco-
nomic/ecological pathways to delineate, trace,
and value to determine its overall economic
value (Fig. 4). Sediment trapping reduces water
turbidity, which enhances submerged aquatic
vegetation, which serves as habitat for juvenile
fin fish, which improves commercial and recrea-
tional catching, and therefore generates eco-
nomic value. Sediment trapped by wetlands also
reduces the need for dredging, allows for more
cost effective hydropower, and so on. One could
spend a lifetime and a fortune trying to justify
the value of that one wetland function and still
not be able to generate a legally defensible
"proof" of loss. We will never be able to justify
protecting wetlands, an important part of our
ecological infrastructure, on economic grounds.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. King & J.Stevens
Figure 3.—Wetland function* and values.
WETLAND FUNCTION
A Ground water Recharge/Discharge
i Flood water Storage Conveyance/
Desynchromzauon
C Shoreline Anchoring
0 Storm Wave/surge Protection
E Sediment Trapping
F Pollution Assimilation
G Nutrient Retention/Cycling
H Fishery Habitat
1 Waterfowl Habitat
J Habitat for Fur-bearers
K Food-chain Support
TYPKS OF VALUE
Maintain healthy drinking water
Reduces soil erosion, property damage
Protects beaches, property, ecosystem
Reduces erosion, property damage
Maintains aquatic ecosystems; reduces
dredging requirements; maintains
nydropower
Reduces treatment costs, improves
public health
Maintains nitrogen balance
Belter commercial/recreational fishing,
lower seafood prices; improved
international balance of trade
Better hunting, birdwatchmg, etc
Improved commercial and
recreational opportunities
Off sue benefits to freshwater
anadromous, marine Fish, etc
WETLAND FUNCTION
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Agriculture - low intensity grazing
Energy (peat, etc )
Natural Producis-timber.hay.etc
Microclimate Regulation
Global Climate Regulation
Carbon Cycling
Storehouse of biodiversity
Active Recreation
Passive Recreation
Natural Laboratory/Classroom
General Aesthetics
TYPKS OF VALUES
High productivity, low farm costs
Major subsistence energy source
with some commercial value
Supply wholesale/retail markets
General life support; ill-defined
economic linkages
General life support; ill defined
economic linkages
General life support; significant
but unknown economic linkages
Direct, indirect and serendipity
value of scientific, medical dis-
coveries, genetic pools, seed banks
Boating, swimming, etc.
Sight-seeing, birdwatchmg, etc
In-field research/teaching - kinder-
garten through adult
Open space, natural beauty, spirit-
ual enrichment
POTENTIAL VALUATION METHODS
MA Market Analysis
Fl Net Factor Income
SC Substitute cost
RC Replacement Cost
TC Travel Cosi
CV Contingent Valuation
HP Hcdonic Pricing
PM Participation Models
CA Costs Avoided
Economics of Ecological
Restoration: A Closer Look
In our four-year investigation into the economics
of wetland restoration, we evaluated both cost
and success, or performance data, and found
both to be very low. Looking deeper at incentives
in the wetland mitigation market, we concluded
that costs and success rates were low because no
one was buying high-quality wetland restoration.
The wetland mitigation market provides for low-
cost permits, not high-quality restoration.
From an economist's perspective, this repre-
sents a perverse market incentive. Buyers are
normally price and quality conscious and only
buy what works. A permit in the mitigation mar-
ket, however, works just as well whether or not
the restoration works. Quality control will not
exist as long as regulators lack the skills and in-
clination to evaluate quality restoration work.
Without government standards, we will con-
tinue to see low-quality, poor performance resto-
ration work. Past restoration failures are not
caused by scientific failure but by failure to im-
pose mitigation quality standards. For market-
related mitigation, the government must accept
a permanent, full-time role in imposing quality.
However, to develop and implement quality
standards, we must assess our current knowl-
edge about wetlands restoration and decide
where we want to go with it.
The Learning Curve
Our ability to restore ecological functions can be
measured on a learning curve (Fig. 5) used in
complex applications of science and technology
(e.g., heart surgery, space exploration, microproc-
essing). Building on basic science and engineer-
ing (stage I) and some early experimentation
(stage II), we make initial attempts to apply the
new technology (stage III). After comparing the
results of independent applications (stage IV), we
see some standardization begin to emerge (stage
V), reducing uncertainty about results and help-
ing to isolate problem areas. At this stage, the
new technique's potential becomes apparent.
Practical applications do not emerge, however,
until practitioners develop specialized equip-
ment and materials (stage VI) that simplify the
application and reduce costs. These promote the
widespread and routine adoption of the tech-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 4.—Tracing economic Impacts of wetland loss; pathway E—eedlment trapping.
Sediment Trapping
Function
».
off Entering the -
Water Body -
— •>.
— »•
tion S Deposition
Water Turbidity
Increase of Sedi-
ment-Bound Nutrients
& Heavy Metals
r~
H
— ,»•
r*
j
1 „
— •»•
Alteration of
Water Flow
More Frequent
Dredging
Reduction in
Hydro-Power Capacity
Smothering of
Benthic Community
1 edH d hi
irwrrwnTHfn nnrnHnip
on "Sight Predator*
Fish
Lower Aesthetic
& Recreation
Value
Reduced Light
Penetration to
Aquatic Vegetation
Higher Costa
Treaknent
Increased Eutrophtcation
of Downstream Lakes,
Bays & Ponds
Possibility of
Metals Entering
the Food Chain
P
J
•»
,
[— "-
J
*
»•
Increased Govern-
ment Spending
Higher Shipping.
Boating Fees
Additional Environmental
Impacts from Dredging
Decline in
Species Abundance
Loss of Energy/Food
Input to Food Chain
Decrease in
Photosynthesis
-H
—
• — •»•
i — •»
• — •«•
i
.
Higher Taxes
Higher Prices
Higher Energy Cost
Higher Energy Use
Decreased Biota
Decreased Commercial
& Recreational
Fish Catches
(& Seafood Prices)
Higher Utility
Bills
Higher
Seafood
J ^ 1 HCG3
J
Figure 5. — Where are we on the learning curve for ecological restoration?
STAGE
VII
Wl
VI
IV
IV
III
II
1
1
ACTIVITY
rtoutlm/Cost-Eflectrve _.
Applications
Specialized Techniques
and Materials
Standardization
ol Methods
Comparison of
Methods
Initial
Implementation
Experimentation
Baste Science and
Engineering
^ • •— •* "™ ^ ^ ^ ~™
^~'"~~
s
s
/
/
/
M.O FOCUS 1991
/
/
^
/
/
/
i
i
i
.1
i
i i
Ecological Functions
Actually Restored
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. King & J.Stevens
nique and, if the technique actually works, accel-
erates the rate of social payoff—in our case the
ability to replace lost ecological functions.
Ecological restoration received a jump start
on the learning curve. Restoration practitioners
had been testing methods and materials and ex-
changing ideas for years before scientist and en-
gineers gave much attention to restoration
ecology. Even though scientists and engineers
are still at developing our knowledge base, we
are entering the critical stage (stage V) of emerg-
ing industry standards.
Basic research and experimentation are still
underway. But we are systematically reviewing
and camparing fragmented information about
restoration successes and failures collected from
scientists and practitioners worldwide (stage
IV), particularly for wetlands and other aquatic
systems—the focus of most recent mitigation ef-
forts. Similar trends are evident from deserts,
woodlands, bat caves, and other ecosystems
with less obvious economic value.
Based on these reviews and over the objec-
tions of those who believe that too little is known
or that ecological restoration is impossible, rough
standards for restoration work will soon be ap-
pearing. The only questions remaining are what
these standards will be and how they will be in-
fluenced by cost and quality considerations. And
as techniques become standardized, standards
will move towards greater and greater efficiency,
and cost will decrease accordingly.
A learning curve normally has countervail-
ing forces. One force pushes change and new
technology; another force restricts it. Perverse
incentives in the mitigation market create a
unique situation in restoration. Normally, envi-
ronmentalists and developers would be on op-
posite ends of a conflict. However, the
environmental community has resisted any real
restoration research, fearing the results will side-
track the conservation agenda. Developers,
while interested in restoration for mitigation, re-
sist quality controls that will engender contempt
for what has been passing as mitigation. So, both
forces are restricting ecological restoration, caus-
ing years of delay in achieving restoration goals
(King, 1991, and King, 1992b).
Where We Want to Go
Since our initial query into restoration cost per-
formance found a poor and invalid historical re-
cord, we pursued high-quality, first-hand
information for a more accurate picture of wet-
lands restoration potential. After discovering
that many wetland scientists (such as Mary Ken-
tula's group at the EPA Environmental Labora-
tory in Corvallis, Oregon) have been investigat-
ing performance considerations, we began
working with restoration experts to develop cost
performance profiles and provide insight into
current industry standards.
One research focus is determining the pro-
ject's success level and recovery speed compared
with the amount invested in the restoration ef-
fort by analyzing how variations of specific res-
toration tasks (and associated costs) affect the
functional recovery level (see Fig. 6). A com-
monly cited example is opting to seed (or to just
allow for natural revegetation/succession) over
planting. Planting requires more intensive mate-
rial and labor cost. However, if planting were
successful, the quick structural and functional
recovery could be well worth the added costs.
In the case of ecological restoration of miti-
gation, government decisions regarding such ar-
eas as sequencing and delineation determine all
factors affecting the location and shape of the
supply and demand curve (see Fig. 7).
The government must establish design, en-
gineering, and performance standards before
any rational industry will grow up around resto-
ration. In mitigation banking, for example, the
economic cost and risks are very low for banking
credits sold at the project planning stage. How-
ever, if sale requires a fully functioning wetland,
the economic costs and risks are enormous. If a
wetlands mitigation market is to develop, we
will need to strike a balance between the two.
Wetland Mitigation Markets
Economic and ecological balance issues should
be addressed when deciding overall watershed
goals. Watershed plans should determine the
trading rules under which everyone operates,
drive the kind of trading allowed, and define the
units and rules of exchange. Then economists
can determine various exchange incentives. In a
recent study (Shabman, King, and Scodari,
1993), we examined the feasibility and potential
benefits of promoting wetlands mitigation trad-
ing through "entrepreneurial" banking. The
study's finding and recommendations ad-
dressed six major themes:
1. Advanced credit sales. Regulators'
concerns about using private credit mar-
kets to satisfy mitigation requirements
center around the risk that created or re-
stored wetlands will fail. Most mitigation
banking guidelines say the banked wet-
lands used to satisfy mitigation require-
ments must be fully functioning or self
sustaining. Transferring this "zero risked"
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 6.—Creation and restoration tasks.
Phase I Preconstruction
Task
1.1 Background Research
1.2 Identify Alternative Sites
1.3 Develop Concept Plan
1.4 Select/Acquire Site
1.5 Develop Plans and Specifications
1.6 Select Contractors
Phase II Construction
Task
2.1 Site Preparation
2.2 Acquisition of Plant Materials
2.2 Installation of Plant Materials
2.3 Fertilize and Water
Phase III Post-Construction
Task
3.1 Site Maintenance
3.2 Modifications
3.3 Monitoring
Description
Determine goals, constraints, performance criteria,
budget, scheduling, etc.
Based on acceptable location, hydrology, soil, substrate,
geology, etc.
Obtain approval for general plan before final site
selection and plan specification
May include upland buffers and watershed area, and
easements through adjacent property
Final surveying, hydrological/geological profiles,
engineering and construction drawings, planting and
seeding specifications, etc.
Evaluate bids and award contracts
Description
Primarily earth moving (i.e., excavation and backfilling)
Plants and seeds from nature or wetland nurseries; may
require precise timing
Hand or mechanical planting and seeding
Special requirements during initial establishment
Description
Predator control, weeding, storm damage; especially
during initial year or two
Adjust hydrology or plant mix to ensure natural
sustainability
Routine observations of wetland characteristics and
functions for specified period
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. King & J. Stevens
Figure 7.—Regulatory Impacte on wetland mitigation markets.
REGULATORY IMPACTS on WETLAND MITIGATION MARKETS
Regulatory Decisions
that affect
SUPPLY
Regulatory Decisions
that affect
DEMAND
Design Standards
Construction Standards
Monitoring Requirements
Maintenance Requirements
Allocation of Liability
Time to Credit Approval
Trading Ratios
Trading Rules
Industry / Market Structure
Watershed Planning
Wetland Jurisdiction
Wetland Delineation
Wetland Classification
Sequencing Rules
Net Gain Goals
Mitigation Options
Trading Ratios
Trading Rules
ff
O
/ supply
demand
Q
Credit Quantity
strategy to the credit market alternative
would make credit suppliers bear all the
risk costs of mitigation failure. These costs
would probably be too high for most
firms to earn a competitive return on in-
vestment.
2. Contract conditions. Regulators must
clarify the conditions for credit trades in
memoranda of agreement and regulatory
permits. These "contracts" must define
rules for allocating the costs of project fail-
ure arising from controllable and uncon-
trollable factors.
3. Allocating liability. Credit suppliers
should be held liable only for costs of con-
trollable failures resulting from inade-
quate (nonstate-of-the-art) restoration
design, construction, and management
practices. This will provide incentives for
using best management practices without
undermining the economic viability or
credit markets.
4. Mechanisms and methods for allo-
cating liability. Regulators could use a
variety of mechanisms—higher trading
ratios, performance bonds, leases with
"collateral" banks, and insurance sys-
tems—to allocate the controllable risks of
mitigation failure to credit suppliers and
permit applicants. The level of risk costs
established in any particular mitigation
case must reflect realistic probabilities of
failure and repair costs.
5. Balance and public risks and re-
turn. A trading system that allows for ad-
vanced credit sales carries the largely
uncontrollable risks of mitigation failure
from limitations in the state of wetlands
restoration science and from unpre-
dictable natural events. To make this risk
acceptable, higher trading ratios should
be implemented.
6. Regulatory reforms. Regulatory re-
forms that introduce greater flexibility
into the permit process could improve the
operation of mitigation credit markets
and enhance the success of compensatory
mitigation.
If carefully structured, private credit mar-
kets can expedite and add predictability to the
permit review process and offer a competitive
economic return on investment to mitigation
supply firms. Most importantly, credit markets
can address the chief ecological and institutional
reasons for the widespread failure of project-
specific mitigation efforts (Scodari, 1993).
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
We must make many more policy decisions
before we can determine if wetland mitigation
banking is viable from either an investor or an
environmentalist's viewpoint. But one thing is
for certain—resource, especially wetlands, resto-
ration will require new and innovative policy
and management strategies that employ an eco-
logical economics approach. Stay tuned.
References
Puntowlcs, S., and J. Ravetz. 1991. A New Scientific Meth-
odology for Global Environmental Issues in R.
Costanza, ed. Ecological Economics: The Science and
Management of Sustainability. Columbia University
Press, New York.
King, D. M. 1991. Costing Out Restoration. Restoration and
Manage. Notes, 9(1).
. 1992a. Justifying Sustainability: Some Basics of Ap-
plied Ecological Economics. Pres. Second Conference
Int. Soc. Ecol. Econ.: In vesting in Natural Capital. Stock-
holm, Sweden.
. 1992b. The Economics of Ecological Restoration.
Ward and Duffield, eds. in Natural Resource Damages:
Law and Economics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Norton, B. 1991. Ecological Health Sustainable Resource
Management. R. Costanza, ed. in Ecological Economic:
The Science and Management of Sustainability. Colum-
bia University Press, New York.
Scodari, P. June 1993. The Credit Market Alternative. In D.
Salvesen. Banking on Wetlands. Urban Land.
Shabman, L., D. King, and P. Scodari. 1993. Making Wet-
lands Mitigation Work: The Credit Market Alternative.
SP-93-5. Department of Agricultural and Applied Eco-
nomic, Virginia Polytechnical Inst. and State Univ.,
Blacksburg, VA. (Available through P. Scodari, King and
Associates, Inc. 202-332-6995.) Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for
Restoration
On the Watershed Ecosystem
Approach
Daniel Willard
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
Bbomington, Indiana
All ethics so far involved rest upon a single premise,
that the individual is a member of a community of in-
terdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to com-
pete for his place in the community, but his ethics
prompt also to cooperate (perhaps in order that there
may be a place to compete for). The land ethics simply
enlarges the boundaries of the community to include
soils, water, plants and animals or, collectively: the
land.
Aldo Leopold
Land Ethic, 1949
Wtersheds and watershed ecosys-
;ms are land units with circulatory
/ater systems that contain surface
/ater, groundwater, precipitation,
trees, streams, and cows. Often they are in more
than one jurisdiction. This makes the jurisdictional
problem an extremely difficult one, although
some places have solved it. While some of our
planning is based on the essential role ground-
water plays in the watershed, we must think of
surface water and groundwater together. Leopold
talks about the watershed in the Land Ethic—not
just erosion, not just toxins, but the interaction of
all its parts. And the wise rinkerer does not throw
away any of the parts.
Ecological integration over the watershed is
essential; political and jurisdictional cooperation
between agencies and local government is even
more complex. In our work around Lake Calu-
met in Illinois, we found over 600 political units
involved in some way.
A watershed limits what you can do. Soil
types are not uniform; soils vary over the water-
shed, which determines the watershed's capac-
ity for public use.
The Watershed Puzzle
The puzzle combines a scientific problem, in
which scientists must show conclusively that ac-
tivities in one part of the watershed affect people
elsewhere, with the regulatory problem that pro-
tects the affected parties but does not restrict be-
nign use (after you decide what benign use is).
The joint solution for the scientific and regula-
tory problems must confront the question of eq-
uity among citizens within the watershed,
because some portions of the watershed can
support different economic uses.
A fundamental problem with this approach is
that watershed economics and politics are not con-
gruent. Sadly, jurisdictions compete for land and
water uses that enhance the goals of that unit of
government or jurisdiction. Often the goals of one
unit will harm the potential future of a neighboring
unit. Some discussion and compromise would im-
prove the quality of life for both units in the long
run. For most local governments, no forum for
their compromises now exists (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.—The noncongruency problem.
POLITICAL
WATERSHED
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Watershed study engenders several ques-
tions. What can the watershed do? How much
can you modify those processes and maintain
the long-term carrying capacity of that system?
What are the conflicts? Every watershed has
them. Can you make compromises through
management? And do you have the human re-
sources, the entities—public or private—to make
these kinds of plans?
Identify the Hydrology
The first thing to do in a watershed study is
identify the hydrology—where the water comes
from and where it goes. It is as simple and as
hard as that. The second thing to do is nail down
the land use. What are people doing out there?
And third, study the processes that operate to
cause change. Then, figure out the direction of
that change. No ecosystem, no watershed stands
still. The process of establishing goals, creating
realistic compromise, and implementing plans
takes time. Watershed planners must under-
stand the direction and rate of change suffi-
ciently well so as to intercept the ongoing
changes. The situation changes as we plan and
study. Thus, we must predict the conditions and
momentum that will be operating when we ac-
tually begin implementation.
To understand the future, we need to look at
the watershed's history. We collect ecological
history. We tape record the people who have the
information. We read old newspapers and jour-
nals. We learn from past mistakes. Remember,
those who do not study history are forced to suf-
fer it over again.
On the Pere Marquette watershed in Michi-
gan, we did several things. We integrated a scien-
tific model for flow, precipitation, surface water,
and groundwater, and a conjunctive model for
surface water and groundwater. We tried to inte-
grate wetland streams and ponds. The aquatic
restoration panel taught us mat lake restoration
success often means the destruction of a wetland
or river. Mitigation successes may cause adverse
impacts on a lake. Everyone thinks of success
relative to their own pet ecosystem.
On the Pere Marquette, we looked at every-
thing—water quality, fishery, bottom land vege-
tation, citizen data—anything we could get our
hands on. We looked at history, geological stud-
ies, presettlement studies, after settlement stud-
ies. You can find this information on every
watershed in the country. If someone were to try
to figure out what happened on one of the
Grand Calumet watersheds, they would find a
lot. You could study a whole variety of ecologi-
cal topics — heterogeneity, biodiversity, space,
and so on.
Plan for the Worst
Our lack of understanding about the self-regula-
tory properties of complex natural ecosystems
frustrates our attempts to manage watersheds.
We have confused the mechanical and stochastic
properties of physical systems with the adaptive,
often counter-intuitive homeostatic processes of
biotic systems. Many watershed /wetland sys-
tems require spatial and temporal variability of
external stimuli to support the diversity of organ-
isms that allow the system to adapt. They thrive
on risk and uncertainty.
We have attempted to manage this discon-
certing inconsistency out of the system. In the
process of making watersheds predictable and
consistent, we have lost the biotic parts. Non-liv-
ing systems just do not adapt well.
We should manage our ecosystems so that
they will persist during the probable worst
case. Most managers fail to study the formative
history of their piece of landscape. They manage
for a consistent maximum short-term yield of
one product, such as irrigation water, wood
ducks, navigation, or electric power. Their his-
tory is too short to see the important events that
shaped the ecosystem they manage. This failure
overlooks the importance of the mechanisms of
change in watershed /wetland systems. Thus,
often managers attempt to stop change and hold
the system in a static, stagnant state.
Plan in a Landscape Context
In watershed ecosystems, restoration plans
should be developed in a landscape context. If
not, the odds of failure are much higher. Collect
the available data. A lot of good data is out there;
it just may not be coordinated. Do not get too
hung up in developing your geographic infor-
mation system (CIS) — you can do a lot with
overlays. A GIS, particularly one not up and op-
erating, is like a sailboat or sports car — a hole
into which you throw money. It can be valuable
and fun if it is up and running, but do not be-
come a slave to it.
To solve the agency and jurisdictional turf
battles, focus on the resource. Use local citizens'
groups and governments as sources. Work bot-
tom up, not top down. Plan for the worst and
you will not be disappointed. U
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for
Restoration
Wetland Restoration in the
Section 404 Program
Steve Eggers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul, Minnesota
The Corps of Engineers (Corps) section
404 regulatory program has evolved
into one of the major factors leading to
the restoration and creation of wetlands.
Under that program, wetland restoration and
creation, as well as enhancement and preserva-
tion, can be required as "compensatory mitiga-
tion" to offset unavoidable adverse impacts that
result from permits issued for filling wetlands (see
Table 1 for definitions).
Table 1.—Definitions for Compensatory Mitigation.1
Restoration: ReestablishmentoUbe wetland
conditions that historically existed at a site that
currently provides reduced or no wetland functions
and values. Restoration can range from partially to
fully reestablishing the site's original wetland
conditions.
Creation: Construction of a wetland at a site that
was not wetland in the recent past (last 200 years).
Enhancement: Management techniques that
increase one or more functions of an existing
wetland without changing wetland type (e.g.,
prescribed burns to maintain a wet prairie).
Exchange: Conversion of one wetland type to
another (e.g., flooding a sedge meadow to create a
deep marsh for waterfowl habitat).
Preservation: Set-aside of wetlands in their existing
condition.
1 Definitions generally follow those given in the paper
"Options to be Considered in Preparation and
Evaluation of Mitigation Plans," by William Kruczynski in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication
entitled, Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status
of the Science. Volume II. (1989).
I use the term "evolved" because compensa-
tory mitigation has played an increasingly
prominent role in the section 404 program. To-
day, many applicants have at least a conceptual
compensatory mitigation plan when they submit
a permit application to the Corps.
Beginning to Understand
We are just beginning to understand how to suc-
cessfully restore and create most types of wet-
lands. The question I am often asked is this:
Given this situation, how can the Corps be issu-
ing permits on the condition that wetlands be re-
stored or created as mitigation?
Wetland regulations are perhaps 20 years
ahead of the science. While the regulations allow
for compensatory mitigation, we lack the scien-
tific basis for determining with a high degree of
certainty what methods work. That leaves the
Corps in a difficult position. Frequently, the
Corps cannot positively confirm that the pro-
posed compensatory mitigation will be success-
ful, nor can we conclusively show that it is
destined for failure. This uncertainty has led
some to suggest that the Corps deny all permits
rather than rely on efforts to restore and create
wetlands as compensatory mitigation. However,
this is not a workable solution. Denial of a per-
mit application is viewed as a very serious mat-
ter by Corps district engineers. To take that
action, the Corps needs a definitive basis to
show that the project is contrary to the public in-
terest. Additionally, permit denials on a large
scale would likely prompt adverse congressional
action concerning the section 404 program.
In many cases, the Corps' approach has been
to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant
and issue permits on the condition that wetland
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
restoration and/or creation be accomplished as
compensatory mitigation. Some of these mitiga-
tion plans are, in effect, experiments in wetland
restoration and creation. Considering the scope
of the section 404 program, these attempts at
wetland restoration and creation are being con-
ducted nationwide, involving thousands of acres
and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
An Ecological Learning Curve
The result is a learning curve in ecological resto-
ration. We are now starting to see the results of
these "experiments" and are learning from
them. Looking back at permits issued just five
years ago, I noted that what was accepted then
as conditions for compensatory mitigation
would not be accepted today. We have made a
quantum leap in improving special conditions,
techniques and monitoring, but we still have a
long way to go.
One of the most difficult questions is how do
we define "success?" Does successful wetland
restoration mean standing water, cattails, and a
pair of mallards?
The Wispark Case Study
The Wispark case study involves both wetland
creation and restoration at a site adjacent to the
Des Plaines River in southeastern Wisconsin. A
section 404 permit was issued for construction of
a new highway crossing the river and wetlands.
Conditions on the permit required that compen-
satory mitigation be accomplished on-site at two
locations: one in an agricultural field adjacent to
Jerome Creek, and another immediately south of
the new highway in an area that had been se-
verely degraded by a gravel pit operation. As we
shall see, these two locations illustrate the full
range of what can go wrong and what can go
right in our attempts at restoring and creating
wetlands.
At the Jerome Creek site (Fig. 1), excavation
created approximately nine acres of wetlands by
lowering the agricultural field elevation to ap-
proximate that of the adjacent natural wetland—
a sedge meadow grading to shallow and deep
marsh. Also included was an 8-acre upland buff-
er planted with native prairie species. The intent
was not to alter any existing wetlands, but rather
to create an extension of the existing wetland
complex that formed a corridor along the Des
Plaines River.
Figure 1.—Wispark - Jerome Creek Mitigation Site.
OPOSED 100 YR. FLOOD LIMIT
EXISTING 100 YR. FLOOD LIMIT
PROPOSED WETLAND, LIMIT
EXISTING WETLAND LIMIT
MITIGATION DETAIL 'A'
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
S. Eggers
During the first two growing seasons, this 9-
acre area was rapidly colonized by a diverse as-
semblage of native emergent aquatics such as
river bulrush, softstem bulrush, cattail and
water plantain, none of which was planted. The
species diversity was similar to that in the adja-
cent natural wetland complex; thus, the goal of
creating an extension to the complex appeared
to be realized. Wildlife use also paralleled that in
the natural wetlands: Canada geese, blue-
winged teal, sandhill cranes, Virginia rails, leop-
ard frogs, northern pike finger-lings, and other
species were observed in the created wetlands.
After four growing seasons, the 8-acre native
prairie planting had become relatively well es-
tablished. Problems included quack grass, but
management should diminish these problems
over time.
Compensatory mitigation can include man-
agement techniques to enhance existing wet-
lands. One of the best management options is
prescribed burns. Burns are an important compo-
nent of the Wispark mitigation plan, considering
that the presettlement vegetation was primarily
composed of oak savanna and wet-to-mesic prai-
rie, all of which are fire dependent. Unfortu-
nately, the general public equates fire with death
and destruction. We need to educate the public to
fire's beneficial use in managing natural areas.
For example, a prescribed burn of a reed canary
grass monotype at the Wispark site resulted in a
pleasant surprise: the appearance of eastern prai-
rie fringed orchids, a federally listed threatened
species.
In contrast to how well things went at the
Jerome Creek site, Murphy's Law applied to the
attempted wetland restoration south of the new
highway. The intent was to excavate fill placed in
wetlands years ago by the gravel pit operation
and construct a series of four shallow wildlife
ponds. Shortly after the ponds were excavated, a
compliance inspection found that the largest
pond (4 acres) looked more like a bomb crater
than a wetland mitigation site. Whereas flat
slopes of 8H:1V were specified in the permit,
slopes were actually much steeper. The permittee
subsequently regraded the slopes.
A serious problem was that the excavations
never exposed the native hydric soils thought to
be underneath the fill. Instead, a claylike subsoil
was exposed. In hindsight, we see two mistakes:
(1) inadequate soil borings to determine the loca-
tion and depth to the native hydric soils; and (2)
no contingency plan, as a condition of the permit,
required topdressing if the excavation did not ex-
pose a suitable substrate for the desired wetland
vegetation. Mineral topsoil or organic soils could
have been brought in for topdressing, but this
was not a special permit condition.
What else could go wrong? One of the worst
droughts in 50 years coincided with this work.
Repeated seedings of the slopes and areas bor-
dering the excavated ponds failed, leading to se-
vere erosion. After four growing seasons (1992)
and an end to the drought, these areas supported
50 to 60 percent vegetative cover. All four ponds
retained water even during the drought. In fact,
they are composed of deep, open water as op-
posed to shallow wildlife ponds.
The Patrick Lake Mitigation
Bank Case Study
Another example of an attempt to restore wet-
lands is the Patrick Lake mitigation bank of the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WDOT). Patrick Lake is located in southern
Wisconsin near Madison and is approximately
160 to 170 acres in size. Aerial photography dat-
ing to the 1930s shows a dynamic system, vary-
ing from open water to hemi-marsh to closed
marsh. The basin, drained in the 1960s, was put
into row crop production. Restoration of Patrick
Lake was identified as a potential compensatory
mitigation measure during review of a section
404 application for upgrading a highway seg-
ment located next to the basin. Dismantling the
drainage system would restore the entire 160 to
170 acres of the basin, far in excess of the com-
pensatory mitigation needed for this one project.
Thus, WDOT coordinated with the other agen-
cies and set up a mitigation bank.
As it turned out, dismantling the drainage
system was the easy part. WDOT went through
an arduous two-year process to negotiate pur-
chase of the lakebed from several landowners.
But WDOT was successful, and in the spring of
1992, Patrick Lake filled with water for the first
time in many years. The immediate response
from the seedbank resulted in tremendous vege-
tative growth that first year. Water plantain,
broad-leaved arrowhead, river bulrush, softstem
bulrush, and acres of smartweeds appeared
among the previous year's corn stubble.
With the return of standing water and wet-
land vegetation, ducks, geese, swans, and shore-
birds returned the first year of restoration.
In summary, Patrick Lake was an example of
compensatory mitigation with a known high
probability of success: restoration by reflooding
hydric soils. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for
Restoration
Water Quality Regulations and
Approaches to Support Ecological
Preservation/Restoration
Clayton Creager
Benjamin Parkhurst
Jon Butcher
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Petaluma, California
This manuscript was submitted for publication in the proceedings
after the Symposium on Ecological Restoration.
The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Na-
tion's waters.
Clean Water Act
Section 101(a)
This paper responds to the need to clarify
the objectives and rationale for habitat
preservation/mitigation of aquatic sys-
tems to address water quality problems
as an integral component to fully implement the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Alternative strategies be-
ing developed as part of EPA's Office of Water
Watershed Protection Approach should receive
broader recognition and acceptance as a viable
means to implement a more comprehensive (i.e.,
inclusive of ecological restoration) water quality
program. Most water quality professionals under-
stand that the second element (physical) of the
opening phrase above from the CWA has not been
well served by the programs developed to imple-
ment the Act. Further progress in restoring and
maintaining the other two elements (chemical and
biological) will be difficult without incorporating
more explicitly preservation and restoration of
physical habitat into the water quality program's
mission. This can be accomplished to some extent
by expanding the definition of water quality used
by many water quality agencies to include the
biological and physical properties of waterbodies
(including the continuum of linkages with terres-
trial systems). The focus would then be on "water-
body integrity." This paper reports on innovative
waterbody strategies that result from an aggres-
sive interpretation of the CWA and alliance with
other resource agencies to create basin approaches
that employ a more holistic management ap-
proach to waterbody problems. These strategies
would be enhanced if the CWA is amended to
broaden its mandate, giving waterbody integrity
programs more explicit sanction to consider the
physical and biological components (Figure 1).
Background
Implementation of the CWA of 1971 and its
amendments has resulted in significant im-
provements to the water quality of many U.S.
lakes and streams. Many waters now support
much more diverse and productive aquatic com-
munities than prior to the Act. Initially, most of
these improvements resulted from implementa-
tion of technology-based effluent limitations that
brought about significant reductions in dis-
charges of conventional types of pollution, such
as municipal wastes with high levels of biologi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD), gross industrial pol-
lution, and others. The second round of water
quality improvements has included water qual-
ity-based controls on toxic chemicals and whole
effluent toxicity. These controls have brought ad-
ditional improvements to the aquatic communi-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Facets of river basin management that should be Incorporated In basin planning to address physical and
biological attributes of river basins.
Attributes
Mangement
Facets
( Physical j
River Channel
Aspects of Each
Management Facet
Water
Water quality control
Hydrological regulation
Channel Control
Land
Land degradation control
Land use regulation
Ecology
Preservation/diversification/
restoration
Human Activities
Socioeconomic
benefits
Adapted from Downs et al. 1991
ties in many surface waters. Presently, the focus
is on even more stringent chemical and toxico-
logical limitations for point sources and controls
of nonpoint sources. The costs of implementing
these more stringent water quality standards are
increasing rapidly, while the incremental im-
provements in aquatic communities likely to be
gained are decreasing, and improvements are
difficult to quantify. In some previously de-
graded surface waters, water quality has im-
proved to the point where factors other than
water quality limit or totally prevent full restora-
tion of the aquatic community. These other fac-
tors include physical and biological habitat and
water quantity.
A large proportion of U.S. surface waters, es-
pecially lakes and streams, have suffered from
chemical, biological, and physical habitat degrada-
tion as a result of urbanization, deforestation,
over-grazing, industrialization, agricultural prac-
tices, mining, flood control projects, channeliza-
tion, reservoir and dam construction, diversions,
dredging, and others. Because of improvements
in water quality from control of point source dis-
charges, restoration of the biological and physi-
cal habitat in these waters could produce large
improvements in the structure and function of
biological communities beyond those gained by
improving water quality alone. Improvements
in the physical and biological habitats of surface
waters also can lead to improvements in water
quality by increasing the capacity of aquatic eco-
systems to process contaminants (i.e., restore as-
similative capacity).
In its recently-issued report, the National
Research Council (NRC, 1992) concluded that
habitat degradation is a primary factor limiting
attainment of beneficial uses of the nation's sur-
face waters. The NRC also concluded that an ac-
celerated effort toward restoration of aquatic
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
ecosystems is needed, and that failure to restore
aquatic ecosystems promptly will result in
sharply increased environmental costs later, in
the extinction of species or ecosystem types, and
in permanent ecological damage.
The CWA is likely to be re-authorized in the
near future. In the past, the cost effectiveness of
new water quality regulations were generally
not considered. The revised CWA, however, may
likely require such economic considerations.
Therefore, an evaluation of the cost effectiveness
of alternative means of attaining beneficial uses
of surface waters is needed. In addition, stream
restoration projects often are labor intensive;
therefore, use of funds for such projects has the
additional benefit of creating numerous jobs, po-
tentially in urban and rural areas with high un-
employment rates.
This paper will provide a summary of policy
and program approaches that support physical
habitat preservation and restoration and pro-
vides a technical basis for the linkage of in
stream restoration with traditional water quality
programs by describing specific relationships
between physical habitat factors and water qual-
ity parameters. The paper also reports the re-
sults of both a regional and site-specific scoping
exercise to identify candidate systems for which
physical habitat restoration should be a primary
consideration. The paper describes a current
project located on the South Platte River as a
physical habitat restoration case study. This sec-
tion also includes a preliminary economic analy-
sis on a site-specific scale to evaluate by
comparison the costs of a site-specific physical
habitat restoration approach with a traditional
treatment engineering approach. The final sec-
tion reviews key issues that remain as obstacles
to inclusion of physical habitat considerations
into water quality programs.
Summary of Program
Approaches and Policy Options
to Promote Habitat
Preservation/ Mitigation
Basin Approaches to Water
Quality Management (Watershed
Protection Approach)
Water quality programs have been created to re-
flect the structure of the enabling legislation (i.e.,
CWA). This structure provides a strong legisla-
tive mandate that has enabled water quality pro-
grams to establish their regulatory authority and
has built a record of legal precedence in the
courts supporting that authority. Water quality
programs developed in this manner, however,
have historically not been well coordinated or
integrated. Water quality management strategies
often reflect program requirements that may not
be fully consistent with the issues most responsi-
ble for impairment to the waterbody. To achieve
the objective of healthy aquatic ecosystems,
water quality programs must have a framework
that provides flexibility to form synthesis solu-
tions that address problems with any or all of
the elements (chemical, physical, biological) of
the waterbody.
The Office of Water is supporting states that
have requested assistance (North Carolina, Dela-
ware, and Washington) to develop and imple-
ment basinwide water quality management
approaches. This support is provided as part of
the Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands'
Watershed Protection Approach. These are state-
based initiatives, where the states are designing
their own basinwide water quality management
programs. These comprehensive geographically
targeted risk-based water quality programs are
designed to facilitate integrated solutions inclu-
sive of physical habitat preservation/restora-
tion. This approach is a synthesis of traditional
regulatory programs, nonpoint source pro-
grams, and basin planning to achieve a broadly
based stewardship of aquatic resources. In addi-
tion, the Delaware and Washington basin strate-
gies are likely to include local planning groups
and other State and Federal resource agencies. In
these States, the definition of water quality has
been expanded to be more inclusive of physical
and biological components.
Figure 2 illustrates three principles featured
in the basinwide approach: (1) risk-based geo-
graphic targeting, (2) stakeholder involvement,
and (3) integrated solutions (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1991a).
Figure 2.—Basin-wide planning elements.
Risk-based
Geographic
Targeting
Stakeholder
Involvement
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Risk-based geographic targeting: As illustrated
in Figure 3, generic steps used to develop a basin
plans, a unique feature of this approach is the
collection of environmental data to determine
priority waterbody issues within the basin. The
use of environmental data to target specific
water quality impairment is the "risk-based"
component of the program. The steps listed in
Figure 3 represent the framework that enables a
risk-based approach to be taken by placing the
monitoring and assessment components at the
beginning of the waterbody management proc-
ess. Therefore, use impairment, impacts on bio-
logical integrity, and violations of water quality
standards are used to set the management
agenda. Those stressors having the largest im-
pact on water quality or posing the greatest risk
to the integrity of the resource receive the most
attention in the development of management
strategies.
Figure 3.—Major steps and Information transfers In developing basin water quality management plans.
•Stakeholders*
Other Agencies
Dischargers
Tribes
Advocacy
Groups
Citizens
14. Update the Plan
1. Public Outreach
Year!
2. Canvas for Information
3. Analyze Information
No
5. Determine Status of Basin Resources
6. Identify Problems and Critical Issues
Loading & Habitat
7. Define Management Goals
8. Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
9. Evaluate and Describe Management Options |
10. Select Management Approach
11. Prepare Draft Basin Plan
12. Review/Public Hearings
\
13. Implement Approved Basin Plan
Years
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
"Risk" in the context of basin wide planning
has thus far not meant probabilities of adverse
effects, as is the case for ecological risk assess-
ment (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1991b). Rather,
it has been used as a more qualitative indication
of impairment to human health and ecological
resources, designated uses of the waterbodies, or
a combination of these resulting from human-
made pollution and natural processes, based on
a review of environmental data. Phillips (1989)
presents a probabilistic approach to targeting
nonpoint source pollution control in a water-
shed context that could be used as a tool in the
basinwide approach to make the risk analysis
more rigorous and quantitative.
The program is based on "watershed units"
(basins) defined by the States that are then set on
an iterative five-year management cycle. The
fundamental organizational unit of this ap-
proach—basin planning teams—target specific
stressors based on their potential to produce im-
pairment to human health, ecological resources,
or designated uses. Basin planning teams must
consider a wide range of potential stressors in
watersheds (Table 1). The basinwide planning
approach identifies the highest risk stressors
within watersheds using water quality data, bio-
logical monitoring data, habitat suitability data,
land use information, and information on the lo-
cation of critical resources. All available funding
sources are used to address the problems identi-
fied by the team regardless of whether the prob-
lem is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, an urban nonpoint
source management plan, or a habitat restoration
project. Everything is on the table for the ranking
and management strategy process.
The assessment tools include water quality
models, statistical indicator indices, and geo-
graphic information system (CIS) overlays. The
stressors with the greatest potential to yield im-
pairments are targeted, and optimal corrective
management strategies are developed and im-
plemented. The targeting process may range
from qualitative ranking to computerized tech-
niques that incorporate various numeric criteria
and weighing factors (Adler and Smolen, 1989).
Figure 4 represents an idealized scenario depict-
ing the relationship of various funding sources
to the basin planning teams' ranking of priority
issues. Due to resource limitations, not all issues
identified are funded for corrective action in the
Table 1.—Problems that may pose health or ecological risk In a watershed.
• Industrial wastewater dischargers
• Habitat alteration, including wetlands loss
• Flow variations
• Municipal wastewater, stormwater, or combined sewer overflows
• Nonpoint source runoff or seepage
• Waste dumping and injection
• Accidental toxics materials release
• Atmospheric deposition
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
.
State Funding Sources
Permit and Other
User Fees
State Central Office - (Headquarters)
Basin 1 Water Quality
Management Team
Basin 1
t. Habitat Restoration in Sub-basin 6
2. Permit for Major Discharger :
3. Purchase of Habitat In Sub-basin 3
5.
N. Permit for Minor Discharger
Basin 2 Water Quality
Management Team
1. Municipal Stormwater Plan
2. Purchase Water Rights
& Permit for Major Dlsetiarger
5.
6.
7.
N.
Federal Grants
• 106 -201 'Etc
•319 •OSDA
Basin 3 Water Quality
Management Team
5. Habitat Restoration for Sub-basin 2
7.
N.
3
a
3
*i
I
z
•o
a
i
o
s
1
I
a
•5
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
first iteration of the five-year basin planning cy-
cle. Successive iterations of the five-year plan-
ning cycle (Figure 5) establish a long-term
management framework to reassess the basin
and build upon the efforts of the first cycle.
The source of the problem can be in the wa-
tershed, along the riparian or floodplain zone, or
in the channels and pools.
Stakeholder Involvement: Recruitment for
membership on the basin planning teams for
problem analysis and creation of solutions
should be broadly based and include all who
have an interest in the resource management. Ta-
ble 2 lists potential candidates for participation
on the basin planning team. Successful volun-
tary compliance programs have demonstrated
the importance of including and providing a
meaningful role for the potentially affected par-
ties (stakeholders). Their involvement in the
plan's development will enhance the implemen-
tation of both the voluntary and regulatory com-
ponents of the basin plan. Stakeholders can also
make significant contributions to creative solu-
tions, such as discharger funding of stream res-
toration projects in return for credits on their
permit (e.g., Tar/Pamlico Basin, North Caro-
lina). In addition, other agencies provide a
broader mandate for resource management and
can also contribute to funding for restoration ac-
tivities. The manner in which stakeholders are
involved may vary from State to State, but it is
essential to create consensus on goals and objec-
tives for addressing watershed problems, proc-
esses for coordinating implementation activities,
and evaluating the efficacy of problem solutions.
Integrated Solutions: The basin approach pro-
vides a framework to design the optimal mix of
water quality management strategies by inte-
grating and coordinating across program and
agency boundaries. Integrated solutions imple-
mented by basin management teams use limited
resources to address the most significant water
quality problems without losing sight and plan-
ning for other factors contributing to the re-
Table 2.—Potential basin plan participants.
• State environmental, public health, agricultural, and natural
resources agencies
• Local/regional boards, commissions, and agencies
• EPA water and other programs
• Other Federal agencies (e.g., USDA-SCS, USDOI, USACOE)
• Tribal representatives
• Public representatives
• Private wildlife and conservation organizations
• Industry representatives
• Academic community
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 5.—Long-term management framework.
Year 2 of Basin Program - Year 2 of Basin #1 Cycle
YEAR1 YEAR 2 YEAR3 YEAR 4 YEARS
Public Outreach/
Involvement
Canvas for Information
Analyze Information
Determine WQ Status
Identify Problems/
Loadins
Define Management
Goals
Prioritize Problems
Evaluate Describe Mgt.
Options
Select Mgt. Approach
Prepare Draft Basin Plan
Implement
I
I
Year 2 of Basin Program - Year 1 of Basin #2 Cycle
YEAR1
YEAR 2
YEARS
YEAR 4
YEARS
Public Outreach/
Involvement
Canvas for Information
Analyze Information
Determine WQ Status
Identify Problems/
Loadings
Define Management
Goals
Prioritize Problems
Evaluate Describe Mgt.
Options
Select Mgt. Appraoch
Prepare Draft Basin Plan
Implement
Completed
Current Activity
Planning
Future Activity
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
source's degradation. Integration through basin
approach provides a means to achieve the short-
and long-term goals for the basin by allowing re-
source application both in a timely and geo-
graphically targeted manner. For example,
rather than have each program decide inde-
pendently the basin objectives on a different
schedule, the basin receives the combined re-
sources and attention of all water quality pro-
gram components (and other participating
agencies) simultaneously. This helps ensure that
problems representing 20 percent of the impact
on the resource (low risk stressors) receive 20
percent of the management resources. Integrated
solutions are possible because of a framework
that encourages an interdisciplinary and inter-
agency team to develop the most appropriate
plan, rather than imposing predetermined solu-
tions through rigid application of regulations.
Section 303(d) Total Maximum
Daily Load
Section 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) provides a central rationale for the
water policy agency to assess and regulate on a
watershed basis. A TMDL is most often defined
as a waterbody's capacity to assimilate pollut-
ants without exceeding water quality standards
or impairing the use of the waterbody or its eco-
logical integrity. The assimilative capacity of a
stream is often related directly to its physical in-
tegrity. As the next section documents, several
physical habitat BMPs (in stream and adjoining
land) can maintain or restore lost assimilative ca-
pacity. Restoration leads to both improved
chemical water quality parameters and biologi-
cal integrity. The focus of most TMDL studies
and actions have been pollution control of was-
teloads and, secondarily, of NFS loads.
The "Guidance for Water Quality-Based De-
cisions: The TMDL Process" (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1991c) has recognized the role of physi-
cal habitat in this equation:
However, it is becoming increasingly apparent
that in some situations water quality stand-
ards—particularly designated uses and biocrite-
ria—can only be attained if nonchemical factors
such as hydrology, channel morphology, and
habitat are also addressed. EPA recognizes that
it is appropriate to use the TMDL process to es-
tablish control measures for quantifiable non-
chemical parameters that are preventing the
attainment of water quality standards. Control
measures in this case would be developed and im-
plemented to meet a TMDL that addresses these
parameters in a manner similar to chemical
loads. As methods are developed to address these
problems, EPA and the States will incorporate
them into the TMDL process.
The use classification component particularly
compels the TMDL process to go beyond tradi-
tional water chemistry and investigate use impair-
ment due to habitat constraints. The habitat
component can be incorporated into the TMDL
process first by including a habitat evaluation
component in the "identification of waters" proce-
dure and then subsequently portraying the rela-
tive importance of chemical, biological, and
physical problems in preventing attainment of
use. The next step of the process would be to in-
vest in remediation, which targets the critical
factors preventing attainment of use—even if
that means setting water quality issues aside to
deal with habitat issues. This may not be possi-
ble in the current manner in which the CWA is
interpreted and implemented in most instances.
The current paradigm would require us to im-
prove the water quality, for example, from 20
ug/L Cu down to 15 ug/L Cu even though the
impairment due to the 20 ug/L may be negli-
gible compared to habitat constraints.
The information on the number of systems
for which physical habitat remediation would be
a potential strategy to address both TMDL and
impaired use concerns is mostly anecdotal. The
instances where restoration would be the opti-
mal strategy are probably numerous across all
regions of the country. However, a better esti-
mate of the number of waterbodies that would
benefit from physical habitat restoration to put
this strategy into a national perspective is
needed. This paper presents a potential scoping
or screening protocol for evaluating a large
number of waterbodies in a basin to identify
candidate sites for physical habitat remediation.
The similarities between the basinwide ap-
proach and the TMDL process are not coinciden-
tal. The basin approach was designed to fulfill
both the quantitative and qualitative require-
ments of the TMDL process. The basinwide ap-
proach is an attempt to institute a framework for
a risk-based assessment and management pro-
gram to ensure consistency from one basin to the
next and from one State to the next.
NPDES Stormwater Permitting
The NPDES stormwater permitting provisions
of Section 402 of the CWA provides substantial
support for restoration of physical habitat of ur-
ban waterbodies. EPA's "Results of the Nation-
wide Urban Runoff Program: Volume I - Final
Report" (1982), highlighted the problems associ-
ated with the physical aspects of urban runoff. In
many of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
(NURP) cities, sedimentation and scour were
cited as key factors preventing the attainment of
aquatic life use. In Bellvue, Washington, "habitat
changes (streambed scour and sedimentation)
had a more significant effect than pollutant con-
centrations ...." Since sediment is both a water
quality and physical habitat parameter of con-
cern, the NPDES stormwater permitting pro-
gram has a mandate to address urban
sedimentation problems. This can be accom-
plished by requiring the development and appli-
cation of controls to diminish this problem as
part of both the municipal and industrial (con-
struction) permit requirements. The preamble to
EPA's stormwater rule mentions that mobiliza-
tion of sediment from an acre of land under con-
struction is much higher than what is typically
coming from an agricultural field. Therefore,
sedimentation is part of the charge related to the
NPDES stormwater permitting authorities.
Other Supporting Components
oftheCWA
Many other elements of the CWA support con-
sideration, protection, and restoration of physi-
cal habitat and discussing all the supporting
components of the CWA is not possible. How-
ever, we should briefly note a few of these com-
ponents. The Antidegradation Policy provides a
baseline not only for chemical water quality pa-
rameters but also for designated use (and the
physical habitat element for both). The section
404(c) provisions for mitigation have provided
new opportunities for mitigation/restoration
and occasionally preserving important habitat. A
recent innovation in the advanced identification
of wetlands procedures promotes evaluation of
the roles and functions of wetland and riparian
habitat in the watershed (Marcus et al. 1992).
Nonpoint source programs sponsored through
section 319 are recognizing and more frequently
implementing a continuum of best management
practices (BMPs) from near field (instream) to
far-field BMPs to address both the symptom and
the cause of poor resource management. EPA's
water quality standards criteria program has
published methods and guidance on holistic
evaluations to allow a state to determine the
cause of use impairment. EPA has encouraged a
holistic evaluation by discussing and supporting
it in a variety of standards and guidance docu-
ments including:
• "Water Quality Standards Handbook"
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1983a)
• "Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses" (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1983b)
• "Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control" (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990)
The recent resurgence of the holistic concept
is going a step further than the assessments de-
scribed in these documents. The purpose is to
identify those physical, biological, and chemical
components that are impairing use, and to commit
resources and the CWA regulations to actually do
something about the preservation and restoration
of all these components. In the recent report of the
Long's Peak Working Group on National Water
Policy (Nat. Resour. Law Center, 1992), many of
the nation's leading water quality professionals
and public interest group advocates gave a ring-
ing endorsement of this concept.
The Montana—Natural
Streambed and Land
Preservation Act (310) and
Stream Protection Act
The State of Montana has taken an explicit and
proactive approach to preserve and protect
streams and their riparian habitat. This may be
the most cost-effective approach to realize the
benefits of intact physical habitat on water qual-
ity. The act prohibits any activity in the stream-
bed or in surrounding habitat that would
"obstruct, damage, diminish, destroy, change, or
modify or vary the natural existing shape and
form of any stream its banks or tributaries"
without first notifying the State. The State then
reviews and approves or disapproves the pro-
ject. If the project is approved, the State can spec-
ify mitigation to diminish any adverse effect
from the project. These acts have provisions for
fines for individuals found in violation. Amend-
ing similar language into the CWA would re-
move any ambiguity regarding a mandate for
physical habitat preservation and restoration.
Summary of Restoration
Techniques and the
Water Quality Parameters
They Impact
This section discusses the relationships among
physical, chemical, and biological habitat and
water quality parameters that often adversely af-
fect aquatic life and limit attainable uses in
streams. Adequate understanding of these rela-
tionships is critical for determining whether
habitat restoration and preservation can be used
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
to cost-effectively improve water quality, thus
reducing the need for more costly conventional
wastewater treatment. A summary is presented
in Table 3.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in sur-
face waters are determined by many factors such
as water temperature, salinity, biological respira-
tion, chemical oxygen demand, photosynthesis,
and transfer of oxygen into water from the at-
mosphere. The most important consideration for
DO requirements in surface water is minimum
concentrations. Minimum DO concentrations in
streams occur at night when aquatic plants are
not photosynthesizing, but all aquatic organ-
isms, including plants, are respiring. The lowest
DO concentrations generally are encountered
immediately before dawn. In most streams not
receiving significant inputs of materials with
high chemical and biological oxygen demand
and nutrients that stimulate plant growth and
respiration, adequate DO concentrations to sup-
port a healthy aquatic community will be main-
tained by natural reaeration. But in other
streams, DO concentrations can be depressed to
levels detrimental to aquatic life. Some types of
habitat restoration practices that can increase
DO concentrations include
• Constructing small hydrologic drop
structures to increase reaeration rates.
• Constructing wetlands to intercept
nonpoint sources of nutrients, which in
turn will reduce aquatic plant growth
and respiration demand within the
stream.
• Planting trees and bushes along stream
banks to reduce incident sunlight and
water temperature, which in turn will
reduce aquatic plant growth and
respiration demands.
• Increasing stream depth, narrowing
stream width, and increasing undercut
banks to reduce aquatic plant growth
and water temperatures, which will
reduce respiration demands.
Table 3.—Relative effect of selected stream habitat restoration practices on some water quality parameters.
Restoration Practice
Relative Effect of Restoration Practice on Water Quality
Minimum
Bio-
Suspended available
Build Drop Structures
Create Wetlands
Plant Streambank Trees
and Bushes
DO
t
t
t
Temperature
0
0
;
PH
*
1
1
NH3
1
1
1
Solids
t
1
1
Metals
0
1
0
Increase Channel Depth,
Narrow Stream Width,
Increase Undercut Banks
0
Build Settling Ponds on
Tributaries
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Temperature
Abnormally high water temperatures can ad-
versely impact aquatic life, especially coldwater
species such as trout. As discussed in the next
section, increases in water temperature also in-
crease un-ionized ammonia concentrations.
High water temperatures also contribute to low
DO concentrations by increasing plant growth
and respiration rates, and decreasing the solubil-
ity of oxygen. In most streams with abnormally
high water temperatures, the cause is solar heat-
ing. The exception to this is waters receiving
thermal discharges. In some streams, abnor-
mally low water temperatures can adversely af-
fect warmwater aquatic life, such as in
warmwater rivers downstream of dams with hy-
polimnetic discharges.
Types of habitat restoration practices that can
be used to decrease water temperatures include
• Planting trees and bushes along stream
banks to reduce incident sunlight.
• Deepening stream depth, narrowing
stream width, and increasing undercut
banks to reduce solar wanning.
pH
The acidity (pH) of most streams is controlled by
the carbonate buffering system. Exceptions to
this is streams acidified by strong mineral acids,
such as those impacted by acidic precipitation
and acid mine drainage, and naturally acidic
streams, which are acidic because of organic ac-
ids. In most circumneutral streams, pH is con-
trolled by the carbonate system. In most waters
with relatively high alkalinity, pH does not vary
much. However, in waters with large standing
crops of aquatic plants, plant uptake of carbon
dioxide during photosynthesis can cause pH
levels to rise by several pH units, because carbon
dioxide uptake removes carbonic acid from the
water. Conversely, during the night when photo-
synthesis is not occurring and the plants are re-
spiring carbon dioxide, pH levels can fall by
several units. All of the habitat restoration prac-
tices previously discussed that can be used to in-
crease DO concentrations would also tend to
stabilize pH levels:
• Constructing small hydrologic drop
structures to increase rate of
equilibration of carbon dioxide in water
with atmosphere.
• Constructing wetlands to intercept
nonpoint sources of nutrients, which in
turn will reduce aquatic plant growth
and respiration.
• Planting trees and bushes along stream
banks to reduce incident sunlight and
water temperature, which in turn will
reduce aquatic plant growth and
respiration.
• Increasing stream depth, narrowing
stream width, and increasing undercut
banks to reduce aquatic plant growth
and water temperatures, which will
reduce respiration rates.
Un-ionized Ammonia
Un-ionized ammonia is the most toxic form of
ammonia. Ammonia toxicity often adversely af-
fects aquatic life in streams receiving inade-
quately treated municipal wastewaters and in
streams receiving high loads of ammonia from
agricultural runoff and feedlots. Anaerobic de-
composition of organic matter can also contrib-
ute significant loads of ammonia to streams. The
proportion of total ammonia concentration in
water present as toxic, un-ionized ammonia is a
function of pH and water temperature. As pH
and temperature rise, the proportion of un-ion-
ized ammonia increases, and ammonia toxicity
increases.
As discussed previously, pH levels in some
streams can increase by several units during the
day because of carbon dioxide uptake by photo-
synthesizing plants. This change in pH could po-
tentially cause an increase in un-ionized
ammonia concentrations to the point where they
become acutely or chronically toxic to aquatic
life. Any habitat restoration practice that de-
creases ammonia inputs, decreases plant growth
and standing crops, decreases water tempera-
tures, and/or decreases pH levels will decrease
ammonia toxicity. Such practices include
• Constructing wetlands to intercept
nonpoint sources of nutrients, which in
turn will reduce aquatic plant growth
and photosynthesis.
• Planting trees and bushes along stream
banks to reduce incident sunlight and
water temperature, which in turn will
reduce aquatic plant growth and
photosynthesis.
• Deepening stream depth, narrowing
stream width, and increasing undercut
banks to reduce aquatic plant growth
and decrease water temperatures.
Proceedings • March 1993
HT
-------
C Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
Suspended Solids
Abnormally high concentrations of suspended
solids are detrimental to most stream ecosys-
tems. However, some aquatic systems where
suspended solid concentrations were histori-
cally, naturally high—such as the lower Colo-
rado River system—have been adversely
impacted by dams that reduced suspended solid
concentrations. Habitat restoration practices that
can reduce concentrations of suspended solids
in streams generally include land use changes to
reduce the sources of sediments and the build-
ing of wetlands and ponds to intercept nonpoint
sources of sediments.
Metals
The toxic effects of metals to aquatic life in
streams depend on metals' concentrations and
the interactions of several water quality factors
that affect the bioavailability of metals. Since the
primary pathway for most metal uptake is
through the gills and only ionic forms can pass
through gill membranes, the toxicity of most
metals to aquatic life is a function of the concen-
tration of ionic forms of metals present. Conse-
quently, metals present as particulates are not
directly toxic to aquatic life. Water quality pa-
rameters that reduce the bioavailability of met-
als to aquatic life include dissolved and
particulate organic carbon, alkalinity, and other
ligands that complex metals, reducing ionic
forms. Calcium also reduces metal toxicity by re-
ducing metal uptake.
Any habitat restoration practice that reduces
inputs of metals to streams and/or produces in-
creases in water quality factors that reduce metal
bioavailability will decrease the toxicity of met-
als to aquatic life. Use of created wetlands to
treat acid mine drainage is a good example of
such a practice. Wetlands can reduce metal in-
puts and increase inputs of dissolved organic
carbon and alkalinity concentrations to streams,
all of which reduce metal toxicities.
Minimum Flows
A final "water quality" factor affected by habitat
restorations is the quantity of water maintained
in streams. In many U.S. arid regions, stream
segments are periodically dewatered from irri-
gation, industrial, and municipal withdrawals,
evaporation, and groundwater infiltration. Con-
versely, flow in many streams is comprised pri-
marily or entirely of treated wastewater and
irrigation return flows. In such streams, the en-
tire aquatic and riparian ecosystem is main-
tained by wastewater and irrigation flows. Due
to the high cost of conventional wastewater
treatment needed to meet ever more stringent ef-
fluent limits and water quality standards, and
the high value of water in these arid regions,
many municipalities are planning or already
have implemented plans to use most or all of their
wastewater. The end result is the loss of entire
aquatic and riparian ecosystems. In some situ-
ations, considering the restoration and preserva-
tion of such ecosystems use of the water may be
environmentally beneficial and cost effective.
Scoping of Eligible Systems
Background
Several approaches may be taken to determine
the potential benefits of ecological restoration
within a geographic area. To assess potential
benefits for a given area, the important ques-
tions are
• What is the extent of habitat degradation
(e.g., proportion of stream miles within
the study area)?
• What measurable impairment of
beneficial uses can be associated with the
habitat degradation?
• What improvement in attaining
beneficial uses could be made through
ecological restoration and at what cost
relative to technology-based controls?
Ideally, we would want to identify the spe-
cific regional stream and river areas where habi-
tat degradation exists, examine the violations of
water quality criteria and impairment of benefi-
cial uses attributable to this degradation, and as-
sess the cost effectiveness of remediation
expected through ecological restoration for each
site. Unfortunately, undertaking such an ap-
proach on an exhaustive basis is not feasible at
this stage, as this would require detailed physical
and ecological studies of each waterbody with
expected impact. More general estimation meth-
ods are needed for an initial scoping of potential
benefits.
The initial scoping must use available data-
bases to provide the first cut at assessment. Un-
fortunately, direct measures of the degree of
habitat degradation are not readily available for
most streams; therefore, we need to get at the
problem through an indirect course. One natural
approach is to use extant studies, which provide
information on physical habitat degradation and
associated impairment of beneficial uses. These
include 305(b) reports, 319 assessment reports,
use attainability analyses, and other sources as
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
discussed later in this section. In many cases,
these studies will provide detailed summaries of
habitat suitability measures and water quality
parameters related to habitat degradation. Such a
survey can yield valuable information on the
prospective benefits of habitat restoration and as-
sociated costs. However, it does not provide a
balanced picture of a whole region. That is, use
attainability analyses and other such studies, by
their nature, focus on areas where impacts may
be significant, either due to the magnitude of
stressors or resource sensitivity. Thus, analysis of
these studies cannot provide an unbiased picture
of potential benefits of regional ecological resto-
ration. An alternative approach to scoping the
problem is to survey the distribution of water
quality parameters frequently associated with
habitat degradation. This is an indirect approach,
as a causal relationship between water quality
excursions and habitat degradation cannot be
generally established from the data available.
However, it does provide a useful initial scoping
of the problem's magnitude.
We advocate following both approaches for
scoping the potential regional benefits of ecologi-
cal restoration. Site specific studies will yield evi-
dence on cost effectiveness of individual projects,
while examining relevant water quality parame-
ters on an area-wide basis will help gauge the
general applicability of the approach.
At this stage we have undertaken the pre-
liminary aspects of both approaches, as applied
to potential benefits of habitat restoration in
Colorado streams. We can present the proposed
methodology and some preliminary results at
this time. The project's next phase will include
more detailed work in both areas.
Area-Wide Scoping
We attempt to devise a protocol for the area-
wide scoping of the stream segment proportions
that may benefit from habitat restoration. This
cannot be accomplished explicitly, as habitat
status indices in stream segments are not avail-
able in extensive aerial coverage. On the other
hand, USGS and other agencies measure basic
water quality parameters regularly for a large
number of stations. These are available on EPA's
STORET system. If basic water quality parame-
ters that correlate with habitat degradation are
identified, querying of these data on STORET
can yield a preliminary indication of the propor-
tion of stream miles that might benefit from eco-
logical restoration.
This approach is, of course, only a rough
screening tool. As STORET does not record a
variable for "habitat degradation," we cannot as-
certain when the water quality standard excur-
sions are actually correlated with habitat degra-
dation or due to other causes and if a site is
amenable to habitat restoration. Essentially, this
approach yields a first candidate list of potential
restoration areas, which then must be refined
through more detailed study to identify areas
likely to benefit from the approach. Scoping is
simply to obtain an order of magnitude indica-
tion of the problem's extent.
To test and demonstrate this approach, we
chose a specific geographic area—the South
Platte River drainage portion of Colorado. This
comprises approximately the State's northeast
quadrant and includes a number of rivers on
which detailed studies have been undertaken.
Because STORET contains data on many types of
waterbodies, we further restricted the search to
include only ambient stream stations. We also ex-
cluded stations that reported neither instantaneous
or mean flow, since ecological restoration tech-
niques are only likely applicable below a certain
critical stream size (a median flow of 1500 cfs was
the arbitrary cutoff). Finally, we also restricted the
search to records from 1979 to present
With these restrictions, STORET yielded re-
cords of 190 water quality stations within Colo-
rado's South Platte River drainage, the bulk of
which were USGS water quality stations, with
42,823 observations. These stations formed the
basis for our analysis.
We have previously discussed important
water quality parameters correlated with habitat
degradation, including DO, temperature, pH, un-
ionized ammonia, suspended solids, and toxic
metals. Of these parameters, toxic metals were
judged not appropriate for area-wide scoping be-
cause of too much local variability in toxicity
from interaction with other water quality vari-
ables. Data on suspended solids are available on
STORET; however, this parameter is highly de-
pendent on local variability of conditions, and
Colorado has established no numerical criteria. The
other parameters do have numerical criteria
against which standard violations may be assessed.
These are established for both coldwater and
warmwater fisheries (see Table 4).
From this parameter list, un-ionized ammo-
nia presents an additional problem. That is, al-
though a standard exists, it is not usually
measured directly in the field but rather calcu-
lated from total ammonia, temperature and pH.
It is usually not reported in STORET, and so it
cannot be screened without performing the cal-
culations. The equation for calculating un-ion-
ized ammonia as nitrogen (NHs-N, mg/L) is
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
NH3-N(mg/L)<
where
X is the measured quantity of total ammonia
(mg/L-N),
pKh = 0.09018 + 2729.92/(T+273.2), and
T is temperature in °C.
(Bowie eld. 1985)
At present we have not completed the neces-
sary data manipulation to study un-ionized am-
monia on the scoping data set. The distribution
of the other parameters over all stations re-
trieved is shown in Table 5 (including STORET
parameter identification code).
All 190 stations were analyzed for violations
of water quality standards for the three parame-
ters listed in Table 5, using the STORET routine
STAND. This first required a determination of
whether coldwater or warmwater fishery stand-
ards applied to a given station. In Colorado, the
Table 4.—CO numerical criteria for coldwater and warmwater fisheries.
Coldwater
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
pH
Unionized Ammonia
6 mg/L (7 for spawning)
20° C max., 3° increase
6.5 min., 9.0 max.
.02 mg/L NH3-N (30-day
average)
5 mg/L
30° C max, 3° increase
6.5 min., 9.0 max.
.06 mg/L NH3-N (30-day
average)
Warmwater
Table 5.—Statistical distribution of retrieved parameters.
Mean
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
(00300)
Temperature °C
(00010)
pH
(00400)
9.34
10.0
7.68
Standard
Deviation
4.86
7.02
0.83
Minimum
0.08
-1.0
0.0
Maximum
20.0
65.0
11.7
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
delineation between these zones is roughly
mountain/plains boundary. Rather than identify
each station explicitly, we obtained a close ap-
proximation of the appropriate data set by set-
ting the delineation between the two zones at
105° west longitude.
Data on the parameters of interest was avail-
able for 258 out of the 290 stations processed. Of
these, no violations of standards were reported at
169 of 258 stations (not all parameters were
measured at every station). Thus approximately
one-third of water quality stations in this part of
Colorado showed at least occasional excursions
of water quality standards related to habitat deg-
radation.
The 89 stations where at least one standard
of interest was violated represent the initial
scoping data set for potential habitat restoration.
At those stations where violations were found,
64 percent had excursions above temperature
criteria, 58 percent had excursions outside pH
criteria, and 32 percent had excursions below
dissolved oxygen criteria. However, only 13 per-
cent of the stations where violations were found
had violations in all three parameters. This
wholly reflects lack of correlation between DO
and pH violations, presumably because pH ex-
cursions may result from acid loading without
involving other physical habitat impacts.
Twenty percent of the stations in violation had
both temperature and pH violations, while 23
percent had both dissolved oxygen and tem-
perature violations. This finding suggests that,
at least for Colorado, temperature and dissolved
oxygen (and also probably un-ionized ammonia)
may be the most important indicator parameters
for scoping potential for ecological restoration.
Figure 6 shows the joint histogram of tem-
perature and dissolved oxygen percent viola-
tions for all stations at which a violation in pH,
temperature, or dissolved oxygen was noted.
The 11 stations identified with violations in both
temperature and dissolved oxygen are
• South Platte River at Englewood
• South Platte River at Littleton
• Schwartzwalder Mine Effluent near
Plainview
• St. Vrain Creek below Longmont
* Coal Creek near Plainview
• Big Thompson River below Loveland
• Carter Lake near Berthoud
Figure 6.—DO and temperature—proportion of measurements In excursion of standards (South Platte River
Watershed, CO sites with recorded DO, temperature or pH excursions).
20 r
16
a;
Ł B
0.1
DO
0.4
Excursion
Proportion
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
• Cache la Poudre River at Shields St. at
Fort Collins
• Cache la Poudre River above Boxelder
Creek near Timnath
• Cache la Poudre River below Fort Collins
• South Platte River at Julesburg
Several locations identified here will also
be discussed in a later paper that includes site-
specific studies examining the correlation of
physical habitat condition factors with water
quality data. These studies will also allow a
closer examination of the range and extent of
benefits (e.g., employment, recreation, fish
habitat) associated with physical habitat resto-
ration projects. These studies will extend scop-
ing strategies for identifying candidate
waterbodies for physical habitat remediation
using 305(b) reports, 319 assessment reports,
habitat suitability curves/indices, use attain-
ability analyses, and limiting factors.
Case Study—Improvement
Studies for Segment 15 of the
South Platte River
Candidacy for Ecological
Restoration
Segment 15 of the South Platte River is both
water-quality and habitat limited. Previously,
water quality and aquatic life were impaired by
high concentrations of chlorine and ammonia
from a municipal wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) effluent. However, the effluent is now
dechlorinated and ammonia concentrations
have been greatly reduced. Presently, water
quality may be limited by low dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Physical habitat limitations in-
clude fish barriers and poor instream habitat.
These water quality and habitat limitations have
prompted managers and regulators to evaluate
measures that may improve water quality
within the segment through habitat improve-
ment or increased wastewater treatment. To ac-
complish this, extensive data on the segment's
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
have been generated to examine habitat restora-
tion benefits versus wastewater treatment to im-
prove water quality. We believe that the studies
and proposed habitat improvements in Segment
15 are appropriate as a potential case study for
water quality improvements through habitat
restoration. And Segment 15 studies should pro-
vide the basic framework for a comparison of
conventional WWTP and habitat approaches to
improving water quality.
Description of the Problem
The South Platte River serves as a water source
for agriculture, municipalities, and industries,
and as a receiving water for wastewater. During
the summer months, the river flow is aug-
mented by a wastewater discharge, which can
make up to 95 percent of the river flow. Because
the river flow is augmented with a nutrient-rich
discharge and flow is seriously reduced by nu-
merous irrigation diversions, portions of the
river in Segment 15 experience low DO concen-
trations, such that the DO concentrations do not
meet the State standards. Habitat in the river
previously has been degraded from stream
channelization and fish barriers.
Scope of Work
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. and its subcontrac-
tors, the Cadmus Group, Habitech, and WEST,
Inc., are conducting scientific and special studies
for Segment 15 of the South Platte River to de-
velop a site-specific dissolved oxygen standard
for the segment. The work is being done for the
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro)
with close cooperation and interaction with Re-
gion VIII of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Colorado Department of Health,
and the Colorado Division of Wildlife through
the Scientific Advisory Team (STAT) that in-
cludes the participation of all these entities.
According to STAT, development of a site-
specific standard is justified if the standard pro-
tects all fish species that could successfully
inhabit the segment if DO is not the limiting fac-
tor. STAT also agreed that the primary focus of
the protection of fish species should be on spe-
cies indigenous to the segment.
Scientific and Special Studies
Studies directly and indirectly associated with
developing a site-specific DO standard for Seg-
ment 15 include assessments of (1) the relation-
ship between low DO concentrations and the
resident fish community, (2) the effects of low
DO concentrations to specific species in labora-
tory tests, (3) the potential effects of ambient and
episodic toxicity as confounding factors, (4) the
physical habitat influence on fish within the seg-
ment, and (5) the influence of biological oxygen
demand, sediment oxygen demand, and the
groundwater on DO concentrations. In addition,
modelling exercises are being conducted to de-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
termine the effects of alternative instream modi-
fications (e.g., drop structures) to DO reaeration
rates.
Alternatives
Habitat improvements may include channel
modifications, wetlands mitigation, replacing
the existing drop structure, and filling in existing
pools. Habitat improvements will benefit
aquatic life by increasing stream DO concentra-
tions and providing more small structures in the
stream.
The alternative to the Segment 15 improve-
ments is to upgrade Metro's facility. Upgrading
the facility would include building and maintain-
ing additional nitrification capacity. The upgrade
process would further remove ammonia from the
effluent, thus reducing the oxygen demand re-
quired for microbial oxidation of ammonia to ni-
trite and nitrate.
Cost
The cost differences between the habitat restora-
tion approach versus the WWTP approach are
large (Table 6). Estimated costs of building and
maintaining the treatment plant upgrade could
run in excess of $112 million. On the other hand,
the cost of the recommended studies and habitat
improvements could be less than $10 million for
one segment site. As indicated in Table 6, the po-
tential for further improvements in the river at
$10 million increments are extensive.
Implementation Issues
Amendment of the CWA: We have previously de-
scribed the substantial mandate that exists
within the CWA for addressing physical habitat
restoration and preservation. However, the man-
date is still subject to interpretation because it is
rarely stated explicitly. The Montana Streambed
Protection Act and the Natural Streambed and
Land Preservation Act (310) contain language
consistent with the intent of the CWA (section
101(a)) and give explicit direction to the program.
The language does not, however, help to change
the traditional practices and use that have led to
such widespread degradation of physical habitat
along stream and river corridors.
Institutional Funding Procedures: Figure 4 il-
lustrates a highly idealized environmental rank-
ing and funding scenario. Institutional barriers
to the allocation of grant funding on a risk-based
approach places severe restrictions on the fund-
ing of ecological restoration projects. If States es-
tablish an objective basin approach framework
for developing basin plans, perhaps program
auditing requirements can be relaxed to allow the
distribution of funds based on basin priorities
rather than strict program spending formulas.
Long-term commitment: Physical habitat res-
toration rarely leads to rapid (one to two years)
results. Oftentimes remediation requires five
years to become established and show results.
Policymakers and the public often have a shorter
planning horizon than required to heal impaired
waterbodies. This limitation can potentially be
addressed through an aggressive public out-
reach and education component of the basin-
wide approach program.
Absence of restoration verification data: Post-
restoration monitoring data to demonstrate the
recovery of waterbody integrity is scarce. Selling
large programs on the basis of a conceptual
model alone is difficult. Restoration projects
Table 6.— Approximate costs of a treatment upgrade versus habitat Improvements.
Activity
Improvement Cost
Upgrade Cost
Recommended Improvements
Phase 1 studies
Phase II studies
Treatment upgrade
Total
$6.6 million (cost can vary
-50% to +100% from final
construction costs)
$1.4 million
$2.0 million
$10.0 million
$112.0 million
$11 2.0 million
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C. Creager, B. Parkhurst, &J. Butcher
generally pour every dollar into remediation
without setting any money aside for baseline or
post-project monitoring. Riot projects should be
funded that require monitoring funds to be set
aside to address the absence of any sort of vali-
dation information measuring the impact of res-
toration projects.
References
Adier, K.J., and M.D. Smolen. 1989. Selecting Priority
Nonpoint Source Projects: You Better Shop Around.
EPA/506/2-89/003. Office of Water and Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC.
Bowie, G. L. 1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetic Formula-
tions in Surface Water Quality Modeling, 2nd ed.
EPA/600/3-85/040. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Athens, GA.
Downs, P.W., K.J. Gregory, and A. Brookes. 1991. How Inte-
grated is River Basin Management? Environ. Manage.
15(3):299-309.
Marcus, M.D., M.A. Godin, J.W., Brawley, M.A. Moritz, E.
Ettlinger, C.H. Sham, C.S. Creager, and J.B. Butcher.
1992. Technical Support for Wetlands Advanced Identi-
fication in California Coastal Watersheds: The Santa
Margarita River Project. Rep. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Region IX, Water Management Division, San
Francisco, CA; and Office of Wastewater and Enforce-
ment Compliance, Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic
Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Sci-
ence, Technology, and Public Policy; Water Science and
Technology Board; and Commission on Geosciences,
Environment, and Resources, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Law Center. 1992. America's Waters:
A New Era of Substainability: Report of the Long's Peak
Working Group on National Water Policy, Washington,
DC.
Phillips, J. D. 1989. Nonpoint Source Pollution Risk As-
sessment in a Watershed Context. Environ. Manage.
13(4):493-502.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. NURP
Priority Pollution Monitoring Program, Vol. 1: Findings.
Monitoring and Data Support Division, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
. 1983a. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1983b. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington DC.
. 1990. Technical Support Document for Water Qual-
ity-based Toxics Control. Office of Water, U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1991a. The Watershed Protection Approach: An
Overview. EPA/503/9-92/002. Office of Water, U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1991b. Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk
Assessment. EPA/625/3-91/018. Risk Assessment Fo-
rum, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1991c. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions:
The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Office of Water,
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for
Restoration
Reinvest In Minnesota: A State's
Approach to Ecological Restoration
David H. Behm
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
St. Paul, Minnesota
You have previously heard about a
wealth of opportunity with voluntary
programs, an incentive approach, and
an education approach to making eco-
logical restoration really happen. These are real
opportunities to open some doors.
Pristine Versus Common Sense
Minnesota is not made up of millions and mil-
lions of acres of backwoods wilderness area; in
fact, most of the state is heavily influenced by
agriculture. Hence, the program I will cover is
geared toward the agricultural community. Dr.
Jordan commented that we should live in an eco-
system that we want to restore. We need to keep
in mind that we cannot always achieve pristine
restorations and that we must take a common
sense approach to restoration.
RIM stands for Reinvest In Minnesota. In
1984, then Governor Rudy Perpich established a
citizens' committee to determine the significance
and importance of the tourism industry by look-
ing at the revenues from fishing and hunting.
The commission found that fishing and hunting
were very important industries, adding over a
billion dollars annually to the economy.
The commission also found a great deal of
soil erosion going on and water quality impacts
that affected the fisheries. Most of the wetlands,
particularly in the agricultural areas, had long
been obliterated by the agricultural interests that
largely support the state's economy. Therefore,
we cannot restore or create or enhance wetlands
to the extent we once had them in Minnesota.
The commission recognized that we also needed
a strong economy to attract visitors.
Consequently, the commission drew a paral-
lel between private industry's growth and capi-
tal reinvestment. In other words, the commis-
sion recommended we reinvest in Minnesota—
reinvest in our resources to sustain fishable
waters and fisheries (particularly the walleye).
Protecting Soil and Water
A key point that underlies the whole concept of
RIM is that the commission realized that it could
not merely start planting trees and native
grasses—it needed to first protect soil and water
resources. It outlined an ambitious 10-year, $600
million proposal. Using the state's 6 percent sales
tax as a basis of comparison, the amount sug-
gested to annually reinvest was $60 million dol-
lars. The commission specifically recommended
that $150 million dollars be reinvested in land
and water conservation. In recognizing that 75
percent of the state is privately owned, with most
of the land in agricultural production, the com-
mission recommended that conservation is
where most of the activities and programs had to
be focused.
Other things were also going on at the time.
In the mid-'80s, the Midwest was experiencing a
farm economic crisis, with farm foreclosures and
farm aid concerts commonplace. Helping the hu-
man resource meant providing large amounts of
capital to keep people on the land and to rein-
vest in better lands by removing marginal lands
from production. This is the basis of RIM Re-
serve—a conservation easement program for
private lands.
Partnerships Critical
We have heard about the importance of partner-
ships to initiate incentive programs, particularly
those based on voluntary efforts. Many people
BJ1
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
with different perspectives and different inter-
ests must be involved to provide the opportu-
nity for consensus building. In reaching a
consensus, no one gets exactly what they want,
but everyone gets something. The results have
been noteworthy restorations. This is where pri-
vate interest groups, and their willingness to
contribute substantial dollars, come in.
Partnerships are very important. Our program
has shown that partners are interested, involved,
and want to help. Some organizations—Ducks Un-
limited, for example—have seen the handwriting
on the wall and no longer have a single-issue fo-
cus. These organizations are also talking about
water quality and restoration of ecosystems. Do
not count them out because of a name only.
RIM Reserve also provides some cost shar-
ing. We believe in reinvesting because of the
long-term or even perpetual interest we have ac-
quired in land; we know our investment will be
safe and sound. At times, we pay a premium to
do so, but the investment is worth it.
For the Public Benefit
Eligible lands for RIM Reserve include riparian
lands, restorable drained wetlands, and highly
erodible marginal agricultural soils. We take
these lands for a variety of reasons, one of which
is the public benefit. RIM Reserve is geared to-
ward private landowners, offering an incentive
payment in exchange for a conservation ease-
ment conveyed to the state. In the first year,
nearly all of the enrollments were 10-year ease-
ments. Since then, the limited duration ease-
ments have been changed to 20-years. In the last
three years, we have only offered perpetual
easements because of the overwhelming re-
sponse from landowners. In fact, we have re-
ceived twice as many requests for dollars than
dollars available.
Appendix: Reinvest In
Minnesota
Background of Reinvest In
Minnesota (RIM)
• Why did the bill evolve?
• In 1984, Governor Perpich establishes
citizens commission to promote hunting
and fishing
• Commission found that hunting/fishing
and other wildlife-related activities
contribute over $1 billion to state's
economy
• Commission also learned
147 million tons of soil erode
annually—equivalent of 73,000 pounds
for every man, woman and child in
Minnesota; much eroded soil ends up in
streams and lakes in the "Land of 10,000
Lakes"
85 percent of wetlands had been lost
to development or conversion to cropland
Income from fishing/ hunting
licenses had not kept pace with need to
resolve numerous fisheries/wildlife
management issues
* Consequently, commission drew a
parallel between private industry's
growth by capital reinvestment and
Minnesota's tourism industry
• Accordingly, commission's report
concluded that for Minnesota's economy
to continue to benefit from fish/wildlife
related tourism and to protect our
natural heritage, the state needed to
annually "reinvest" $60 million
(equivalent of 6 percent sales tax from its
$1 billion tourism industry) into soil,
water, fish, and wildlife programs
Commission outlined an 11-point,
$600 million reinvestment plan for the
decade ahead
Planning/administration
Research
Special surveys
Habitat development
Land and water conservation
Habitat protection
Wildlife, spawning, and trout
stream acquisition
Fish culture
Information/education
Resource law
enforcement/protection
$15 million
$39 million
$16 million
$131 million
$150 million
$24 million
$130 million
$26 million
$12 million
$60 million
Commission recognized that any
improvements on private agricultural
land for the sake of enhancing fish and
wildlife habitats would have to begin
with providing adequately protected soil
and water resources
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D.Behnt
m Why did the bill pass?
• Early to mid-1980s was depth of recent
agricultural economic crisis (e.g., farm
foreclosures, FarmAid benefit concerts,
etc.)
• After commission report made public in
1985, a coalition of sporting,
environmental, conservation, and
agricultural groups (e.g., Audubon
Society, Pheasants Forever, Ducks
Unlimited, Walleyes Unlimited,
Minnesota Corn Growers Association,
Minnesota Association of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, Nature
Conservancy, Izaak Walton League) was
formed to lobby for passage of a bill—it
did so with only six dissenting votes
• RIM Coalition sought adequate funding
in 1986—their efforts resulted in a $16
million appropriation
• RIM Coalition and passage of RIM Act
was likely due as much to national trends
and discussions (e.g., 1985 Farm Bill,
Conservation Reserve Program) as to
specific activities within Minnesota
• Purposes of RIM Act
• Keep certain marginal agricultural land
out of crop production or pasture to
protect soil and water quality and
support fish and wildlife habitat
• Fish and wildlife are renewable natural
resources to be conserved and enhanced
through planned scientific management,
protection, and utilization
KIM Incentives for Restoration
• RIM Reserve Program
Perspectives (private lands)
• Analogy with Conservation Reserve
Program was quickly and easily made;
however, easements rather than contracts
were viewed as best method to acquire
long-term interest in property and to
further justify funding source of state
bonds
• Offers private landowners an incentive
payment in exchange for a conservation
easement, typically in perpetuity
• Also offers cost-sharing to establish
permanent vegetative cover practices,
with intention of providing 100 percent
reimbursement of actual costs, but
limited to specific rates (e.g., $100 per
acre for grasses/legumes, $300 per acre
for trees/shrubs or wetland restorations)
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program
Perspectives (private lands)
9 Offers private landowners cost-sharing
(50-100 percent) to restore wetlands,
establish permanent vegetative cover,
especially native grasses and plantings of
shrubs and trees for pheasant cover
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program
Perspectives (public lands)
* Provides an opportunity for the private
sector to help fund the cost of acquiring,
improving, and restoring fish and
wildlife and native plant habitats; state
funds are matched dollar-for-dollar by
private donations of land, interests in
land, and cash
Restoration: Cost-Effectiveness
and Financing Opportunities
Perspectives
• RIM Programs have been evolving since
initial passage
• With evolution comes acknowledgement
of resource needs/issues (e.g., sensitive
groundwater areas) and funding
considerations (e.g., extending limited
duration easements from 10 years to 20
years due to payment on bonds; then
funding only perpetual easements with
limited available easement acquisition
funds)
• Since underlying premise is that
reinvestment in natural resources was
essential to sustaining a billion dollar
hunting/fishing tourism industry,
coupled with political and social issues
regarding farm economic crisis, the
justification for "cost-effectiveness" has
never truly been micro-analyzed—state
simply believes that such reinvestment is
required and that, through internal
controls (e.g., legislative and
administrative), the effectiveness and
efficiency of acquiring interests in
property (fee simple as well as perpetual
easements) has not required such analysis
tm
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
• Consequently, while we have likely paid
premium prices for acquisitions, we
believed that acquiring perpetual
easement or fee simple interests in
properties for program purposes
essentially guarantees that overall
benefits-to-costs exceed 1:1; furthermore,
this may be true largely due to extensive
screening of parcels offered for
enrollment
* Restoration costs depend on the
ecosystem to be "restored" and the
extent of restoration (i.e., true
"restoration" versus "enhancement")
• Ongoing maintenance costs for upkeep
of restored ecosystems will be large since
such areas are now merely remnants and
surrounded by intensively used
landscape consisting of numerous highly
competitive species of flora and fauna
Wetlands Restoration Costs
• RIM Reserve Program statutory
cost-sharing limits (100 percent, up to
$300 per acre)
• Average wetland restoration practice
costs = $340 per acre; $3,400 per project;
10-acre average
• Range of wetland restoration practice
costs = $10 per acre to $1,700 per acre
• RIM Reserve wetland restoration
easement costs = $1,257 per acre
(easement + practices + administration)
• RIM Reserve easement costs (all
categories) = $858 per acre (easement +
practices + administration;
administration = 16 percent of total costs)
Prairie Restoration Costs
• RIM Reserve Program statutory
cost-sharing limits (100 percent for
perpetual, up to $100 per acre; 75 percent
for limited, up to $75 per acre)
• Average native grass establishment costs
= $95 per acre; $1,520 per project; 16-acre
average
• Range of native grass establishment costs
= $36 per acre to $261 per acre
• Average prairie restoration practice costs
= (from RIM CHM and RIM WHIP) $800
per acre to $10,000 per acre depending
upon acreage and diversity of species
Financing Opportunities
State General Fund
• RIM Reserve Program = $1.8 million for
FY92/93 for administration
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program = $350,000 for FY92/93
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program = $0
forFY92/93
State Environmental Trust Fund
• RIM Reserve Program = $1.0 million for
FY92/93
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program = $0 for FY92/93
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program = $0
forFY92/93
State Bonding Initiatives
* RIM Reserve Program = $8.15 million for
FY92/93
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program = $0 for FY92/93
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program =
$3.0 million for FY92/93
Private funds
• RIM Reserve Program = $185,000 for
FY92/93
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program = N/A for FY92/93
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program =
$3.0 million for FY92/93
Federal funds
• RIM Reserve Program = $2.363 million
forFY92/93
• RIM Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program = $0 for FY92/93
• RIM Critical Habitat Match Program = $0
forFY92/93
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D.Behm
Program Integration for
Successful Restorations: RIM
Reserve Program
• BWSR Strategic Plan
• Program should be available to protect or
retire all existing marginal agricultural
and highly sensitive lands
• Land retirement programs should be
targeted to the highest priority marginal
agricultural and sensitive lands
• Retired marginal agricultural lands with
severe erosion potential should not be
brought back into agricultural
production unless effectively managed to
prevent excessive soil loss
* Retirement of marginal agricultural lands
and highly sensitive lands will permit
land managers to focus their stewardship
efforts on more productive lands
• Five-Year Program Plan
• Protection of groundwater quality shall
be given priority over the improvement
of state and locally designated surface
water resources
• Highest priority for marginal agricultural
lands shall be for those lands in land
capability classes V through VIII,
followed by capability class IV, followed
by other specifically designated classes
and subclasses
• Each parcel enrolled shall have a
conservation plan developed to ensure
adequate habitat enhancements for fish
and wildlife species, but particularly
with a priority for endangered or
threatened flora or fauna species where
the land has such capability, and
generally followed by fish species, and
lastly followed by any game species of
wildlife
Comprehensive Local Water Plans
• Local inventories of some types of
eligible lands
• Locally prioritized watersheds in need of
land management
• Local recommendations on legislative
and administrative revisions to
program Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Policy and Management Approaches for
Restoration
General Panel Discussion
Dennis M. King
International Institute for Ecological Economics
University of Maryland
Solomons, Maryland
Daniel Willard
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Steve Eggers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul, Minnesota
Clayton Creager
The Cadmus Group
Petaluma, California
David H. Behm
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
St. Paul, Minnesota
Question: You discussed the economic
costs and relatively low quality and
probability of things turning out. The
implication was that with low cost you
always end up with low quality. Are
you making that argument?
• Answer—Dennis King: Not always but
most of the time. Up to some point, as you did
tasks to a project or do a better job of completing
certain tasks, your results will improve. And
most new tasks and improved procedures will
increase costs. So, in general, yes.
Like most of us, restorationists do not want to
spend any more than necessary to achieve a
given level of functional recovery. They operate
on the "efficient frontiers" where the only way to
get more results is to spend more. Some bargains
are out there. But even with them, if you try to
lower costs too much, performance suffers.
• Question: We conducted an extensive study
in Illinois to look at permits, identify mitigation
requirements, and follow up. One of the biggest
problems is that once permits are issued, there is
no follow-up. The agencies issuing the permits
do not have the staff or the resources to even
evaluate whether or not the permit conditions are
met. I would appreciate a comment, because you
have just demonstrated something interesting.
• Answer—Steve Eggers: I agree with you
100 percent. Follow-up on the mitigation sites is
a major problem and revolves around staffing
and budget. We are trying to improve on that,
but staff keeps getting cut back. We have re-
quired more monitoring by permittees.
• Question: What is your opinion of mitiga-
tion banks to ensure that mitigation is working
before the project is built?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: The primary ad-
vantage of banks is that you can see beforehand
the functions and values that will be replaced.
Before bank credits can be accepted, you must
have a successfully functioning wetland—a pri-
mary advantage over other projects. In specific
mitigation, the work is done in conjunction with
the authorized firm. We are not sure if this will
work.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
• Comment—Dennis King: Interest contin-
ues in entrepreneurial banks, private banks, get-
ting the government out, and letting business
take over. Our preliminary work shows little
chance of finding an entrepreneur willing to in-
vest in a mitigation bank if the product is not
marketable until after it fully functions to the
satisfaction of the various competing agencies.
The advantage to the environmental commu-
nity of fully functional replacements before it
can sell is absolutely out of the question from an
entrepreneurial viewpoint. This means the gov-
ernment must bear those risks.
• Question: Regarding the lack of govern-
mental standards on acceptable wetlands, you
mentioned that before you can accept a wetland
credit, you must certify that it is, in fact, a func-
tioning wetland. Is that a back-door way for the
government to make an up-front decision about
criteria for an acceptable wetland? It works on
the failure of government, not on success.
• Answer—Steve Eggers: The primary ad-
vantage of mitigation banks is that we know up
front what has been established, its functions,
and its success. If we take that away and accept
banks that are not constructed properly—with-
out the proper vegetation or with other prob-
lems—then the governmental agencies may not
find banking acceptable. In that case, why not
stick to project specific mitigation?
• Comment: It all feeds back to the different
regulatory processes. A certain amount of avoid-
able risk occurs in allowing a credit to be used
before it is fully functioning. If we decide collec-
tively to accept the risk, just like the private sec-
tor, we want some net gain or payoff. The payoff
will be in defining a watershed plan, setting up
priorities, and aiming for net gain instead of no
net loss. You can probably convince the regula-
tors to accept that risk.
In looking at the whole watershed and over-
laying existing data, you will see targets of op-
portunity providing the greatest amount of
function and the greatest probability of sustain-
able success. You develop mitigation sites based
on local geographic mandates—thinking in a
proactive way rather than being caught off
guard when presented with a piece of land that
looks like a target. You can say, "Wait? We have
that figured out. We need you help on this wa-
tershed-wide project."
Bigger is often better. Places where the hy-
drology is intact are more likely to be successful.
With environmental change continuing, we
must get out in front. I believe in global and cli-
matic change, though I am unsure of the rate.
You must think, "How will this wetland or this
project fit into the watershed context 20 years
from now?" You want to build with that kind of
thinking.
• Question: Steve mentioned that the species
diversity after one year was not radically differ-
ent from the adjacent unaltered wetlands. Is that
the result of an intensive study? What species
did not radically or quickly repopulate in the
created wetland? And what was the effect of
nonindigenous species in the created wetland?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: Wispark was an
exception. It was one of the few mitigation plans
approved in the 1980s (by the St. Paul District)
where both qualitative and quantitative vegeta-
tion data has been gathered. This data forms the
basis for my statement that the vegetation of the
created wetland is similar to that of the adjacent,
natural wetland complex.
Offhand, I do not know of any plant species
present in the natural wetland but absent in the
created wetland. The created wetland is as vege-
tatively diverse as the natural wetland. Both are
in an area hydrologically connected to the an-
nual flood event of the Des Plaines River, which
deposits fresh silt and plant propagules each
year.
On nonindigenous species, carp appeared in
the open water areas of the created wetlands
about the second year and have caused a serious
turbidity problem. No purple loosestrife has
been observed to date.
• Question—Charlotte Reed: Does Detroit
have a different standard for mitigation? Is there
a different standard when the applicant is a big
steel company? We have a fill in Lake Michigan
by a large inland steel company. The fill has been
going on for years and years, and the company
just got its permit renewed to fill 300 acres of
open water of Lake Michigan. No mitigation, no
public comment. Do you operate on different
standards?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: The 404 program
is a national program. From one Corps district to
another, we operate from the same regulations
and policy—the memorandum of agreement on
mitigation between the Corps and EPA. How-
ever, districts engineers, who make the permit
decisions, have quite a bit of discretion.
• Question: What is the average water depth
in your two examples?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: Water depths at
the Wispark-Jerome Creek site include the entire
gradient from saturated soils, to a few inches of
standing water, to several feet of water. Water
depths in the majority of the Wispark ponds
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. King, D. Willard, S. Eggers, C. Creager, & D. Behm
south of the new highway are in the range of 4 to
6 or more feet. Water depths at the Patrick Lake
bank site include a very broad outer fringe of
saturated soils to 18 inches of water, to deeper
water depths in the center of the basin, probably
2 to 4 feet as an average.
• Question: What was the slope of the side
margins in general on the first example?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: On the Jerome
Creek site, probably 15 to 20 to one. And after
the corrective action on the excavated ponds,
they were more like six to one—still too steep,
but we really cannot correct it further.
• Question: What is your perspective on the
role of local government and local interest in
long term maintenance of overseeing restoration
mitigation areas?
In a local government situation, we have a
Corps-driven mitigation effort to restore wet-
lands and floodplains in town, which has a con-
servation easement. Easement language will
require perpetual maintenance and quality; an
association of firms will own the land in the de-
velopment area.
In some respects, we are like a puppy that
just caught a rabbit. We have it, but we do not
quite know what to do with it. We cannot seem
to find help on finding the language for the con-
servation easement to cover maintenance and
quality. The Corps seems to require that it sim-
ply must turn green, and in five years it is out of
the picture. What do you see as the long-term lo-
cal growth, and where can localities find help?
• Answer—Steve Eggers: I think local gov-
ernments could play an important role in doing
things like designating primary environmental
corridors and parkways. City ordinances can be
designed for protecting wetlands and flood-
plains. I can send you an example of how to
word a conservation easement. The Corps has
been doing a lot of compensatory mitigation
sites to require the permittee to unrestrict the
site in perpetuity to maintain wetland wildlife.
• Comment—Daniel Willard: The question
on local government is fascinating—what works
in one part of the United States will not work in
another. In the Northeast, local town govern-
ments are quite powerful, very active, and ener-
getic. They can pass either restrictive or other
kinds of regulations within the right context.
Moving west, the scale moves to counties and
drainage boards. In the western United States,
the federal government is the major landowner.
The scale must be much larger—some 90 percent
in federal land.
For example, the Lane County Council of
Governments in Eugene, Oregon, has just done a
watershed plan. Lane County is about the size of
Connecticut. The plan has worked at that par-
ticular level; success depends on the traditional
level of government in your area. Those must be
coordinated over the watershed, which will
have a different set of dimensions.
I recently came back from western New York
where town governments—one upstream and
one downstream—are practically armed at the
border because of activities between them. The
upstream government passed a regulation that
harms the downstream government—in its eyes,
at least. In the Washataw wetlands area in Michi-
gan, a drainage board in one county made a de-
cision that will impact Lake County
downstream. County or local government in-
volvement is crucial.
We cannot revise governmental patterns
across the United States for ecological restora-
tion. Instead, they must get organized and to-
gether. I do not know where that incentive
comes from—maybe from citizens' groups,
maybe a state governmental entity.
South Florida has water management dis-
tricts that are larger than counties. Because they
control the water supply valves, they are some-
what absolute monarchs with divine rights. The
same is true of western water districts. There-
fore, you must pick your unit of government to
coordinate; but they must recognize the tradi-
tional patterns of local government as well. That
is a tricky challenge.
For example, Cook County and the sur-
rounding counties here have numerous units of
government with many different goals. A unit
large enough must coordinate those goals and
still meet the needs of the groups in places like
south Chicago. The role of local government is
crucial, but it must fit the context of existing cul-
tural systems and watershed structures.
• Comment—Dave Behm: In our voluntary
conservation easement program in Minnesota,
the state acquires the easement. But in all cases,
we require land owners—present and future—to
be fully responsible for maintaining any prac-
tices put on the ground, including a restored
wetland. With that caveat, if something were be-
yond the control of the land owner, the state
would come back and help reestablish the prac-
tice as necessary.
Things also must be properly maintained. Up
to this point, we have done an annual spot check
of every state easement through soil and water
conservation districts. We expect to reduce that
to once every two years. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Development
and Use of Technical
Tools
-------
-------
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools in
Ecological Restoration
Integrating Ecological and
Engineering Design Elements
Edwin Herricks
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
Let me preface my presentation with a few
remarks, including some thoughts that
were sparked by comments made in ear-
lier presentations at this conference.
While several members of the audience were at-
tending the Savannah Conference, I was attending
an EPA workshop in Washington, D.C., that was
focused on developing reliable condition-state in-
dicators that could be used to monitor the effects
of wet-weather, episodic events, particularly com-
bined sewer overflows (CSO). The driving force
for the focus on CSOs is recent congressional in-
terest in modifying the Clean Water Act to include
specific language requiring CSO controls. The cost
of such a program would be $150 to $300 billion.
To place that amount into context—since 1972 the
United States has spent about $60 billion on waste-
water treatment.
The workshop participants were told that
both Congress and the public are demanding a
demonstration of effectiveness for money spent
on control programs. The issue is not whether
CSOs should be controlled to prevent local, na-
tional, or even global pollution; CSO control is
an issue that must be examined to determine
value for cash expended. We have heard a num-
ber of speakers talk of a global sensibility in res-
toration. We also must worry about a global
"centsability"—a critical cash justification. When
we consider the use of technical tools for restora-
tion, we should recognize that restoration pro-
grams will be judged on the value produced for
the cost incurred. This judgment of value will be
based on a real, or perceived, assessment of res-
toration program success. Previous presenta-
tions, particularly Mary Kentula's, noted that
the improper implementation of consciously de-
veloped and approved plans was a barrier to
successful restoration. I will argue that this
barrier to successful reclamation starts with poor
integration of ecological realities in the engineer-
ing design.
Integrating Ecology and
Engineering
This presentation is about integrating ecological
and engineering design elements in restoration
projects. Although natural restoration is possi-
ble, and natural restoration elements are essen-
tial in most restoration programs, restoration
projects often need some form of intervention to
help these natural processes achieve a desired
goal within a specified time frame. Restoration
projects require someone to plan and execute
them. That someone will need a concept that is
translated into a design that will be translated
into a specific restoration activity. In short, the
technical tools for restoration must be success-
fully developed and used.
In this development and use of technical
tools for restoration, a working connection be-
tween ecological theory and engineering prac-
tice must be in place. Successful restoration must
know what to do and how to do it. Unfortu-
nately a high degree of uncertainty exists in de-
fining both what to do and how to do it.
If we do not know how to do something, we
must at least have a method to identify a feasible
or practical approach to the problem. In the past,
the connection between ecological theory, which
can provide an approach, and engineering prac-
tice, which provides the basis for implementa-
tion, has been less than direct. The ecologist has
largely been responsible for specifying the eco-
logical criteria that, hopefully, are translated into
effective engineering designs. The engineer has
nar
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
had limited participation in this ecological crite-
ria development and evaluation. From the other
side, the engineer has been responsible for modi-
fying existing engineering designs or practice to
incorporate ecological criteria, often limiting the
input ecologists make to the actual implementa-
tion process. In part, the lack of connection is
based on poor communication between the
ecologist and the engineer where different meth-
ods are used to deal with issues of uncertainty.
Often, the ecologist is excluded at the early
stages of technical tool development when funda-
mental design changes could lead to a higher
probability of success. This exclusion is often due
to the ecologisf s inability to specify exactly what
is needed and an unwillingness or inability to
grasp the difficulties of applying engineering to
complex natural systems. Similarly, the engineer
is often excluded from the early stages of criteria
development where an understanding of the prac-
tical limits of any plan can be considered before an
outcome is defined. This exclusion is often due to
the perception that an engineer will limit the plan
to a narrow set of options based on engineering
practice and the misconception that, since the
engineer simply "builds" what is specified,
engineering issues need to be considered only at
the final stages of project planning and
implementation.
In fact, early involvement of engineers in res-
toration project design and ecologists in project
implementation planning are necessary to assure
project success at least cost. In this integration of
ecology and engineering, two questions arise:
What are the ecological criteria that, when speci-
fied, provide a set of objectives that allow for the
interaction between ecologists and engineers?
What can be done to assure that implementation
plans are practical, meeting both ecological crite-
ria and the limits imposed on engineering by the
natural environment?
The Ecosystem Context
A fundamental change in the way engineers and
ecologists interact on critical environmental pro-
jects is needed. To produce ecologically relevant
engineering designs, developing an ecological
context for recovery and restoration projects is
necessary. An appropriate place to start is by
identifying ecosystem properties and processes
that must be maintained to assure recovery. The
terms "property" and "process" come from a
National Research Council publication, The Ef-
fects of Chemicals on Ecosystems, published in
1981. The listing of properties and processes
from that publication provided the basis to de-
velop a list of ecosystem characteristics neces-
sary to maintain an ecological system (Table 1).
This table was developed at a workshop of
ecologists and toxicologists on selecting the test
systems most suited to identifying impact
effects.
Table 1.—Critical ecosystem characteristics needed to
maintain ecological systems.
To maintain a stable ecological system, that system
must provide
• Habitat for desired diversity and reproduction of
organisms
• Phenotypic and genotypic diversity among the
organisms
• A robust food chain supporting the desired biota
• An adequate nutrient pool for desired organisms
• Adequate nutrient cycling to perpetuate the
ecosystem
• Adequate energy flux for maintaining the trophic
structure
• Feedback mechanisms for damping undesirable
oscillations
• The capacity to temper toxic effects, including the
capacity to decompose, transfer, chelate, or bind
anthropogenic inputs to a degree that they are no
longer toxic within the system
Source: Herricks, E. E., andD. J. Schaeffer. 1987.
Selection of Test Systems for Ecological Analysis.
Water Sci. and Tech. 19(11):47-54
This critical factors list includes many items
we have heard about earlier. Habitat and a robust
food chain are necessary for ecosystem mainte-
nance. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity among
organisms has been highlighted by several papers
addressing biodiversity. Further, desired organ-
isms need an adequate nutrient pool and a capac-
ity to cycle nutrients and use available carbon
effectively. Most importantly, feedback mecha-
nisms that control undesirable oscillations in eco-
system structure or function are necessary.
Control of extensive swings is related to the inva-
sion or use of exotics or to a lack of consideration
for the changes in a restoring ecosystem associ-
ated with natural successional processes. Finally,
an ecosystem should have the capacity to temper
or ameliorate anthropogenic stress. Natural
ecosystems do have that capacity.
Integrity Attributes
A second listing of ecosystem characteristics is
provided by the National Research Council. A
1991 report on opportunities in applied environ-
mental research and development lists critical
ecosystem integrity attributes (Table 2). This
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
E. Herricks
listing, similar to Table 1, suggests the possibility
of focusing attention on characteristics of ecosys-
tems that are critical to their integrity.
Table 2.—Critical ecosystem Integrity attributes.
• Elemental dynamics
• Energy dynamics (physical)
• Food web (trophic dynamics)
• Biodiversity
• Critical species
• Genetic diversity
• Dispersal and migration
• Natural disturbance
• Ecosystem development (successional processes)
Source: National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities
in Applied Environmental Research and Development.
National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
These issues must be addressed in designing
and implementing restoration projects: What
guidance can we develop from the workshop
and NRC compilations of critical ecosystem
characteristics, and how can we recognize and
translate measurements of these characteristics
into criteria? How can we use these criteria to
provide workable solutions that can be effec-
tively implemented? Finally, when considering
implementation, how do we meet multiple and
sometimes competing criteria to achieve a stated
objective?
The First Challenge
The first challenge in integrating ecological rele-
vance in engineering practice is to identify the
most appropriate criteria to direct initial engi-
neering design. Ecological relevance is often first
developed by observing the environment, col-
lecting data, and interpreting or assessing state
or condition monitoring. How does this moni-
toring fit in project design? The answer lies in
the unlikelihood that new designs will meet all,
or even several, of the management objectives.
Monitoring is needed to determine whether a
design is appropriate for site specific conditions
and to provide both the designer and engineer
with a basis for assessing if initial criteria and
implementation plans are appropriate. Monitor-
ing will often show the way to identifying essen-
tials. These essentials allow the ecologist and
engineer to get a handle on a complex natural
system and use that understanding to simplify
design and implementation.
In reality, complex systems seldom allow for
simple solutions; but simple solutions are clearly
needed in most restoration projects. If a design
does involve a simple solution, a firm founda-
tion in theory or practice must support its use.
This is where monitoring is needed again. Fol-
lowing selection of a simple system, effective
monitoring requires information that will allow
us to understand the consequences of our deci-
sion. We must recognize that monitoring-based
evaluations are needed, in fact essential, to break
down the barriers to successful restoration. As
we understand more about a system, we can
deal more effectively with its complexity; then
effective implementation will be less of a barrier
to success.
A final issue, one that we have seen on virtu-
ally every chart presented at this meeting, is that
recovery is a time-based process. If we consider
the identified integrity attributes in a recovery
context, we must evaluate success or failure of a
design through time.
To complete this discussion, we must ad-
dress some simple implementation issues—
space, opportunity, and stability. Implementing a
recovery design requires a suitable colonization
site. The site should have habitat and be of a suf-
ficient size to accommodate all, or the desired,
life history of desired species—space. Second, a
ready source of organisms must provide the op-
portunity for ecosystem development. Nothing
was more clear in the Minnesota wetland recla-
mation site than the demonstration that a readily
available source of colonizing organisms led to
rapid recovery. Finally, stability must exist to as-
sure successful establishment of organisms, not
simply colonization. This does not require abso-
lutely stable situation, but stability developed in
an ecological context. Generally, ecosystem
stability is not maintenance of exact structure
and function, but maintenance of similar struc-
ture and function, allowing for change within
some limits defined by the system capacity
(homeostasis).
Stormwater Wetland Example
An example of the use of technical tools in re-
covery can be found in the design of stormwater
wetlands. Many constructed wetlands are being
designed to meet stormwater treatment require-
ments (Fig. 1). When designing a stormwater
wetland, a typical goal is water quality improve-
ment. A number of factors contribute to the
capacity of this type of ecological system to meet
water quality improvement targets. In reality,
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Design context tor stormwater wetlands.
Influent
Water Quality
Stormwater
Wetland
Site
the function of these wetlands depends on both
physical and biological processes to meet design
criteria. The outcome of these designs can be rea-
sonably predictable.
One of the simplest design parameters is ba-
sin shape. In an earlier presentation, we saw an
Illinois wetland that had poor vegetation devel-
opment because of basin configuration (steep
sides and high average depth). Basin shape con-
siderations should include the introduction of
gentle banks, shoreline complexity, and general
variability in basin topography (Fig. 2). A vari-
able basin configuration will provide different
habitat zones for different kinds of plants and
associated organisms. Further, a natural hydrop-
eriod—the time-related change in water depth—
will change available habitat on some regular, or
irregular, basis. How this variability is managed
can be guided by ecological theory.
Intermediate Disturbance
Hypothesis
A valuable insight into maintenance of an eco-
system is provided by the intermediate distur-
bance hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that
to maintain maximum diversity in a system
stress should not be avoided; in fact, stress is es-
sential to system maintenance. The hypothesis is
illustrated in Figure 3. At low and high levels of
stress, ecosystem complexity/diversity is ex-
pected to be low. The highest complexity/diver-
sity will occur at some intermediate stress level.
The intermediate disturbance hypothesis sug-
gests that designs which produce constant condi-
tions should be avoided. To direct design, basin
configuration can be developed considering or-
ganism requirements. Usually, these require-
ments can be easily identified in a habitat response
curve. Knowing the expected response of different
organisms to physical conditions allows the
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Ł. Herricks
Figure 2.—Habitat zone* associated with water level change In wetland basins.
Mudflats
Open Water
Zone
High Water Levels
Mudflats
Shallow
and
Emergent
Zone
Open Water
Zone
Low Water Levels
Figure 3.—The Intermediate disturbance hypothesis.
High
c.
CO
Low
Physical^
control
• Non-equilibrium i
Competitive
' equilibrium
Frequent -
Soon after •
Large
-*• Infrequent
-*• Long after
-*• Small
Disturbance scale
designer to provide suitable depth conditions by
adjusting basin topography. A topographic de-
sign can then be evaluated based on expected
hydroperiod to select the configuration that pro-
vides an intermediate level of disturbance. An
example of this type of design is provided in Fig-
ures 4 and 5. A knowledge of water depth require-
ments allows the assessment of area available for
wetland plant species, developing habitat re-
sponse curves (Fig. 4). We can also predict long-
term trends in habitat availability (Fig. 5) where a
control elevation, which establishes depth condi-
tions in a wetland, is evaluated to determine the
area available for plants requiring shallow
conditions.
Integrating Ecological and
Engineering Design
The proposal that ecologists and engineers work
together more effectively is not new. What may be
new is calling for this interaction in a new water-
shed/ecosystem management paradigm. Ecolo-
gists should have the opportunity to contribute to
the design of projects, to develop a "practice of
ecology" that reflects the time scales required to
judge success or failure. Unlike engineers who
have a history of practice to depend upon, ecolo-
gists are at a disadvantage because they have
none. Ecologists can, however, develop a success-
ful ecological practice around restoration projects.
What is needed is an analog to the long-term eco-
logical research sites where long-term monitoring
provides the basis to assess success or failure and
to understand ecosystem recovery that will direct
future reclamation efforts.
Engineers must be given the opportunity to
contribute to ecological criteria development.
They bring a practical and necessary perspective
to the problem and, with the emphasis on cost and
feasibility, a needed dimension to reclamation
planning.
Clearly, ecologists and engineers need to work
together to effectively address site-specific, as well
as broader, watershed issues in restoration projects.
Design and implementation must accommodate
space and time in restoration and demonstrate suc-
cess, not only for ecological integrity but also cost.
~BB~
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 4.—Habitat response curves tor wetland plant species.
OT
o>
Available Area vs Depth
Phalaris
—i—
Spartina
Vallis
706 707 708 709 710 711 712
Figure 5.—Predicted changes In the area available for shallow zone wetland plant species with different control height.
April Shallow Zone
based on monthly avg elev, 1961-1986
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
year
DISCUSSION
• Question: In the profession of landscape ar-
chitecture, an emerging subgroup—architects—
have thought of many of these things. Is that
your experience?
• Answer—Edwin Herrlcks: Groups are ef-
fectively addressing these practical questions,
recognizing that single disciplines cannot solve
everything. Landscape architecture is an inter-
disciplinary activity that deals with many of
these issues. Unfortunately, some landscape
Proceedings • March 1993
urn
-------
E. Herricks
architects tend to be more design-oriented, from with a good bibliography there. I was planning
an aesthetic rather than an engineering design to have this copied.
context. We need to improve this relationships. _ _ _
• Comment: Ecological engineering has a va-
• Comment: In Environmental Science and riety of definitions, but as in everything, we
Technology, the lead article is "Ecological engi- need to think about connections, which establish
neering in the planetary life support system" practical relationships. U
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools
Stream Habitat Restoration
Using Best Management
Practices on Lower Boulder
Creek, Colorado
Jay Windell
University of Colorado and Aquatic Wetland Consultants
Boulder, Colorado
The state of Colorado covers about
104,000 square miles. The total water
surface—ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and
streams—encompasses 453 square
miles, which is less than one-half of one percent of
total land area. Colorado is a semi-arid desert, a
very dry state.
The Boulder Watershed has three important
features: the 119-square-mile Indian Peaks wil-
derness area beginning at the Continental Di-
vide, the 234-square-mile Roosevelt Arapaho
National Forest, and a 10-square-mile glacier
which supplies Boulder's water.
Boulder Creek flows out of the canyon and
down through the city. It has a new expanded
and updated $21 million wastewater treatment
plant—an outstanding facility (Fig. 1).
An Abused System
The creek is severely channelized. In fact, from
the mouth of the canyon down to its confluence
with the Saint Vrain Creek, 71 percent of the
stream channel has been channelized. The chan-
nel is 11 miles shorter than its historical length.
Collectively, the problems relate to nonpoint
source pollution including grazing and eroded
banks. Almost 10 percent of our project reach,
8.5 miles, had severely eroded banks from graz-
ing, gravel mining, and channelization, and con-
tributed hundreds of tons of sediment yearly. In
fact, we put in a stake and lost five feet of stream
bank in one day. Irrigation return flows contrib-
uted thousands of tons of sediment each year.
The riparian zone has been channelized, and
buried in the sand. The trees have been cut for
fire wood. It is an abused ecosystem in very ill
health. Now, do you spend $21 million to put
crystal clear water in this? I expressed my con-
cerns to the engineers, who challenged me to
find a solution.
This is how we got involved in the project.
We created a very simplistic, cheap fish passage
structure. Initially, the problem was point source
pollution, mostly corrected by the new plant. In
addition, we had a nonpoint source problem
that precluded use attainment—in this case,
Warm Water Class 1.
We wrote proposals and received funding.
Phase I included an easement from Boulder Valley
Farm—150 feet on each side of the stream bank—
which we fenced (Fig. 2). We got another easement
upstream. We received $350,000 for the first three
phases. We are now in the process of doing phase
IV, with a $225,000,60 / 40 matching grant. We have
implemented 12 different best management prac-
tices, divided into three groups: riparian habitat,
aquatic habitat, and water quality habitat (Table 1).
We spent about $40,000 dollars for fencing.
We excavated berms left over from channelization
and planted them. We tried log revetment. It did
not work very well. We tried jetties—they were
not particularly cost effective. We have tried brush
layering, wattling, and a boulder tow with brush
bundles (Fig. 3). In beginning this project, we had
good preproject/pre-treatment data. We con-
ducted a use attainability study and have a year-
and-a-half of water quality data. During the year,
we looked at everything—fish, bugs, vegetation,
and anything else we could think of.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—The Boulder Creek Watershed was divided Into an upper basin (mountain) and lower basin (plains) where
12 best management practices have been used.
Point Source i Nonpginl Source Use
Pollution Control ~r~ Pollution Control — Attainment
Watershed
Continental
Divide
Upper
Basin
Muniapal
Wastewater
Plant
Creek. l-Ubrtat Restoration
Figure 2.—Land ownership and locations of the four phases of the Boulder Creek nonpolnt source pollution
demonstration project.
•PHAS5 IV
X
'HASE 1
/*
s
3
Boulder Cre*:
^
Development I
City vvejser Ertl
of
Boulder
fdrm in Boulder
Otyof
Boulder .
ConstrvjDon
Easement
VJImont RoJd
VlCIMITV MAP
Tremendous runoffs come out of the moun-
tains starting the middle of May and going
through July. In dealing with that situation, we
cut the slope; but if you cut the slope off, you
must haul it away. So, we have been using a bal-
anced cut-and-fill technique with a boulder toe.
Using Live Stakes
Brush layering techniques look good on paper.
But in the field, construction is difficult. Brush
layering involves using erosion control fabric.
We also use a combination of brush layering and
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
/. Windell
Table 1.—Groupings of the 12 Implemented best
management practices according to habitat type.
NONPOINT SOURCE
BMP
RIPARIAN HABITAT
Overland flow
Streambank erosion
Fencing
Vegetation planting/seeding
Berm removal
Log revetment
Jetties
Brush layering
Wattling
Boulder toe/brush bundle
AQUATIC HABITAT
Excessive width and
shallow depth/aquatic
weeds
Flat water
Diversion dams
Narrow channel with low
flow pool/point barAaitout
Rock aeration structure
Fish passage structure
WATER QUALITY HABITAT
Irrigation ditch return
flows
Wetland habitat
enhancement
wattling, using a fabric cover. In one case, we cut
willows, tied them up, and planted them as bun-
dles or live stakes. To grow, willows need to
reach the groundwater table. The forest service
and railroads gave permission to harvest the
willows from railroads and irrigation ditches.
After harvesting, we returned at the end of the
growing season to measure new growth. From
the stub next to the ground, the willows had
grown 56 inches in five-and-half months.
In one severely eroded streambank, the con-
tractor put in a boulder tow and laid fabric We
tried several different fabrics. One fabric covered
up the wattles and did not allow good growth. We
also put in a low flow (thalweg) pool in a cut-and-
haul streambank. The spoils removed from the
pool were used to build a point bar, which is
planted and left for normal successional takeover.
Quality Control—a Problem
In a project for Coors Brewery in the city of
Golden, we are creating trout habitat—a good
example of technology transfer. However, qual-
ity control from the lowest bidder has been a se-
rious problem. Contractors are responsible for
constructing projects using nonstandard con-
struction practices, but they do not know how.
Unless supervised every minute, they can
destroy a stream in a hurry. The answer was to
train the workers to do it correctly. This included
putting in the boulder toe on the super-eroded
Figure 3.—Wattling was one of several best management practices used to prevent streambank erosion.
cottonwood whip
•Thalweg Pool
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
banks, laying in the willows extra thick, laying
out the erosion control fabric, cutting down the
bank to catch the edge of the erosion control fab-
ric, and tying up the long bundles of wattles that
were placed in a shallow trench and covered
with fabric.
A big controversy occurred over whether to
cut the willows after leafout and whether they
would grow. While some say it will not work, it
worked for us. Five weeks after we installed a
wattle treatment with erosion control fabric, we
had a giant storm. We lost a few willows, but the
treatment held.
On the Jordan River in Utah, we used a boul-
der toe brush bundle technique to correct a
highly eroded bank. This will come alive in the
spring, and we expect it to withstand a runoff.
The question of willow growth by the sand bar
willow is important. In measuring several thou-
sand, after 84 days the average height for the
north and south banks was 15.2 inches. By the
end of the growing season, the average shoot
height from wattles covered with erosion control
fabric was 27.4 inches (Table 2). The root struc-
ture was so dense that after five-and-half months
we needed an ax and a hatchet to pull it apart.
The Riprap Tragedy
Out West and in other places, riprap is common.
This is a tragedy—the "riprap-ization" of Amer-
ica. These are not the kind of streambanks we
want—people need to get back to vegetation. In
Boulder and in Golden, we have grouted
riprap—concrete walls—I call it "concrete-itis."
The people who are paying and the people who
are designing must never have heard of plants
and roots. Nature has been stabilizing stream-
banks from the beginning of time with roots and
vegetation. It is time we got back to roots and
not use riprap.
DISCUSSION
• Comment—Ed Herricks: A major restora-
tion in Illinois, the Court Creek project, uses wil-
low shoots, and a number of devices have been
developed to efficiently get these willow shoots
into the stream banks to prevent erosion.
• Comment: In working with the Corps of En-
gineers environmental and hydrologic lab at Wa-
terways Experiment Station, we looked at four
similar sites in different parts of the country. I
certainly agree with the need for roots and vege-
tation. But using riprap conservatively as boul-
ders to stabilize the slope toe and give the roots a
chance to grow is a key factor in any vegetation
project. You must control the toe in some manner.
Right now, technology suggests that boulders or
riprap, conservatively used, may be the best way
to do it. Do you agree?
• Answer—Jay Windell: Yes, your point is
well taken. I want to get rid of the boulders and
the boulder toe. We needed the boulder toe to get
through this first runoff until that root structure
developed. Then, if the boulders shift and move,
they just create fish habitat. On concave banks,
the vegetation provides overhead cover for fish.
In monitoring fish populations, preliminary data
suggests that they are coming back—they love
the overhead cover.
• Question: In the northeast quadrant of Colo-
rado—the South Platte drainage—streams the
size of Boulder cut off the colony-stimulating fac-
tor (CSF) there. From evaluating water quality
parameters for dissolved oxygen, we found that
in 30 percent of the streams temperature and un-
ionized ammonia exceeded the limits. That
would be directly related to the habitat condi-
tions in those streams.
Table 2.—End of season growth rate for the sand bar willow (Sallx exlgua) wattles planted on the north and south
streambanks. Length of treatment for planting, completed May 1,1992, was 170 feet and 225 feet respectively.
GROWTH
ROW NUMBER
North bank
South bank
North & south banks
NO. OF 1m
PLOTS
19
30
49
TOTAL NO.
MEASURED
PER ROW
185
630
815
MEAN NO. OF
SHOOTS PER
METER
10
21
17
MAXIMUM
INDIVIDUAL
HEIGHT (IN)
58.3
55.3
56.8
MEAN HEIGHT
(IN)2
33.0
25.8
27.4
1 Maximum growth for 178 days = 0.32 inches per day
2 Mean growth for 178 days = 0/15 inches per day
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
/. Windell
• Answer—Jay Windell: Yes, I did not men-
tioned that. The wastewater treatment plant has a
$2 million nitrification tower, requiring $150,000
to $200,000 a year forever to treat total ammonia.
When the total ammonia moves down the stream
in the presence of high temperature and high pH,
it is converted to un-ionized ammonia—and we
still have problems. We spent $21 million and we
still have an un-ionized ammonia problem.
So I have a very simple general biology hy-
pothesis—narrow the stream and put it back the
way it was historically. We tried to create pools on
whatever concave banks were left and bury them
in vegetation. Every place with shade has no
aquatic vegetation. Channelization results in a
wider channel with a thin film of water; 25 cubic
feet per second comes out of the plant—day, night,
and year around. This creates a biological jungle.
As the plants photosynthesize, they pull the carb-
on dioxide out of the water, causing the pH to rise
to 10. The lack of shade causes the water to heat
up. Suddenly, the water has a high temperature, a
high pH, and an un-ionized ammonia problem—
particularly as the days start getting longer in
the spring and shorter in the fall.
We are doing work on the un-ionized ammo-
nia approach. We think we can bring the ecosys-
tem back, and we think it is coming back. It is
too soon to tell if we can solve the un-ionized
ammonia problem—we have a long way to go.
• Question: Did you use any species other
than salix species in your work on the banks?
• Answer—Jay Windell: Yes, a little bit—in
fact, I have an additional sequence. Cottonwood
poles develop an extensive root structure. In-
itially, we used the crack willow. Although its
root structure grows incredibly fast, it is not a
native species, so we were not allowed to use it.
We used peach leaf willow, which no one knows
anything about, and it has not done well.
• Question: Did you find any significant dif-
ferences in growth between fall and spring
planting?
• Answer—Jay Windell: I have not looked at
that, but I will. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools
Successional Restoration in
Midwestern Grasslands
Ed Collins
McHenry County Conservation District
Ringwood, Illinois
About 10 years ago, practitioners of res-
toration in both savannas and prairies
in northeast Illinois had to face up to a
pretty difficult fact—that savanna and
prairie restorations undertaken across the region
were stalled in an early phase. A few common
forbs and tall grasses, like big bluestem and Indian
grass, lack the richness and diversity typical of
remaining high quality natural areas.
Savanna Projects Encouraging
So quite independent of one another, several
projects began to experiment with different
methods for establishing prairie and savanna
restorations. The results are not quantitative;
much is narrative and based on the observations
of individual field practitioners. But the initial
results have encouraged further study among
the scientific restoration community.
Traditional approaches to restoring grass-
lands in the Midwest have focused on restoring
native species to formerly plowed ground. The
process was pretty much the same whether the
ground was not plowed, was pastured, or was a
hay field—plow it first.
For about 15 or 20 years, this has been our
method to restore prairies in the Midwest, pri-
marily on former agricultural ground and di-
rectly into soil that had row crops the previous
year. For the most part, the results have been dis-
appointing—large stands of ranked grasses,
with a few forbs like the Indian grass, represent
a real lack of diversity in the overall community.
In particular, spring flowering plants are ab-
sent, and traditionally conservative species that
only appear in the West, like prairie clover, are
the highest quality remnant. Trying to add more
forfe to the initial mix has helped somewhat, but
the overall results have been the same—a real
lack of diversity across the board.
Drawing and introducing transplants of
more conservative species have generally failed.
Although in isolated cases it has enriched par-
ticular flux, it is not cost effective and is very la-
bor intensive.
Why doesn't it work? We can develop a na-
tive hay field or a very poor quality prairie using
these techniques, but we cannot replicate high
quality areas. The reasons are several. Agricul-
tural land in general has often been abused;
sometimes the land contains chemical carry-
overs from previously used fertilizers, pesti-
cides, and herbicides. This is a very hostile
environment. When introducing seeds into an
area with primary succession, the environment
is not suitable for many of the more conservative
prairie and savanna species. With poor soil
structure, the area harbors intense competition
and high disturbance, resulting in species that
can handle a disturbance regime. This is a selec-
tive pressure for species like ranked grasses or
aggressive forbs.
Similar situations exist in savannas. At least
in the Midwest, the 90 percent that remain have
no existing herbaceous cover and have no re-
semblance to presettlement time. In a typical
midwestern and especially northeastern Illinois
savanna, the remaining oaks are overgrown with
a brush layer of exotic or introduced species.
The first process of structural restoration is to
get rid of the brush layer and open up the savanna.
This highly disturbed area creates the same type
of situation for introducing a herbaceous layer,
often resulting in something that remotely resem-
bles what we believe existed in the savanna's her-
baceous layer prior to settlement. Species that
make their home somewhere in Eurasia often
come up after structural restoration is complete
and the savanna restored.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Natural Succession
In developing several projects, we began looking
at different approaches to get a better mix of spe-
cies for a natural succession restoration. Our goal
was to use the process of succession to get a more
complete and diverse mix of natural species.
In pastureland, the process works in two
ways. Where existing cover composed of old pas-
ture grasses or hay is in place, the process involves
direct sowing. This was used on a small scale in
the North Branch Prairie project along the Chicago
River by sowing a matrix of Kentucky bluegrass,
redtop, and some European brown. After a fire
with some cover remaining, seeds were sown into
the ground and raked directly into a Eurasian mix.
The former process would have been to plow this
up, get rid of it in some way, and start from
scratch.
The same agricultural technique can be used
on larger sites with a conventional seed drill
adapted for no-till planting. A machine with cut-
ters slices through the sod and lays down the seed
on the existing matrix.
Correcting other damage to the site improves
the process. In our part of the country, this in-
volves restoring the hydrology. Upper midwest
and northeastern Illinois has a poorly drained
landscape from excessive tiling and ditching. In
fact, in the 1930s, the federal government esti-
mated that Illinois alone had enough under-
ground tile to encircle the world six times and
enough above-ground drainage ditches to stretch
in a straight line from Chicago to Outer Mongolia.
Proper Management
Once the successional restoration has been
sown, proper management is critical to success.
This can involve several approaches. Tradition-
ally, burning has been used; but experiments
show that mowing will do the same thing. Mow-
ing suppresses the Eurasian pasture grasses and,
when done at a high enough level—about four
to five inches—it does not harm the developing
native species. After three or four years of mow-
ing, the system is much more diverse. The Eur-
asian species decline and the native ones surge.
While we do not have a lot of quantitative
information, experiments underway now should
yield some future results. A control plot on the
North Branch Prairie project consists of Kentucky
bluegrass and introduced Eurasian redtop. When
we isolated the control plot, we started a second
plot composed of drop seed and Indian grass, two
native prairie species sown directly into the same
matrix.
Another plot done at the same time has forbs
typical in a prairie region such as rattlesnake mas-
Proceedings • March 1993
ter, clover, and the more common black-eyed
Susan. These have come up through the matrix.
The European grasses are becoming more and
more difficult to find. In fact, after 10 years, the
Eurasian grasses have disappeared completely
and been replaced by native species. In another
plot, some conservative species such as prairie
dock, spiderwort, blueflower, and other conserva-
tive grasses dropped seed.
Only Islands Exist
We are not exactly sure why this works—we just
know that it does. Those involved in succes-
sional restoration have some ideas. In the Mid-
west, we are not dealing with a landscape
anywhere close to its condition at the time of set-
tlement. In fact, only about 0.07 percent of Illi-
nois is in its original condition; the rest has been
highly modified. Where once wide expansive
prairies were filled with conservative species,
only small isolated islands exist.
Fragmentation and plowing have eliminated
many of the most common species. This complete
reversal means that species on the original prairie,
now considered conservative, are far more com-
mon than those typically found in disturbed relics
or in prairie restorations. Those more tolerant of
disturbance or of harsh soil conditions are most
common.
A more developed soil structure and many
varieties in the soil may be necessary to develop
the more conservative species. A nonaggressive
Eurasian grass can be sown into a plowed field
waiting for restoration to begin or by using old
pastures and former hay fields as initial restora-
tion sites. This allows the soil to recover somewhat
from row cropping, develop a more advanced soil
structure and profile, and at least at the fungal
layer, recover somewhat from farming effects.
This could be one reason why this process is so
successful.
For extremely small-seeded species like the
shooting star, an existing matrix may prevent frost
heave. Experiments on a number of sites show that
these species typically put out little vegetative
growth the first year; they typically heave out of
the ground during hard winters. Sowing these
species into an existing matrix that can hold the
soil provides a much better chance at survival;
therefore, the establishment rate is much higher.
The same process is used in a savanna, but we
need more basic research on this technique. Ex-
periments and narrative evidence gathered in
northeastern Illinois suggest that this process
might eventually replace more typical approaches
to regional prairie and savanna restoration. Spe-
cifically, brush is cleared and bare soil seeded
down with Eurasian pasture grass and redtop,
-------
E. Collins
tolerant of shade. Several years later, savanna and
prairie species are introduced. The result is a struc-
ture and diversity more typical of natural area
remnants.
DISCUSSION
• Question: At the time of settlement, farmers
sometimes burned their prairies to establish Eur-
asian grasses. That sounds like reversing the
process. Any comments?
• Answer—Ed Collins: That is a good point.
West of the Mississippi where the native prairie
has a much longer tradition than in Illinois, the
timing of the taking of the hay crop largely de-
termines whether a field or a prairie evolves to-
ward a cool-season Eurasian grass mixture or
retains a native warm-season prairie grass mix-
ture. Fields planted to hay over time loose their
diversity and move toward cool-season grasses.
Thus, the process works both ways and is
greatly dependent on both the initial sowing and
management techniques employed afterwards.
• Question: I am aware of an Illinois Beach
State Park effort to map oak savannas according
to their relative quality. Does McHenry County
have a similar oak savanna program?
• Answer—Ed Collins: Most counties in the
region have made efforts to map the location of
old savannas. They are fairly easy to find
through soils and air photos. In our part of the
world, they are the favorite place for putting
houses and survive for a number of reasons.
People originally built houses there, used the
growth for timber, and used the land for grazing.
So the savanna was not destroyed as completely
as the tall grass prairie. McHenry, Kane, and
Lake counties have a process underway to locate
them.
• Question: I have been involved in similar
efforts in Missouri. Were you able to adequately
control the existing vegetation by using fire and
mowing, without using chemicals, when you
were no-tilling into sod?
• Answer—Ed Collins: Yes, we were. I in-
itially thought that we would not be successful.
Some European grasses are very aggressive, par-
ticularly smooth bream. We did exactly what I
explained—no-till seeding into a burned smooth
bream field. Within five years, the bream had
dissipated and prairie grasses had taken over. So
we have not needed chemical control in the
field.
A lot depends on the field's productivity. A
hay field past its prime—seven to 10 years old—
may already be declining. Holes may have
opened, allowing in goldenrod, milkweed, or
some other old field successional plants. This is
when these fields are ripe for successional resto-
ration. Currently, we have not experimented
with alfalfa, although we plan to try experi-
ments this year.
• Question: You mentioned a burn that oc-
curred with bream. What was involved?
• Answer—Ed Collins: The field was burned
three times in five years and always in the
spring.
• Comment: In Missouri, we had trouble with
fescue, which is very competitive, and some-
what with blue grass; the bream was easier.
• Comment: Ed Collins: For cool-season
Eurasian grasses, a late spring burn used in se-
quence with successional planting for several
years will suppress the European grasses in their
early growth when they are most susceptible.
This will tip the balance in favor of warm-season
grasses. That technique, used in association with
successional restoration, is productive. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools
Restoration of Riverine Habitat
Diversity on the North Shore of
Lake Superior
Ed Iwachewski
Environment Canada and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Thunder Bay, Ontario
I have been fortunate to work on Lake Supe-
rior's north shore, renowned for its physical
beauty. In most locations, you can find mag-
nificent scenery without much difficulty and
without worrying about seeing a railway, a truck,
or people. Over the past 100 years or so, some
areas have changed dramatically. The world re-
cord speckled trout (14 pounds) was caught in
1916. Back then, people paid $24 for a two-day
license to fish the Nipigon River—people in On-
tario now complain about a $15 license to fish for
the whole year. At Thunder Bay, extensive wet-
lands once lined the entire waterfront.
All around the Great Lakes, extensive degra-
dation of water quality and habitat has resulted
in 43 locations designated as requiring Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs). The four Areas of Concern
on Lake Superior's north shore are Thunder Bay
on the west, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, and Pen-
insula Harbor. I will focus on Thunder Bay and
Nipigon Bay.
Stresses Abound
A variety of stresses plague the Areas of Concern
including effluent from pulp and paper mills,
which is one problem common to all four ar-
eas.Thunder Bay is famous for shipping, and re-
cently handled the second largest amount of
tonnage of any Canadian port. It was once called
"the Chicago of the North." Extensive dredging
and filling from shipping-related development
and the creation of road and railway linkages
has greatly altered the waterfront. The industrial
growth has caused a loss of aquatic species di-
versity and abundance, degraded water quality,
and eliminated most of the original wetlands.
North America's recent economic recession has
been hard on everyone. The dramatic downturn in
industrial activity left many plants dosed or aban-
doned. While this was not a desirable event, it cre-
ated a chance to work on some of our degraded
areas.Environment Canada recognized this win-
dow of opportunity and created the Great Lakes
Cleanup Fund. The fund provides seed funding for
partnerships to undertake water quality and habitat
restoration initiatives on the Great Lakes, specifi-
cally within Canadian Areas of Concern.
The community of Thunder Bay numbers
about 130,00 people; many are currently unem-
ployed. A number of sites were selected by our
Public Advisory Committee through the Reme-
dial Action Plan for rehabilitative work. Coinci-
dentally, the sites that need restoration were also
those chosen by agencies. We believed we could
have greater positive impact by focusing on the
mouths of tributaries. In order to avoid spreading
ourselves thin, we developed projects people
could see—improving or replacing spawning
habitat, working on wetlands and littoral zones,
and increasing recreational opportunities to bring
people back to the waterfront.
One project was to create a fish ladder on the
Current River. A dam has been in place since
about 1910 and has blocked the migration of a
variety of salmonids to prime habitat upstream. In
partnership with the North Shore Steelhead Asso-
ciation, the provincial government, and the fed-
eral government, we built a fish ladder and a series
of step pools for operation this spring. The Cur-
rent River's mouth has three new spawning areas,
replacing areas dredged out in the past. Through
mark and recapture, we determined that over
1,000 walleye spawned here two years in a row.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Assessment, An Important
Element
A most important element in our project is as-
sessment. We have three years of preassessment
data on each project site and a commitment for
at least three years of post assessment. We hope
to establish other partnerships for additional
long-term monitoring.
A former walleye spawning bed at the
mouth of McVicar Creek had been degraded by
construction of an overpass and railways. Silt
covered the entire bottom, which was devoid of
rocks and vegetation. Engineers did flow model-
ing, resulting in excavating and rebuilding the
spawning bed. Bank stabilization ensures that
no new silt degrades the bed. Currently, we are
building a 175-meter crescent-shaped island to
shelter a new wetland and provide nursery and
spawning habitat to increase the diversity of the
creek mouth area.
The Neebing Maclntyre Floodway is designed
only to carry flood waters. It was built in 1980,
without any thought to fish habitat, filling in the
lower stretches of two natural rivers and excavat-
ing a new flood channel. During premonitoring,
the only location where we found any type of
crayfish, for example, was in the chassis of a Mo-
torola Quasar color TV trawled out of the bottom.
Convincing engineers who had designed
and were responsible for maintaining the flood
channel to allow any work was difficult. We
were not allowed to do anything to alter the
channel or its capacity to carry flood waters. We
could only work within five meters of the chan-
nel on floodway property.
These restrictions constrained our choice of
designs, resulting in simple structural designs to
add diversity, structure, and cover along the
shore. We were finally allowed to build 20-meter-
long embayments. If these proved successful, we
hoped we could add these or similar structures
along the entire length of the floodway to im-
prove diversity and habitat.
In summer and fall of 1992, the catch of fish
from electrofishing and seining surveys in a 20-
meter embayment was higher than in the 400-
meter control stretches or in any other portion of
the floodway. This successfully demonstrated, at
least in the short term, that these structures benefit
the floodway.
In the Kaministiquia River, concrete or steel
sheet piling lines most of the shoreline. In an effort
to provide public access to the water, the city built
the Donald Street Underpass, a small pavilion out
on the water. The engineers, however, insisted on
using sheet piling, resulting in a vertical face and
dredging to 28 feet deep.
A Hiding Place for Bass
Since the channel could not be altered, we con-
vinced the engineers to design at least some over-
hang on the concrete, similar to a natural
undercut bank. However, the concrete allowed
for no vegetation on top. In addition, we had
them weld the steel sheet piling on the vertical
face or shelves to provide cover and hiding spots
for bass. The 8-foot sections with shelves along
the sheet piling would allow a contrast with the
nonshelved sections. Last summer divers ob-
served that bass, in fact, were hiding in the
shelves. Unfortunately, the water was too turbid
to quantify the degree of use, so we do not know
whether or not this method is a success.
This was an approach to allow some new
thinking and it has paid off. In designing the
next 200-meter stretch upstream, the engineers
decided to go with more sheet piling, drew some
shelves on and hoped this would make the bi-
ologists happy. While this was nice, we could
have had more input earlier in the design. In
fact, our new design will maintain a section of
soft shoreline for vegetation and create a natu-
rally overhanging bank. Instead of putting the
pedestrian walkway on sheet piling and backfill-
ing everything, placement on posts will allow
for natural water flows. By reducing costs from
$900,000 to $450,000, the city was happy and ac-
cepted our design.
The McKellar River is a heavily armored
channel designed for navigation, with paper
mills upstream. A covered landfill site is located
where the river enters Thunder Bay Harbor.
Many believe it is a natural meadow. This sum-
mer we hope to create two lagoons to provide
spawning habitat for bass, perch, pike, and wa-
terfowl nesting. In addition, we are planning a
series of handicapped-accessible fishing plat-
forms and walkways. The city, provincial, and
federal governments are contributing funding to
this project.
Walleye Absent
The town of Nipigon has a beautiful setting, but
changes to the area have been significant. Log
drives and the construction of three hydroelec-
tric dams on the Nipigon River degraded river-
ine habitat and blocked migration routes for fish.
Water quality in Nipigon Bay was affected by
the pulp and paper mill in the nearby commu-
nity of Red Rock, although recent improvements
have been made. Our goals here are to rebuild
the historic walleye population, restore de-
graded wetlands and spawning sites, and de-
velop a water management plan for the river.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Ł. Iwachewski
Nipigon Bay once produced some 50,000 wall-
eye each year. After four years of netting found no
walleye in the system, we began an extensive
adult walleye introduction program. We have
stocked three genetic strains and over 14,000 adult
pickerel. Through genetic mitochondrial DNA
markers, we can determine the most successful
strain in rebuilding the population. We also re-
stored some spawning beds along the river.
The water level management plan is likely our
most important project. Ontario Hydro has three
hydroelectric generating stations on the Nipigon
River. In the lowest one closest to Lake Superior,
fish of all types move up to the base of the struc-
ture and spawn. Chinook and coho salmon, steel-
head and brook trout, and walleye all move into
this area to spawn.
However, when the plants are not generating
power, they tend to hold back water. As a result,
the eggs become dewatered, and in the winter
they freeze and die; even the young fry become
stranded in pools, freeze, and die. To prevent this,
we are working on a long-term plan that will take
about two years to develop. It must be a coopera-
tive venture with Ontario Hydro and all the sys-
tem's users.
A Friendly System
The township of Red Rock, with its paper mill
production and its employment base cut in half,
wanted to build a marina. We started with a
standard L-shaped rock breakwall design used
in Canadian harbors. We modified it, adding fish
habitat and cover along the inside and outside of
the breakwall, pedestrian walkways, and fishing
platforms. The system is both people and habitat
friendly.
The rock breakwall brings a net productive
benefit to the habitat, especially with an all-silt bot-
tom. A report, produced about two years ago,
showed that rockbreakwalls do have fish in an ag-
gregating, if not productive, capacity. Eventually
structures with overhanging logs, undercut banks,
and other elements will look natural. In addition,
we can improve the productive capacity, produc-
ing a model for all breakwall designs. At the end of
construction, we hope to produce a manual on
breakwall habitat-friendly construction.
Partners are Vital
Having partners is vital. Partners enabled us to
get funding through Environment Canada,
which can only provide one-third of the funds.
The lack of funds can cause an individual,
agency, or group to place a project low on the
priority scale. But with partners, projects move
up on the scale, and people are more willing to
become sharing partners.
The public is very important. We have strong
community support in Thunder Bay, and we
never miss an opportunity meet the community—
at a boat show or in setting up our own displays.
The environmental assessment process and public
input phase for each project is important. Environ-
mental assessments are tremendous public inter-
est generating and support devices, even though
agency staff are often afraid of them.
Now we are working on public support for
other programs, like the Bi-National Program to
turn Lake Superior into a model for zero discharge
of persistent toxic chemicals. Our Lake Superior
Program Office is also involved in the RAP initia-
tive. Those projects stress the need to look at all
aspects of improving habitat and water quality
together, not just one project or idea. You must
have an ecosystem approach.
Industry is a major partner. Without industry,
our towns would not exist, especially on the north
shore with its many one-industry pulp and paper
mill towns. Without industry's cooperation and
involvement, the towns would shut down. But we
cannot make demands—support must be a coop-
erative effort—and it is not an easy process. Indus-
try acknowledges the controlling regulations, but
some realize that partnerships and funding will
enable industry to save money—by doing now
what would have to be done in the long-term.
Enhancing Productivity
Our relatively maintenance-free cleanup projects
should enhance productive fish habitat and cre-
ate long-term benefits. We also expect partner-
ships to be long-term and begin a new approach.
Our community has a heightened awareness
about environmental matters. In these tough
economic times, people must maintain the impe-
tus and the desire to embrace environmentally
friendly projects. We may need to make some
economic tradeoffs; we may also need to bite the
bullet. But we must think about the long-term
benefits. After all, the real reason to take action is
not only for ourselves, but for the future.
DISCUSSION
• Question: How are you dealing with con-
taminated sediments in your restoration plans?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: A number of ar-
eas within Thunder Bay Harbor, Nipigon, and
Peninsula Harbor have contaminated sediments.
We have been working on a variety of projects
there. The worst problem is a Northern Wood
tm
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Preservers' creosote blob. We have a number of
ideas about how to clean it up.
A benefit with the Cleanup Fund is that it is not
confined to the north shore of Lake Superior; it is
in all 17 Areas of Concern on the Canadian side. A
number of demonstration projects—in Hamilton
and Toronto harbors—work on things like in situ
bio-remediation, techniques for removing sedi-
ments, catalytic action to destroy contaminants,
and replacing the sediments. We have not actually
done any contaminated sediment work yet; we are
hoping to gain from the other cleanup projects
through technology transfer.
In Peninsula Harbor, which has mercury con-
taminated sediments, we are working on a proc-
ess involving selenium to influence or interrupt
the methylation of mercury at the water sedi-
ment interface. We hope to set up a pilot scale
version next year.
• Question: Any estimate of when you would
actually start remediation in Thunder Bay or
Nipigon?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: We hope to deal
with the creosote problem in Thunder Bay this
year. The committee is moving from a litigious
to a cooperative stance and is debating which of
six technologies to use. The technologies come
with cost tradeoffs—some are cheaper than oth-
ers. I do not know which would be the most ef-
fective technology.
• Question: Single, extractive industries
plague many small communities around Lake
Superior basin. We want to help those communi-
ties move forward into a less extractive economy
or some alternative system to meet social needs.
Does Ontario have any formal economic restruc-
turing program available to communities like
Red Rock or incentive ideas on converting in-
dustry into chlorine alternative bleaching or
other types of development?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: While not a for-
mal plan, when a mill shuts down restructuring
happens quickly. The Ministry of Industry,
Trade, and Technology may have a strategy. But
in the four north shore communities, we have
not seen any serious attempt to find alternative
employment. All four communities are in timber
harvesting and pulp and paper production.
They all are trying to shift their economies to
tourism, but that will not replace the jobs that
pay $16 or $17 an hour.
• Question: Have discussions taken place
with the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Tech-
nology about retraining workers and gearing re-
training toward ecosystem restoration or other
habitat, labor-specific tasks to improve the area?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: That is a great
idea and I would like to see it happen, but I do
not believe it has ever been broached with the
proper people. The breakwall structure in Red
Rock is a small example of a community-based
project. The project required the contractor to
use local labor and sources. The marina itself
will have 238 slips using floating docks. We hope
to set up our prefabrication structure, hire local
people, buy wood and materials, and have the
people assemble the docks. But that is small
scale for one summer.
• Question: The United States has had good
relationships between EPA and the tribes. The
indigenous people along the southern shore will
be included in future policy discussions about
Lake Superior's management. What is Ontario
doing to work with native people on the north-
ern shore? Are they included in management
prescriptions or in planning out what desig-
nated uses the waterways will support?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: Yes, but those
discussions are in their infancy. In Canada, the
Supreme Court has not decided on treaty rights.
Similar to the United States, Canada has a vari-
ety of treaty rights—different treaties were
signed at various times with different bands. On
Lake Superior's north shore in the Superior Ro-
binson treaty area, most economic development
efforts have been related to the forest industry
and commercial fishing. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
PANEL: Development and Use of Technical Tools
General Panel Discussion
Edwin Herricks
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
Ed Iwachewski
Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Jay Windell
University of Colorado and Aquatic Wetland Consultants
Boulder, Colorado
Ed Collins
McHenry County Conservation District
Ringwood, Illinois
Comment—Ed Herricks: The confer-
ence organizers have prepared several
questions for the panelists to consider.
Two questions are somewhat related:
What are the technical capabilities needed to do
restoration in particular ecosystem types—forest,
wetlands, streams, and others? And what are the
technical needs? This is a uniquely qualified group
to talk about that technical capability.
• Comment—Jay Windell: We have used
some 1,143 feet of wattling, 1,338 feet of brush
layering, and not near that much boulder toe
brush bundles. I have seen projects around the
west that have used either no vegetation or
sparse vegetation. You cannot use too much. It is
essentially free, except for the labor; and we
have hired people for $6 to $8 an hour.
A major concern regarding capability in
stream restoration is that when you start fid-
dling around with the banks, putting in point
bars and concave banks, the additions are not
where Mother Nature really wants them. Then,
you are setting up for disaster. We need to un-
derstand the real factors that may be controlling
what is happening in the watershed. One area in
which we have a lot of information and that is
used inadequately is hydraulics.
Let me tell you a sad story. In phase one, I de-
signed 11 low flow pools within a highly chan-
nelized 1.3 mile reach. Seven of them filled with
sediment the first year. The five left are on the
concave bank, right where Mother Nature
would have put them. I cannot believe I made
that mistake. In fact, I did that purposely be-
cause I wanted to restore some of the historic
meandering. The land owner was amenable to
that.
• Comment: In considering restoration, one
thing we should keep in mind is how the ecosys-
tem will work. Starting with a bare plot of land
will be difficult. To succeed, you need to take a
running start from some system components
and build on your knowledge of what the sys-
tem was like. Then do whatever is necessary to
restore the system.
• Comment: That is absolutely right. We are
looking at restoration out of the project phase now
and faced with ecosystem problems on the land-
scape level. The North American system needs to
be built at a large scale. To accomplish this, we
need to further the marriage between engineering
and ecology. We need to expand it to include mar-
riages between the ecologists and restorationists
and other practitioners—farmers, people who
clear land for a living, developers—familiar with
technologies that may need adapting.
Beyond that, we need to develop ways to
work with a large portion of the system at one
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
time. Successional restoration offers possibilities
to do that on a large scale on land currently used
for public grazing, for example. Out west, vast
tracks that are degraded through over grazing
could be brought back by the same process. Both
that marriage and technology between different
disciplines and upscaling as much as possible is
important.
• Question—Ed Herricks: What is the
status and usefulness of prediction modeling?
Maybe Ed Iwachewski can provide some insight
since he was in a situation requiring negotiations
with engineers over a channel requiring a cer-
tain flood flow. These engineers obviously pro-
vided significant input into the decisionmaking
to provide the necessary flows to prevent flood-
ing. Do you have any comments on how their
modeling, or your modeling, fit?
• Answer—Ed Iwachewski: A biologist gets
lost when engineers start arguing over models.
For example, in Ontario stream flows, engineers
are using what is called the Hec II model. They
need to explain what they are doing in terms
that we can understand and that integrate ecol-
ogy and engineering. In designing our island,
we successfully brought in a hydraulic specialist;
an engineer determined how our sedimentation
patterns would fall out to prove to the harbor
commission that the island would have no nega-
tive impact on navigable channels. On the
downside, engineers also did predictible model-
ing. They figured out that type of structure
would withstand flood flows but would require
sheet piling, log cribbing, and other unnatural
looking structures that we wanted to get away
from.
An important thing that we fail to do is pub-
lish materials done through a variety of jurisdic-
tions. The more you get involved in habitat
restoration, the more you realize that any inno-
vative ideas you have probably have been done
before. I wish we could all submit articles to a
journal of failures. Whether the failure is engi-
neering or improper ecological or biological de-
sign, people need to know that someone tried
and it did not work. Maybe you can modify it in
some way to improve it. Of course, people are
often hesitant to announce their failures. But that
is one of the critical issues of engineering prac-
tices—to study failures and pass them on in
practice.
• Comment: You are referring to engineers
and consulting engineers in considering channel
morphology and other activities, but you have
overlooked an entire academic field within the
discipline of geology—fluvial morphology.
These individuals have been studying this for
years and published many articles in this area. I
encourage you to check those. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Measuring
Success
-------
-------
PANEL: Measuring Success
Establishing Quantitative
Performance Criteria for
Wetland Restoration
Mary E. Ken tula
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Anew publication from EPA Wetland Re-
search Program is called An Approach to
Improving Decision Making in Wetland
Restoration and Creation. The book is a
synthesis of five years of research done under
the program. In addition to the research con-
ducted by the authors, EPA funded studies
across the United States that contributed to the
work.
The book has several chapters, with each of
them taking an aspect of the approach and devel-
oping it. Fundamentally, the theme is to use exist-
ing information—projects in place as experiments
in progress—to guide future decisionmaking.
Developing Performance
Criteria
The evaluation of data can be used to develop
performance criteria and improve design guide-
lines. The following examples are applicable to
systems like a pond with a fringe of freshwater
marsh.
The evaluation revolves around what we call
the "performance curve." This involves looking at
projects relative to natural wetlands. The curve's
importance is in documenting if the level of func-
tion comes back and how long it takes. Using this
same technique, Dennis King has taken these prin-
ciples and related similar data to how to justify
requiring certain mitigation options and how to
evaluate—for example, different design ap-
proaches and the expense relative to expectations
from the project (see Fig. 1).
One of the unusual things about our approach
is that means are generated with error bars. The
status report on creation and restoration showed
that a lot of case studies are out there, but we have
no idea of what is happening in general. Estimates
of the variability in projects will help to describe
the general status.
In Oregon, we looked at young projects,
mostly under five years of age, and at the entire
population of projects in the study area. An exam-
ple of a performance curve from the study uses
soil organic matter as an indicator of the projects'
development. The projects contained less organic
matter than typically present in the soil of similar
natural wetlands. We would expect soil organic
matter to increase with time on the projects and
become more like that in natural wetlands. This
summer, we will look at these sites again to see if
that has happened.
Repeating Patterns
How do we use this for performance criteria?
Our data tends to show the same patterns over
and over again—whether in Connecticut, Flor-
ida, or Oregon. In this case, we looked at the
ability of a site to maintain a diversity of plants
typical of the wetlands in that setting. The pro-
jects are more diverse than the natural wetlands,
which you might expect in an area that had just
opened up for colonization. You would expect
project diversity to decrease with time as cover
and competition increased.
In examining our data, you see projects that
are not acting the same as the others: A project
receiving runoff from a parking garage with an
abundance of oil-based products reflected this
impact in the values of a number of indicators
we measured. So information on the develop-
ment of groups of projects can tell you sites that
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Hypothetical performance curve.
O
u_
•5
I
§ j
0)
Legend
mean for natural and restored
wetlands
= + 1 standard error
= Natural Wetlands
= Restored Wetlands
Year of Monitoring
are in trouble. The data suggests a performance
criterion that, if the project is developing as ex-
pected, the plant diversity on these types of pro-
jects, within two years after the project is
completed and definitely within five, should be
greater than or equal to what you see in similar
natural wetlands in that same setting.
Viewing Data Differently
Through this method, we can look at the same
data a little differently and tie it to the project de-
sign. We found that very few of the species on
the planting lists for the sites were actually on
the sites when we went there. That meant that
the planting lists from the project plans were vir-
tually meaningless.
However, we found a good overlap with the
species on similar natural wetlands. In looking at
the same data, but now including species cover,
the pattern does not change. Again it indicates that
the planting lists from the plans do not reflect
what we are finding on either the projects or natu-
ral wetlands. These data suggest another perform-
ance criterion. Within two years and definitely
within five years after a project goes into the
ground, we expect to see between 60 and 70 per-
cent of the kinds of species occurring in similar
natural wetlands. If the species are not found on
the site, the site is likely in trouble.
In looking at native and exotic species, the
patterns we saw in the natural wetlands were
what we were seeing in the projects. In an urban
environment, this surely reflects the urban set-
ting of the mitigation projects and the natural
wetlands.
These few short examples show how moni-
toring information can be used to set quantita-
tive performance criteria. We need to use the
projects as experiments to learn from them and
to learn more about our natural systems. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
PANEL: Measuring Success
Restoration Evaluation
John J. Berger
Environmental Science and Policy Consultant
El Cerrito, California
This presentation will provide some back-
ground on measuring restoration success,
monitoring measures, the evaluation proc-
ess, and assessment criteria. To set the
stage, I will offer a few definitions, make some dis-
tinctions, and provide a perspective on the attributes
of restoration success.
Taking an Ecosystem's Pulse
Monitoring is essentially real-time data collec-
tion and observation. Figuratively speaking, it
could be compared to taking the ecosystem's
temperature, doing the patient's blood chemis-
try, looking at the skin color, and checking that
the eyes are bright and shiny, the tail is wagging,
and the nose is wet.
We engage in monitoring for various reasons.
We might, for example, be conducting a construc-
tion review and monitor to simply determine that
all construction conditions and design specifica-
tions have been met. As mentioned in an earlier
talk, a project designer should be on site when the
actual construction is going forward. Another mo-
tivation for monitoring is permit compliance. This
can also be regulatory compliance in a broad sense.
A third reason for monitoring is to determine
whether the project is meeting a broadly con-
strued set of ecological goals to relate the project
to a natural ecosystem design model.
Making a Diagnosis
In contrast to monitoring, evaluation is a synthe-
sis and judgment about the ecosystem based on
that monitoring data. Evaluation might be
equivalent to making the patient's diagnosis. Is
the patient sick or well? If sick, how sick? If well,
how well? What are the causes of the conditions?
What is the "pulse" of an ecosystem, and what is
its "temperature?" Are those meaningful con-
cepts? Are there any such things? If not, what
would be the most useful analogue of these
characteristics?
Before answering, let me pose some ques-
tions. Suppose that Ducks Unlimited, the conser-
vation organization, floods a field, enabling some
wetland plants to grow for several seasons and
inducing some ducks and geese to use the area. Is
restoration success best measured by percent of
aerial coverage by wetland plants? Or is it best
reflected by percent of plant survival, percent of
open water, or by some indication that you have
successfully approximated the site's hydrology
and gradient? Is it best expressed by the average
number of active nest sites? Should we abandon
that approach and look at the beneficial effects of
the project on interconnected lakes or on other in-
terconnected aquatic ecosystems?
Wrestling with Data
This latter consideration harkens back to the in-
tegrated ecosystem management approach that
Dan Willard contributed to the Restoration of
Aquatic Ecosystems, a study for the National Re-
search Council. Suppose we say that no single
measure can adequately reflect restoration suc-
cess and, for the sake of argument, we use multi-
ple measures or indicators. Does that solve our
problem?
Consider the National Estuary Program that
has supported Chesapeake Bay restoration. We
know what we want in Chesapeake Bay—clean
water, nutrient reduction, and toxics reduction.
We want plenty of crabs and oysters and striped
bass. But suppose our restoration effort pro-
duces fewer blue crabs and more oysters, more
submerged aquatic vegetation but also more
coliform bacteria, or more dissolved nitrogen
but less dissolved phosphorous.
While these precise outcomes may be
ecologically improbable, the point is this: What
do you do when your monitoring results are
contradictory, when you have both disparate
and incommensurable indicators? How do you
synthesize this disparate array of attributes of an
altered ecosystem to measure restoration suc-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
cess? In evaluation jargon, this problem is called
"a multi-attribute decision analysis problem"
and is somewhat amenable to decision theory. Is
this nomenclature and the concept it represents
just an empty formalism?
On the contrary, thinking in terms of a multi-
attribute decision problem at times is important.
This is true, for example, when considering al-
ternative candidate sites for restoration and
when comparing results of a restoration effort to
project goals, or simply when trying to compare
the wildlife support values of two or more eco-
systems. The restoration practitioner might also
use comparative analysis to convince a funding
agency (or other decisionmakers) that a restora-
tion effort was a success, or that it had failed and
another avenue should be pursued.
Restoration—Dual Meanings
As previous presenters have pointed out, resto-
ration may mean whole-system restoration or at-
tribute restoration. The latter encompasses
restoring an aspect of an ecosystem—a struc-
tural or functional characteristic. For example,
this might include clean water in a lake, sinu-
ousity of a stream, the approximate original con-
tour of a mine site, a particular vegetational
component of an ecosystem, or a single species.
Sometimes restoring a single species may actu-
ally require the restoration of a whole ecosys-
tem, as Charlie Wooley pointed out regarding
the Great Lakes.
Restoration of the whole ecosystem is re-
turning it to an approximation of its condition
before the disturbance. This has biological,
physical, and chemical dimensions. It involves
restoring dynamic ecosystem processes, such as
succession, food web interactions, predator-prey
relationships, and nutrient and population cy-
cles. It also involves symbiosis and mutualism
and, in general, creature-to-creature interaction,
creature-to-environment interactions, and inter-
actions between the altered system and its sur-
roundings, via inflows and outflows.
Dynamic processes can also be viewed from
another perspective—as ecosystem services, such
as groundwater recharge or surface water purifica-
tion. Dynamic processes also pertain to responses
to disturbances—including high amplitude and
low probability disturbances, such as floods,
spates, or droughts—that the restored ecosystem
must withstand. The complexity of natural ecosys-
tems evolving through geological time makes a
perfect whole-ecosystem restoration truly impos-
sible. So restoration is an ideal to strive for and
must be measured relative to antecedent condi-
tions, or to some surrogates of those conditions.
Choosing Performance
Indicators
To measure performance, we need appropriate
indicators. But how do we choose them? That
depends on the type of restoration—whether it
is whole system or attribute restoration—and
more broadly on the restoration's goals and ob-
jectives. It also depends on your chosen baseline
and target conditions.
How do you ascertain what antecedent con-
ditions were? To do so, you might use forensic
ecology—for example, examining pollen grains
from sediment cores in a marsh to determine
previous vegetation, or aerial photos and histori-
cal maps to determine predisturbance topogra-
phy. Or you might look at collections of wildlife
in a museum to reconstruct a species inventory.
Thinking about project evaluation early in
the restoration planning process is a good idea,
since it alerts you to the need to gather the requi-
site yet ephemeral preproject baseline data es-
sential for later evaluation.
Once you have a good idea of the ecosys-
tem's antecedent conditions (and thus, implic-
itly, an indication of its restoration potential),
you can then formulate sensible restoration
goals and objectives for the ecosystem.
When specific goals and objectives are
clearly articulated, you can begin identifying
performance indicators. Because performance
indicators must be linked to project goals and
objectives, the goals and objectives must come
first. Next, the performance indicators ideally
should be expressed through the ecosystem's
structural and functional characteristics and dy-
namic processes. Structure, function, and proc-
ess are basic to defining an ecosystem.
Choosing performance indicators is an art
and science. One guideline to use to conserve
monitoring effort is to rely on integrative ecosys-
tem measures. An integrative measure is likely
to be a cost-effective monitoring choice, because
the integrative measure's status depends on, and
therefore subsumes, a host of subordinate eco-
logical preconditions. The measure, therefore,
indicates ecosystem function on a range of other
variables. An example of an integrative measure
is ecosystem carrying capacity for some upper tro-
phic web organism whose presence requires integ-
rity of the food webs below.
Another integrative measure might be a key-
stone species, or the quantity of some particu-
larly fragile and exigent species, since that
species' presence would indicate that a range of
preconditions have been met, and they would
not therefore have to be explicitly monitored.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
/. Berger
Once performance indicators have been chosen,
then the sampling and statistics to validate resto-
ration are similar to those used in any typical
field ecology experiment.
Restoration Success Elements
We cannot, through restoration, suspend an eco-
system at a moment in time like a biological
specimen in a bottle of formalin. However, we
can adopt a turn-key approach in restoration.
In industry, a turn-key plant is built by the
architect-engineer, who gives the customer the
key. All the customer need do is turn the key and
operate the facility. In restoration, a true success
would be an ecosystem reconstruction project af-
ter which we could metaphorically turn the keys
back to nature. Nature, as the principal manager,
would not need to rely on engineered structures
and fallible human maintenance to keep the eco-
system operating in a healthy and naturalistic
manner.
While "hands off" turn-key operations may
be ideal, in the real world of fragmented ecosys-
tems, we are dealing with ecosystems heavily in-
fluenced by humans. So, under the best of
circumstances, we must provide for long-term
maintenance through ecosystem management,
including monitoring and protection. Long-term
protection of the restoration project may be as
important to the effort's success as was cessation
of the initial disturbance (generally a precondi-
tion of restoration success).
Finding Solutions
What about the solutions to the multiattribute
problem mentioned earlier when monitoring
produces disparate and incommensurable data?
First, we must organize and display that moni-
toring data in a clear and systematic way, group-
ing similar kinds of data together. Then we can
synthesize data that are truly comparable and
alike.
At this point we must avoid the pitfall of try-
ing to commensurate inherently incommensura-
ble data. An example of this error would be to
assign index numbers to incommensurable fac-
tors and average the index numbers, coming up
with some metric supposedly reflective of eco-
system success. We would then rank the project
with that relative number. But we would have
performed an essentially meaningless exercise.
By contrast, at the outset of the evaluation
process, we can give initial importance values to
the most important project effects for which we
are striving, and we can rank order those impor-
tance values. Later, with disparate and incom-
mensurable data arriving, we can look back to
see what we ranked as truly important and in-
corporate our new findings in the evaluation
with reference to that initial rating schema.
Tempting as it may seem, we need to avoid try-
ing to employ a single success index or common
metric or single number to evaluate our restora-
tion success with a complex ecosystem having
many dynamic features.
• Question: You talked about key indicators,
like keystone species, and not success indicators
in wetland restoration. These indicators might
show up at the end of a successful creation. At a
quarter or third of the way through, how do we
know when to make corrective measures? Will
we likely see these indicators at the end?
• Answer—John Berger: Surprises occur often
in natural systems. But if you have studied the
system well, done preproject assessments, and
looked carefully at comparable reference ecosys-
tems and their natural successional processes,
then you will minimize the chance of encounter-
ing an untoward surprise.
Naturally, the reference ecosystem needs to
be chosen in a similar ecoregion, using ecoregion
typology—or some other equivalent typology—
in a similar landscape setting with similar out-
side influences, substrates, and hydrology. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Measuring Success
Uncharted Territory — Relocating
Threatened Plants and Reconstructing
Lakeplain Prairie Habitat
Kim D. Herman
Michigan Natural Heritage Program
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan
This presentation discusses a threatened
species mitigation project. The project
shows by example some of the permit-
ting standards and tools available and
used by the Michigan Natural Heritage Program.
The presentation also calls for a broader approach
to endangered and threatened species protection
and recovery in Michigan and shows how this
need pertains to the regulation of federally listed
species, particularly plants.
The Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program consists
of several programs: Non-Game Wildlife/ Living
Resources, Natural Beauty Roads, Wilderness and
Natural Areas, Endangered Species, and the
Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI).
The Endangered Species Program administers the
Michigan Endangered Species Act, Public Act 203
of 1974, and works cooperatively with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to recover federally
listed species.
MNFI, part of The Nature Conservancy's Sci-
ence Division, works in cooperation with Michi-
gan DNR and is responsible for an ongoing
statewide inventory of endangered, threatened,
and special-concern species and high quality natu-
ral communities, and other features (collectively
known as "elements"). MNFI also maintains a
data base on approximately 9,000 element occur-
rences. The MNFI is part of an international Heri-
tage Network linking similar programs in all 50
states and several in Canada, in Central and South
America, and more recently in Southeast Asia.
MNFI staff provided invaluable assistance in
increasing our understanding of the lakeplain
prairie ecosystem and the project species. Before
establishing standards for a successful restoration,
base line parameters must be determined. In do-
ing so, the best available information on species
ecology, natural communities, and ecosystems be-
ing restored must be used.
A Critically Imperiled Community
The Algonac Prairie in St. Clair County is one of
six remnant lakeplain prairies known regionally
and, in fact, worldwide. Lakeplain prairie is criti-
cally imperiled and has a proposed ranking of
G1/S1 (see definitions), according to The Nature
Conservancy (Nat. Conserv. 1982). The lakeplain
prairies are also home to several state and feder-
ally listed plant species. At a lakeplain prairie re-
cently discovered in Wayne County, 176 native
plant species have been documented—14 of
which are rare—and tracked in the MNFI data
base. One species that typically grows in lake-
plain prairies is the eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera leucophaea), listed as threatened un-
der the Federal Endangered Species Act. EPA has
provided funds for restoration and monitoring of
the ecological processes, flora, and fauna within
the lakeplain prairie at Algonac and other sites.
Research will soon provide valuable insights into
this critically imperiled ecosystem.
Extensive proglacial lakes Maumee and
Whittlesey covered Wayne and Monroe counties
approximately 13,000 years ago (Door and Esch-
man, 1977). The receding glaciers deposited fine
silts and clay in this proglacial lake. Sand was
both eroded from end moraines and deposited
in broad channels over the clay lakebed by gla-
cial melt water streams (Albert, 1990). These
sand channels were reworked into a series of
shoreline features such as low dunes, beach
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Monroe County presettlement vegetation.
MONROE COUNTY
t''m''<'t ''JmW'''//'
W%<^W^''/
.ts t?>. %llll
»J
PIOSETTLEniHT
WBEIHTION
p^
•jjWvm n®>*7Wijiff'/:vWm*
w
Pin Qlk.mimatc Oak
O Snrub Uvtland
SI Ifwwnt ttorah
n Prati-la
Rlvwr*
Itotural
Invvntorw
Source: Comer et al. 1993.
ridges (uplands), and intervening depressions
(wetlands) during higher levels of the Great
Lakes (Comer and Albert et al. 1993).
Presettlement Vegetation
In 1816, the General Land Office (GLO) began
surveys in Michigan. From GLO survey notes
and other historical records, MNFI ecologists,
with the assistance of a NO A A Coastal Zone
Management Program grant, constructed pre-
settlement vegetation maps of the Great Lakes
coastal zone. This project also included the en-
tire lakeplain of southeast Michigan.
The presettlement vegetation information
was digitized and used to prepare a map of
Monroe County (Fig. 1). (EPA has provided
funds to substantially complete the GLO inter-
pretation and create a digital data base of the en-
tire state with emphasis on presettlement
wetlands.) Native presettlement communities on
Monroe County's clay lakeplain consist of up-
land hardwoods dominated by American beech,
sugar maple, white oak, American elm, and
hickory (44 percent of the county) and lowland
hardwoods dominated by black ash, American
elm, and basswood, with cottonwood, sycamore,
aspen, and red or silver maple (Comer and Al-
bert et al. 1993). On the sand lakeplain, the up-
lands supported oak barrens, also known as
lakeplain oak openings or savannas, and some
dry prairie; the wetlands supported wet prairie
and marshes. White and black oak were the prai-
rie's most common oaks (Comer and Albert et al.
1993). Along the Lake Erie shoreline, lakeplain
prairie graded into extensive Great Lakes marsh
communities (Comer and Albert et al. 1993).
The digital data base was used within a Geo-
graphic Information System (GIS) to assess
changes in the landscape since presettlement
times. Monroe County today contains 12.5 per-
cent of the approximately 164,000 acres of pre-
settlement wetland types that covered about half
the county (Comer and Albert et al. 1993). Mon-
roe County had approximately 56,000 acres of
lakeplain prairie during presettlement. Hubbard
(1838), describing Monroe County's wet prairies,
stated that approximately one-fifth of Wayne
County consisted of wet, grassy prairies, and
one-third was oak openings (Chapman, 1984).
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
K. Herman
Chapman estimated the savanna-wet prairie
complex in Wayne County to have covered ap-
proximately 38,000 acres.
The Lakeplain Prairie Drained
and Farmed
Since European settlement, Michigan's 100,000-
acres lakeplain-wet prairie has been reduced to
some 500 acres, or one-half percent of its original
acreage. In other words, 99.5 percent of this sys-
tem is gone from Michigan. No intact examples
remain of the original 500,000 acres of oak open-
ings. These habitats were primarily lost through
extensive drainage and conversion to agricul-
ture. Many sand dunes and beach ridges were
built upon or "borrowed" for use elsewhere, and
Native Americans ceased burning the landscape.
As a result, any remaining savannas or wood-
lands have succeeded to closed canopy forests
(Comer and Albert et al. 1993).
The Saginaw Bay Prairies, showing a
slightly different system, illustrates a farmed
area, with natural communities remaining along
the coast. Great Lakes marsh grades into prairie
and degraded savanna on the higher sand
ridges. An area adjacent to a wetland is a logical
choice for reverting farmland back to wetland.
The presettlement vegetation interpretation and
the CIS analysis are useful tools for finding
restorable wetlands as shown in Monroe County
(Fig. 2) (Comer and Albert et al. 1993).
Hydrology and Fire
Natural processes—including seasonal and an-
nual fluctuations in the surface water, fire, and
grazing—maintained these systems. Because of
the level topography, underlying clay close to
the surface, and one-time proximity to Lakes
Huron and Erie, the lakeplain ecosystem contin-
ues to experience seasonal and long-term water-
level fluctuations from precipitation events and
changing lake levels (Comer and Albert et al.
1993). Periodic and sustained high water tables
helped kill woody vegetation, thus maintaining
a mosaic of open prairie in areas transitional
from marsh to wooded beach ridges. Today,
these same processes help keep some remnant
prairies open. However in most areas, agricul-
tural drains have lowered the water table, con-
verting wet prairies to lowland hardwoods
(Comer and Albert et al. 1993).
Figure 2.—Monroe Country prairie vegetation.
MONROE COUNTY
LflKEPLfllH
Hlmtor-lo
rrmlrlm
CD Ottm- Land
Bl
Hlohloan Natural
\numn t
Source: Comer et al. 1993.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Because of this drying out effect, fire is an in-
creasingly important tool in lakeplain prairie
restoration. Early European accounts and anec-
dotal information indicate that Native Ameri-
cans burned the area annually, a practice which
helped maintain the prairies. In 1907, Geib wrote
that the "openings" presented the appearance of
an immense plain. Every fall, Indians burned the
land over, not only keeping the annual vegeta-
tion burned off but also the young tree growth.
According to artifacts found near the Wayne
County mitigation site, Native Americans used
the higher and sandy beach ridges for traveling,
camping, and hunting. Prior to European settle-
ment, buffalo also roamed the landscape (Chap-
man, 1984), although we do not understand their
ecological role within the lakeplain ecosystem.
While we are still learning about the plants and
animals, we have fairly good understanding of
how the system works.
An Airport Expansion—Project
History
In 1989, the federal and state transportation de-
partments completed an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to expand the Detroit Metropoli-
tan Wayne County Airport. Construction was
anticipated to adversely affect three threatened
plant species protected under the Michigan En-
dangered Species Act (1974 PA 203). Although
threatened species' presence was known before
the final environmental impact statement was
printed (U.S. Dept. Trans. 1989), the document
mentioned neither the impacts to threatened
species nor the wetland systems' uniqueness.
The MDNR Land and Water Management
Division and Wildlife Division staffs worked co-
operatively with the consulting firm to establish
the site-specific information necessary to meet of
the Endangered Species Act's statutory require-
ments. However, prior to an August 1990 site
survey requested by the MDNR endangered
species coordinator, areas on the project site,
which had previously been identified as contain-
ing threatened plant populations, were cleared
of vegetation. This resulted in the destruction of
threatened plants and was a violation of the En-
dangered Species Act. Also, as a result of the de-
lay in discovering the site's significance, the
400-acre wetland mitigation plan did not take
into account the significance of the lakeplain
prairie complex.
The statutory requirements of the Michigan
Endangered Species Act (M-ESA) were en-
hanced by making compliance with the Endan-
gered Species Act a condition of the wetland
permit (#90-14-274, dated May 30, 1990) issued
to the Metro Airport Authority under the Goe-
maere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (1989
PA 203). M-ESA provisions were negotiated
through a State Endangered Species permit,
needed for continued construction within the
airport's affected areas.
Natural communities, as defined by Chap-
man (1986), include a complex of mesic southern
forest, southern swamp forest, lakeplain wet-
mesic prairie, and mesic sand prairie. These
communities function within a relatively intact
landscape ecosystem, as defined by Albert et al.
(1986). Building the airport runway and facilities
will have both direct and indirect effects on the
state-listed threatened species, which have af-
finities to the Atlantic Coastal Plain: Aristida
longispica (slender three-awned grass), Juncus
brachycarpus (short fruited rush), and Ludwigia
altemifolia (seed box).
The Aristida longispica on the airport prop-
erty represents Michigan's largest known popu-
lation of this state-threatened species. Aristida
longispica is present in 11 state localities, only a
few of which were recently recorded and one-
third of which are in Wayne County (Penskar
and Crispin, 1993). Threatened species localities
may or may not co-occur with a high quality
natural community; this is true in some airport
areas. For example, all the known populations of
Aristida longispica occur on remnants of the once
extensive lakeplain. Several of these populations
occur in very degraded habitats in southeast
Michigan but are not growing in large, function-
ing ecosystems or plant communities.
Juncus brachycarpus is found on 10 localities
statewide and Ludwigia altemifolia on 16 locali-
ties, including the airport site and the mitigation
site (Penskar and Crispin, 1993). Both state-
threatened species are almost entirely restricted
to poorly drained post-glacial lakeplain. Ap-
proximately 11 additional state special-concern
species at the airport are also being affected.
Mitigation Alternatives
Near the airport, an MNFI ecologist discovered a
nearly intact lakeplain prairie and lowland hard-
wood complex, an ideal site for restoration and
enhancement. MNFI staff has documented over
160 native species and approximately 17 special
plants, including the species at the airport,
which number in the hundreds if not thousands.
This was an amazing find. But acquiring the 600-
acre site would have cost $1 to 4 million. There-
fore, acquisition and enhancement at this stage
of the permit negotiation was not feasible.
The chosen alternative was to relocate the af-
fected plants offsite and manage the remaining
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
K. Herman
populations on the airport site. Therefore,
Wayne County bought the approximately 20-
acre, primarily old field site for threatened spe-
cies relocation to add to the 400-acre wetland
mitigation. Relocation and restoration is being
attempted at an estimated cost of $100,000.
This mitigation is expected to result in the
recolonization of primarily agricultural land by
non-native weeds (exotics), such as purple
loosestrife or cockelbur, and native species with
low coefficients of conservatism (0-3), such as cat-
tail and reed canary grass (Wilhelm, 1991a; Albert
and Reznicek, personal communication, 1991). In-
formation available from EPA's Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of the Science reveals a
paucity of information and lack of success in cre-
ating wetland communities in the Midwest con-
taining sensitive species such as threatened
species from the airport site. Wilhelm (1991a and
b, 1993) also reports little success in mitigating
wetlands in Lake County, Illinois, and the Chicago
region, which contain highly conservative plants
with coefficients of conservatism of 8 to 10, as
defined by Wilhelm and Ladd (1988).
The Michigan Ploristic Quality
Assessment System
The consultant's initial floristic information on air-
port threatened species sites was used to deter-
mine mean floristic quality (Wilhelm and Ladd,
1988; Herman and Penskar et al. In prep.). This
method has been used as a tool by the Army Corp
of Engineers' Chicago regional office (Evans,
1990). The northern Ohio Corp of Engineers (An-
dreas, 1993) is also developing the method to
standardize comparisons among wetlands and
subsequently to base decisions on wetlands per-
mitting, mitigation, and monitoring. The system
assumes that the quality of the vascular flora is a
gauge to overall synecological health.
Mean floristic quality calculated from the air-
port sites with threatened plant species, using the
Michigan list of coefficients of conservatism (Her-
man and Penskar et al. In prep.), range between
3.8 and 6.44, an indication of relatively high flor-
istic quality. Wilhelm reports that a wet prairie
restoration at the Des Plains River Wetland Dem-
onstration Project attained a mean floristic quality
of 3.34 after planting, even after four years of data
collection (Wilhelm, personal communication,
1991). Although the ecosystems and plant constel-
lations differ for Illinois and Michigan, these data
suggest that, under the best circumstances, the
ecosystem is unlikely to be restored given the
unknown and unproven technology for a lake-
plain ecosystem with a mean floristic quality al-
ready above 3.34.
In addition, we know little about the aute-
cology of the affected species. But because we
wanted to avoid direct destruction of these
plants, we decided to find out if the method
would work.
Relocating Threatened Species
The project's purpose was to move threatened
plants from areas affected by the airport expan-
sion and to protect the remaining plant commu-
nities (Michigan Dep. Nat. Resour. 1992). The
consulting firm supervised the relocations and a
qualified botanist approved by the endangered
species coordinator is monitoring the efforts. Site
conditions were matched as closely as possible
before relocating the plants. Photographs and
written annual reports document the efforts.
Approximately 150 Ludwigia alternifolia and
350Juncus brachycarpus plants from the airport and
the seed bank of approximately 1.32 million Aris-
tida longispica plants and 50 Juncus brachycarpus
were relocated. Soil plugs at the mitigation site
were extracted and soil plugs containing the
plants were moved into holes with a 60-inch-di-
ameter tree spade. The consultant planted by hand
approximately 50 Ludwigia alternifolia seedlings
grown indoors.
At the mitigation site approximately a half-
acre was stripped of 3 to 5 inches of existing her-
baceous and woody vegetation and topsoil. New
topsoil containing the Aristida longispka seedbank
was spread in a 3-inch layer over the prepared
mitigation site. After 20 soil plugs were moved,
approximately 300 cubic yards of topsoil contain-
ing seeds and rhizomes of remaining Juncus
brachycarpus plants and other plant species were
excavated from the airport and moved to the miti-
gation site.
Reconstructing the Prairie
The goal of excavation and finished grading was
to match the airport's surface hydrology. Ap-
proximately 1,000 cubic yards, and an additional
2,000 cubic yards, were excavated from 0.4 acre
of the mitigation site. The new soil surface was
as much as 22 inches lower than the previous
grade. The earthwork contractor, who surveyed
finish grades to verify elevations, limited soil
compaction by using small machinery to spread
the top soil. Finish grading was coarse, with
roots and plant material left and allowed to set-
tle naturally. The mitigation site has been fenced
off. A management plan is in place both at the
mitigation site and the airport, and surface
water levels and vegetation are being monitored
biweekly throughout the growing season for the
first five years.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
The threatened plant populations at the air-
port and the mitigation site will be monitored in
two successive five-year periods—from 1992 to
1996 and from 1997 to 2002. In the first period,
monitoring is more frequent than in the second
period. The second period will begin when the
endangered species coordinator determines that
the threatened plants are well established.
Hydrology at each study site is monitored
biweekly from April 1 through October 31.
Monitoring is done by measuring static water
levels in standard monitoring wells at both ends
of each vegetation sampling transect. From No-
vember through March, monitoring is done
monthly. When static water levels are recorded,
a portable tensiometer records the soil moisture
at a depth of 10 centimeters in each plot along
the transects. If standing water is present, its
depth is measured in each plot. During the sec-
ond period of monitoring, static water levels will
be recorded twice a year, in late spring and late
summer.
All vegetation is being assessed. Monitors
record cover and abundance data for each spe-
cies and photograph each plot. If threatened or
special-concern plant species appear within a
plot, monitors make separate counts of the juve-
nile and mature (flowering and fruiting) indi-
viduals. In addition to gathering plot data,
monitors conduct random walks of each site to
identify those species not present in the plots.
To assess the survival success of the threat-
ened species relocated in the soil plugs, perma-
nent vegetation monitoring plots have been
established. Within each plot, monitors count
each individual Ludwigia alternifolia and Juncus
brachycarpus and record the following data:
number of seedlings, juveniles, and adults, plant
height, number of stems, numbers of flowers
and fruits per stem for Ludwigia alternifolia, and
numbers of flowering and fruiting infloresences
per stem for Juncus brachycarpus.
Monitors tagged 20 individuals of each spe-
cies and followed them throughout the monitor-
ing period. Hand transplants were similarly
tagged and followed. We required a control of
four quadrats for each species for Ludwigia al-
ternifolia at the mitigation site and for Juncus
brachycarpus at the airport. In addition, counts of
threatened plants are recorded annually at the
mitigation site. At all sites, monitors estimate the
total number of individuals of Aristida longispica
by counting a minimum of two quarter-meter-
square plots and extrapolating the results to the
total area occupied by the species. Numbers of
flowering and fruiting individuals are counted
for each plot.
Annual reporting
For each site or area, hydrologic data include a
set of graphs, including precipitation, soil mois-
ture, and static water level data plotted against
time for all transect plots at the airport. Vegeta-
tion data are integrated with hydrologic data by
graphing surface and clay layer elevations (to-
pography), mean static water level, minimum
and maximum water level, threatened species
populations, and the wetness index developed
by Wilhelm (1991a and b).
Data are used to calculate species diversity
indices for native species alone and combined
with non-natives. Similarly, the Michigan Floristic
Quality Assessment System tracks and compares
floristic quality of both the plots and total for each
site and integrates it into the topographic and
hydrologic data. All data, including threatened
species data, are compared statistically between
treatments and/or sites.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 from a 1992 report by
Johnson, Johnson, & Roy, Inc. show base line data
from the airport site. Figure 3 shows the fluctua-
tions of the water table over one growing season,
including dry periods in mid-July and early Sep-
tember. Figures 4 and 5, in particular, show how
the plants, as measured by a wetland index (Wil-
helm, 1991a), reflect both the site's hydrology and
topography.
The management goal is to maintain the vi-
ability of the threatened plant species populations
and maintain or improve the floristic quality of the
airport and mitigation site areas. The permittee
must submit for approval a long-term vegetation
management plan for the airport mitigation sites
to the MDNR endangered species coordinator.
The plan must include a prescribed burn manage-
ment plan and possible mechanical or hand clear-
ing plan. Specific details of the plan may need
adjusting, pending analysis and review of vegeta-
tion data.
At minimum, the permittee must acquire,
through letter and formal presentation, a variance
of the Wayne County pollution control ordinance
and a permit from the County Health Depart-
ment's Air Pollution Control Division. The per-
mittee must also attempt to obtain any other
Federal Aviation Administration permits, state
and local permits, licenses, and insurance before
beginning a prescribed burn. The permittee may
consider herbicides if an exotic plant problem is
present.
Success Criteria
The MDNR endangered species coordinator uses
specific criteria to determine whether the threat-
ened plant mitigation effort has been successful.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
K. Herman
Figure 3.—Summary of monitoring well water level observations, airport west/south well.
r
O5.7I 635.71
IM«y tMiy UM»y 21 Miy 2IM>y 4l«e lltanc IIJ«e Zlfaie 2)hme Italy l]My 23 Mr JOJJy 31 My MA* 2Sq* 30Sq«
Monitoring Well Observation Date
J Avenge Water Elevation
_Q_ Observed Water Elevation
A Ground Surface Elevation ^ Cby Surface Elevation
-|_ Maximum Observed Water Elevation >- Minimum Observed Water Elevation
Source: Johnson, Johnson, & Roy. 1992.
The mitigation site populations of Ludwigia
alternifolia, Juncus brachycarpus, and Aristida
longispica must be at least as large and viable as
populations eliminated at the airport. Therefore,
individual plants must total at least 150 Ludwigia
alternifolia, 900 Juncus brachycarpus, and approxi-
mately 1 million Aristida longispica. At least 50
percent of these individuals must produce seed in
the final year of monitoring to be considered viable.
At the end of the monitoring period, the miti-
gation area should be free of aggressive weeds,
such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). The
diversity index should be stable or show an in-
crease in native species diversity throughout the
monitoring period and show a stable or increasing
Michigan Floristic Quality Index and mean coeffi-
cient of conservatism.
The airport populations of Ludwigia alternifo-
lia, Juncus brachycarpus, and Aristida longispica
should not have undergone any significant de-
cline based on transect and mapping data, and
their continued existence should not be threat-
ened (i.e., no permanent reduction of soil moisture
caused by drainage of surrounding lands).
Contingency Measures
The consultant must propagate both Juncus
brachycarpus and Aristida longispica from seed or
from crown divisions, as appropriate, to estab-
lish a healthy greenhouse population in case re-
location efforts fail in the first five years. As soon
as the plants' failure to thrive becomes apparent,
the probable cause must be identified and cor-
rected. If the cause is improper water levels, por-
tions of the mitigation area may need to be
deepened or filled or the management strategy
changed. The MDNR endangered species coor-
dinator must approve corrective measures.
After five years of monitoring, if conclusive
evidence indicates that the threatened species
mitigation site cannot sustain the threatened spe-
cies, even with modifications, then a similar but
larger and intact mitigation site in Wayne or Mon-
roe counties must be purchased and managed.
After two years of negotiating this permit and
a 10-year monitoring period, perhaps we will then
know if the effort has been a success.
Michigan is host to 810 species of non-native
plants and about 1,800 species of natives plants
tern
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 4.—Airport west transect hydrologlcal data (September 2,1992).
640.00
620.00
. Ground Elevation
. Standing Water Elevation
Clay Surface Elevations Interpolated From Well Boring Data
Soil Suction Values Read Along Y-Axis On Right Side Of Graph
Clay Elevation (From Well Data)
Monitoring Well Water Elevation
. Soil Suction Value
Source: Johnson, Johnson, & Roy, 1992.
(Fig. 6) (Herman and Penskar et. al. In prep.).
Some 15 percent of Michigan's native flora is en-
dangered or threatened and another 8 percent is
of special concern—a full 23 percent of the native
flora is potentially at risk. For the most part, the
autecology of these species is unknown, making
any mitigation involving transplanting difficult.
Of the non-native plants, less than 70 species are
actually categorized as wetland plants (Fig. 7) (Her-
man and Penskar et al. In prep.). Our native species,
including Michigan's special plants, however, more
clearly reflect the landscape, and the number of
wetland and upland species are split almost evenly.
In addition, nearly 200 species of sedges fall into the
wetland categories (Herman and Penskar et al. In
prep.). Yet wetland professionals often will docu-
ment easy-to-identify, non-native flora when com-
pleting wetland delineations.
Losing 23 percent of a native flora is a tremen-
dous potential liability. We need to look at the
long-term cumulative impacts to constellations of
listed species within their habitats and the other
alternatives to the "pick-it-up-and-move-it" phi-
losophy. We were unable to use other alternatives
at Detroit Metro Airport. The transplanting alter-
native has become all too common; if it continues,
it will result in the loss of species and associated
natural communities.
Quite often, project information comes to the
Michigan Endangered Species Program at a very
late date, especially with state-listed species. For
example, in the case of Michigan's U.S. 31 high-
way, the focus is on the federally listed Neonympha
mitchellii (Mitchell satyr butterfly). But in fact, the
10-year-old EIS does not contain information on
several recently discovered state-listed species.
Real opportunities exist for looking at impacts on
biodiversity and habitats. Opportunities also exist
for restoring state and federally listed plants be-
yond single species protection techniques, mitiga-
tion or, for that matter, traditional wetland
mitigation projects.
Another problem for federally and state-listed
species occurs on the Great Lakes shoreline. Four
federally listed plants are distributed primarily
within Michigan: Cirsium pitcheri (Pitcher's this-
tle), Iris lacustris (dwarf lake iris), Solidago
houghtonii (Houghton's goldenrod), and Mimulus
glabratus var. michiganensis (Michigan monkey
flower). With well over 10,000 private land owners
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
K. Herman
Figure 5.—Average wetland Indicator numbers for vegetation In wetland transects, airport west transect.
4.00
OJO
Plot Number
Early Summer Indicator Number
Early Summer Survey Dale First Week In July
Lale Summer Survey Dale Last Week In September
Source: Johnson, Johnson, & Roy. 1992.
, Late Summer Indicator Number
along the Great Lakes shoreline, we must come up
with other options for protection. One option is
education. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice could propose equal protection of federally
threatened plants to both endangered plants and
animals. Section 7 consultation required by the
Federal Endangered Species Act for federally
funded and initiated projects is cumbersome and
lengthy. Under certain conditions, we may con-
sider the concept of habitat conservation plan-
ning, including habitat restoration.
Recommendations
I recommend that Environmental Impact Analy-
sis, as required under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, include a discussion on
cumulative impacts to species, habitats, and
natural communities. If available, Heritage Pro-
gram data or the equivalent, as exemplified by
this project, should be used. Up-front inventories
by qualified botanists, zoologists, and ecologists
should be required on all projects that result in
significant environmental impacts. Impacts to
state-listed species and their habitats should be
considered with federally listed species.
Natural community rarity and its replace-
ability should be considered in negotiating inno-
vative mitigation agreements to allow the
purchase and restoration of existing, yet threat-
ened, high quality natural communities. Re-
placeability can be measured in part by a
floristic quality assessment; standards for suc-
cess should be measurable, using this project as
an example.
County-wide biological inventories and site
surveys should be encouraged and funded to
help further our understanding of the current
biological resource base. Finally, transplanting
and reconstruction should be the last resort for
our threatened and endangered plant species. At
best, this is always uncharted territory.
Definitions
Gl/Sl community. The MNFI provides stand-
ardized definitions of global (G) and state (S)
element ranks. A Gl community is critically im-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 6.—Michigan florlatlc quality aaaeaamant ayatam (Fabruary 16,1993).
Conservatism - Native & Adventive
1 2345678
Coefficient of Conservatism
10
Conservatism — Native
450
400
D
X
D
-Q
E
15
Special Plants
Native
2345678
Coefficient of Conservatism
10
Source: Herman and Penskar et al. (In prep.)
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
FIgura 7.—Michigan florlstlc quality assessment ayatem (Fabruary 16,1993).
K. Herman
Wetness Category - Native
Special Plants
Native
UPL
FACU FAC FACW
Wetness Category
OBL
Wetness Category - Adventive
UPL
FACU FAC FACW
Wetness Category
OBL
Source: Herman and Penskar et al. (In prep.)
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
periled throughout the world because of ex-
treme rarity (five or fewer viable occurrences or
very few remaining individual communities or
acres) or because of factor(s) making it especially
vulnerable to extinction. An SI community is
critically imperiled in the state because of ex-
treme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very
few remaining individuals or acres) or because
of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable
to extirpation.
Special concern species. These are suffi-
ciently uncommon so that reductions in their
populations or habitat conditions could cause
them to become threatened in the foreseeable
future.
Coefficients of conservatism. As defined by
Wilhelm and Ladd (1988), coefficients of conser-
vatism from 0 to 3 apply to species nearly or
quite ubiquitous under a broad set of distur-
bance conditions; values from 4 to 7 apply to
species that suggest a pronounced affinity to
some native plant community; values from 8 to
10 typify stable or near-climax conditions and
exhibit relatively high degrees of fidelity to a
narrow range of synecological parameters.
Mean floristic quality. This is the sum of the
coefficients of conservatism for species known to
occur at a site, divided by the total number of
species known from the site.
References
Albert, D. 1990. A Regional Landscape Ecosystem Classifi-
cation of Michigan Stressing Physiographic, Geologic,
and Soil Factors. Ph.D. diss. Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Albert, D., S. Denton, and B. Barnes. 1986. Regional Land-
scape Ecosystems of Michigan. School of Nat. Resour.,
Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Andreas, B. 1993. A Floristic Quality Assessment System
for Northern Ohio. Rep. for Northern Ohio. U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Chapman, K. 1984. An Ecological Investigation of Native
Grassland in Southern Lower Michigan. Master's the-
sis. Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI.
Chapman, K. 1986. Draft Descriptions of Michigan Natural
Community Types. Michigan Nat. Features Inventory,
Lansing, MI.
Comer, P., D. Albert, L. Scrimger, T. Leibfried, D. Schuen,
and H. Jones. 1993. Historical Wetlands of Michigan's
Coastal Zone and Southeastern Lakeplain. CZM Project
309-5. Michigan Nat. Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Dorr, J. Jr., and D. Egchman. 1977. The Geology of
Michigan. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Evans, J. 1990. Letter regarding use of the Natural Area
Rating Index in the Chicago Region. Chicago District,
U.S. Army Corps Eng., Chicago, IL.
Geib, W. 1907. Soil Survey of Cass County, Michigan. In K.
Chapman. 1984. An Ecological Investigation of Native
Grassland in Southern Lower Michigan. Master's the-
sis. Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI.
Herman, K., M. Penskar A. Reznicek, W. Brodowicz, G.
Wilhelm, and L. Wetstein. In prep. The Michigan Floris-
tic Quality Assessment System with Wetland Catego-
ries. Michigan Nat. Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Hubbard, B. 1838. Report of the State Geologist. In K.
Chapman. 1984. An Ecological Investigation of Native
Grassland in Southern Lower Michigan. Master's the-
sis. Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, MI.
Johnson, Johnson, & Roy. 1992. Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport, Romulus, Michigan: Threat-
ened Plant Monitoring Report. Johnson, Johnson, &
Roy, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1992.
Threatened/Endangered Species Permit No. 1386.
Wildlife Div., Lansing, MI.
The Nature Conservancy. 1982 (rev. 1988). Natural Heri-
tage Program Operations Manual. Nature Conserv., Ar-
lington, VA.
Penskar M., and S. Crispin. 1993. Abstracts for Aristida
longispica, Juncus brachycarpus, and Ludwigia alternifolia.
Michigan Nat. Features Inventory. Lansing, MI.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1989. Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement Master Plan Development,
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Romulus,
MI. Fed. Avia. Admin, and Michigan Dept. Trans., De-
troit Airports Distr. Off., Belleville, MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Wetland
Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol.
I and II. EPA 600/3-89/038a. Environ. Res. Lab., Corval-
lis, OR.
Wilhelm, G., and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural area assessment
in the Chicago region. Trans. 53rd North American
Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf.
Wilhelm, G. 1991a. Vascular Vegetation of Lake County, Illi-
nois, with Special Reference to Its Use in Wetland Miti-
gation. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL.
Wilhelm, G. 1991b. Technical Comments on the Proposed
Revisions to the 1989 Wetland Delineation Manual.
Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL.
Wilheim, G. 1993. The Limits of Wetland Mitigation. Pres.
EPA Ecol. Rest. Conf., Chicago, IL. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
PANEL: Measuring Success
General Panel Discussion
Mary E. Kentula
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
John J. Berger
Environmental Science and Policy Consultant
El Cerrito, California
Kim Herman
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Lansing, Michigan
Gerould Wilhelm*
The Morton Arboretum
Lisle, Illinois
* Gerould Wilhelm's presentation was omitted at his request.
Question: Gerould Wilhelm made a
very convincing case that we lack the
ability to restore wetland plant com-
munities. Is the plant community the
most important or only important fac-
tor to restore? What about other benefits of wild-
life habitat and water quality? If you restore 10 to
1 for area, can you make up for the lack of floristic
quality of the wetland that you are destroying?
• Answer—Gerould Wilhelm: These issues
are relatively limited. We have a list of about a
half percent of the total land area in Illinois that
has a mean coefficient of conservatism higher
than 4. Those areas contain all of the species, the
insects, and any other co-evolved organisms in
the genetic context or genetic memory of coa-
lescing in a self-sustaining, self-replicating eco-
system. We need to identify and hold on to those
areas until we can learn to graft them back into
other areas to start holding water again. These
systems have the root systems and structure to
hold rainwater.
A strong morale question is this: What gives
us the right as the stewards of the earth today to
obliterate that which we cannot replace? It is as
simple as that. If we wind up in 50 years with
nothing in the north temperate zone except a
bunch of weeds with no diversity or co-evolved
organisms to allow the formation of a self-sus-
taining, self-replicating system, we will be stuck
forever with lawn mowers and all manner of
heavy maintenance on our landscapes.
So, this is a practical question. How can we
build a new economy out of weeds? If the earth
is going to have a genuine revival and a living
restoration activity and economy, if we are going
to intelligently redesign and rebuild corporate
residential, industrial, and agricultural North
America, we must hold onto the tool boxes. At
this point, we are scarcely even able to evaluate
the tool boxes. Most of us are just wondering
whether they exist. So we need to learn to iden-
tify and save that which we can replace until we
can demonstrate that we can replace it.
• Comment: I want to throw out a challenge
to everyone in this room who has a yard to start
by restoring your yard to its native condition.
• Answer—Gerould Wilhelm: Where would
you start? If we have thrown away the tool
boxes and thrown away places like the fen with
a mean coefficient of conservatism of five, and
all we have left are marshes with 75 species of
weeds that do not form themselves, in a sense
they are successionally emasculated. They can-
not go any further than they have. They will just
flop around in a state of synchronic retropede,
releasing nutrients, boom and bust.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
• Comment: With my lack of knowledge of
flora and fauna, I have gotten at least a coeffi-
cient that you in the field understand. I appreci-
ate that and am glad you have ways of
quantifying it. But in measuring success, we
need to do more than just define success. We
must actually measure success by obtaining the
physical properties—the width, depth, period of
inundation, temperature. For dirty water from
the subdivision, we need to know how dirty it is
to determine how to treat it. So in measuring
success, we need to see chemical, channel mor-
phology, and physical design parameters to
meet previously set criteria.
• Answer—Gerould Wilhelm: In a way, you
have it right. A million gallons of water may fall
in an acre. Water is not compressible—it is the
real thing. In the Chicago region, a million gal-
lons will evaporate if it falls into a bathtub that
holds a million gallons.
At the time of European settlement, the Illinois
River had virtually no discharge into the Missis-
sippi during the growing season. Most rainwater
remained in the Illinois watershed because of the
connect—a macropore that connected between the
surface and the crown. That was the root system
structure of our native species.
You cannot build that with Kentucky blue-
grass, red top, and clay—so what happens to a
million gallons of water? That depends on the
extent to which that kind of vegetation in a little
watershed, a subdivision, or a corporate campus
allows the water to flow into the wetland. We
need to redesign landscapes to hold water where
it falls so that the wetlands we build have a
chance to be real.
• Comment: So you have to quantify the
landscape so that someone can build?
• Answer—Gerould Wilhelm: I agree.
• Comment—Mary B. Kentula: An impor-
tant point was made about landscape. I am certain
Gerould and I have a great overlap in the patterns
shown by our data. The natural wetlands occurred
in the same setting as the mitigation projects—in
an urban setting with urban wetlands. Outside the
urban boundary, we would get a different pattern.
The urban wetland species, whether in a mitiga-
tion project or a natural wetland, tended to be fac-
ultative wet species. We were losing the obligate
wet species, and everything else told us that the
systems were drier.
The wetlands said something about the land-
scape and the processes that were supporting it.
Both the mitigation project and a natural wet-
land was being affected by that surrounding
landscape—they were not functioning in isola-
tion. Would someone in a backyard have the en-
ergy to maintain a native system, given that
landscape?
When we moved outside the urban land-
scape, we saw a different pattern. We picked up
more obligate wet species and a higher percent-
age of natives. That pattern depended on where
we were.
• Comment—Kim Herman: Often we do
not have that information. In working at the
Michigan Department of Transportation, I was
amazed at the creativity of the engineers. I want
to take my hat off to them.
But I was on two recovery teams for two fed-
eral plants. Amassing all the information and
haggling over what was important for the recov-
ery of those species took two to three years. At
least 15 percent of our state flora is threatened or
endangered and the autecological requirements
of those species are essentially unknown. In
cases where we must do permitting and accept
that plants or animals will be taken, we are often
down to the wire and scarcely able to get one
growing season's worth of information on these
systems. That was the case at the airport. That is
not unusual, but more the rule of thumb.
The engineers should know that the science
is in its infancy. As frustrating as it may seem,
that is the reality. We need to take opportunities
to use restoration as an experiment, but at the
same time, recognize that the answers will be a
long time coming.
• Question: With respect to the airport mitiga-
tion project, did Wayne County or Northwest Air-
lines ever commit to the five-year monitoring
program suggested by the citizens' advisory com-
mittee? And secondly, do the recreational plans for
the site interfere with the restoration or creation of
the wetlands area? A variety of recreational plans
were being considered.
• Answer—Kim Herman: The wetland miti-
gation was a large one, maybe one of the largest
in Michigan. I cannot answer your question di-
rectly, but a lot of public input went into that
wetland.
I have a fundamental problem with design-
ing wetlands that meet political needs without
looking at and trying to replace the ecosystem.
In this case, that is what happened. Having a
management plan that will be adopted is good,
but the resulting wetland design was essentially
a compromise. The wetland may be pretty, but it
will not be a true restoration.
A contingency states that if the criteria are not
met, Wayne County must go back and look for a
site, if one is left, to replace and protect it in per-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
M. KentulaJ. Berger, K. Herman, & G. Wilhelm
petuity. We are waiting to see the outcome of the
restoration mitigation.
• Comment—Dan Willard: One thing this
brought to my mind was the fact that we do not
have much information on the functioning of
seminatural systems. Almost all of our environ-
mental sciences has been in response to some
stress, so we know a great deal more about the
stress systems than we do about the seminatural.
Illinois, one of the great examples, has a biologi-
cal survey that has tied together this information.
It puts together the conditions under which cer-
tain kinds of communities exist. Wisconsin has a
planned ecology lab.
But many states, like my own Indiana, have a
sense of history that does not last 24 hours. We
pay less attention than any state in the country—
we are 52nd, counting Puerto Rico and Washing-
ton, D.C. We do not pay attention to our
naturally occurring systems. If you wanted to
study the natural ecology of the Mitchell Satyr
butterfly, you would win a Golden Fleece Award
from Senator Proxmire and would never get the
resources. It takes years and it takes a lot. People
question its value and costs.
We need to understand how 8.5 communities
operate because in the future we will have fewer
8.5 communities to study and a lot of 1.2. In the
greater Chicago area, you will even find some
minuses on your scale.
I work for Lake Calumet region. One of the
things that EPA can do in each of our areas is to
look at functioning seminatural systems to serve
as base lines and try to set long-term research
programs. Pick these sites across the country to
get a swarm of sites to compare against—that is
the only way we can provide the kind of infor-
mation the previous commenter will need. I do
not believe you can recreate natural systems, but
in some cases at least they can be restored. This
kind of information is not available and useful.
Every agency at every level needs to build up
this information because we are losing our natu-
ral history.
• Comment—Mary E. Kentula: I would
like to second the motion and give an example of
what we are working on the Wetland Research
Program. Next summer, we will be in the field at
150 sites stratified by land use looking at the ef-
fects of land use, and in EPA jargon, the attain-
able quality in a land use.
To answer the question of how to get this
done, we have a partnership with a university
for a continuing education program for teachers.
The teachers will be our field crews. We will
train them and pay stipends to cover their ex-
penses. The university will help them turn this
into a program for their students, and show
them how to bring it into the classroom to illus-
trate how science works and how to collect and
use information. We had 44 applicants for 25 po-
sitions, and we are very excited about this.
We did another project with citizen volun-
teers. The data quality met the standards we set
for the project. These people worry about doing
it right, and therefore do it very well.
• Comment—Gerould Wilhelm: We have to
learn to restore the setting. We have become a cul-
ture entirely too comfortable living with dead things
and too uncomfortable living with living things.
The idea of having prairies denuded of species and
flowers has become an anathema. We become an-
noyed when the leaves of the trees drop.
We cannot build a new economy while we di-
vest the earth of its natural resources. We could,
however, build a sustainable economy by rein-
venting natural resources, begin to comprehend
these remnant communities if not natural, and
learn to reemploy living systems back into the
lands where we live, whether it be urban or agri-
cultural. The rivers would begin to freshen, the
fish would come back, the Gulf of Mexico would
begin to revive, and we would have water back
in the land. The key to this, of course, is learning
to reestablish the setting.
• Comment—Kim Herman: I failed to point
out in the GIS map that our Natural Heritage
Program Natural Features Inventory has the
money to digitize the presettlement vegetation
for the entire state. One of the pieces of informa-
tion, of course, is the historical context. It is one
point in time, but it would be a valuable tool in
restoration for finding and helping to restore ar-
eas. And EPA was one entity that funded that. I
imagine everybody now is beating at EPA's door
because they want the same product. The ecolo-
gists in our program working with academia are
quite excited about it.
• Comment—BUI Kruczynski: The key
word is reference wetland and the key to estab-
lishing whether or not a mitigation site is suc-
cessful is what you compare it to. Mary has
compared the created wetlands with the de-
graded urban wetlands and declared them a suc-
cess. They were successful because you put back
a degraded system—our standards in the resto-
ration business should be higher than that.
• Answer—Mary E. Kentula: I did not de-
clare them anything because they did not come
back to what the natural wetlands were, and
they were too ecologically young to decide on
the level of success. Remember, the groups were
different from the natural wetlands. However,
you raise an important question—the idea of ref-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
erence. You need to hold people responsible for
what is attainable, given the setting.
We made an important decision early in the
studies that we would compare the projects to
natural wetlands in the same settings and look at
group statistics to see the range of possibilities.
Then within the different settings, we might de-
cide to hold them to a standard requiring that
they give back the best that is possible, strive for
the ones in the 90th percentile. But the question
came out just as you said—we are in an urban
setting and things are degraded. Critics would
say that we are replacing trash with trash.
One reason this summer's study is stratified
by land use is because right now we do not
know how good or bad the system is. We only
suspect it is degraded because it is in an urban
setting, and we know something about ecosys-
tems in an urban setting. The questions are
about the status and how it compares to wet-
lands in a more natural setting. Are there land
uses more kind to natural systems? If I want to
preserve an area or have a mitigation project in
an area that will have certain impacts, how do I
buffer it from those impacts?
The key is the reference we choose to use and
the standard. Given the setting, what is possible?
And given that setting and comparing it to other
settings, is the effort worthwhile? Would we call
it a success?
• Comment—Bill Kruczynski: One of the
problems in the permitting system is that every-
one is not doing things the same way. For exam-
ple, I look at a wetland and say it is degraded
based on a standard in my head that says it does
not meet my ideal of the reference wetland. Each
person's reference wetland is different because
experiences are different.
We need to establish a series of geographic
reference wetlands that people can look at on a
video tape or card file. Then, when determining
a wetland's significance and running wetlands
through the section 404b(l) guidelines, my con-
clusion agrees with everyone else's conclusion.
For example, where is this wetland on a scale of
0 to 10? I propose that reference wetland sites be
established regionally—they would be very use-
ful not only in restoration but also in the permit-
ting business.
• Comment—Mary B. Kentula: I agree. We
also need to know what is out there—the range
of variability—and not just the best, but what is
actually happening. If we do not know those er-
ror bars around the average for natural wet-
lands, we cannot tie what is happening on a site
back to the special sites that we picked as our
goal and our reference.
• Comment—Kim Herman: Regarding
variability and permitting, I want to qualify my
comments about wetland mitigation. Our DNR
people in Michigan do the absolute best that
they can and are some of the hardest working
people I know. But regarding permitting for
threatened plants, I was teased because it was
one of the longest permits ever written for the
endangered species program.
It has most of the criteria that have been men-
tioned. But the process is learn as you go; every
time you try something, you add more to the per-
mit the next time. The problem, then, is being
perceived as inconsistent. You are, in fact, evolv-
ing these requirements as you get more informa-
tion. A colleague said, "Oh, I'm glad you used the
short form on this permit."
• Question: As a highway engineer, I am
somewhat intimidated by the setting and discus-
sion, and I find myself trying to bridge the gap.
Some environmental interests would like to dis-
continue all development. We do not have much
say about that. But development is a reality, so
we are trying to come out of it with as good a so-
lution as possible.
I know we are on a learning curve with wet-
land mitigation and gaining on that curve. What
do you see as the role of statewide wetland
plans? Is there potential if wetland mitigation is
not working so well? For example, you may have
small acreage where mitigation does not seem to
be that effective in an urbanized area. Yet another
area of the state has a prime opportunity possibly
within the existing watershed. Where do state-
wide wetland management plans fall into the
picture?
• Comment—Kim Herman: My under-
standing is that the DNR has EPA money to do a
statewide comprehensive wetland plan for
Michigan.
• Comment—Gerould Wilhelm: It rains
everywhere. We get 35 inches of rain over every
square inch—on the top of a cane, the top of the
Sears Tower, or the top of a wetland. Our chal-
lenge as engineers, as biologists, and as human
beings is to think of water as okay. We are lucky
that water will evaporate as it falls if we store it
long enough in the land where it falls. If we divest
ourselves of our responsibilities by shifting our
wetland responsibilities off to some wetland
bank, we are avoiding the issue and, in the long
run, stunting the economy.
The challenge is how to redevelop a way of
life, redevelop engineering, and redevelop land-
scapes that hold the water where it falls. That
water is not compressible is an engineering fact.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
M. Kentula, J. Berger, K. Herman, & G. Wilhelm
The extent that we send it to the landscape dirty
is the extent that the Gulf of Mexico is in trouble,
that the Wabash is in trouble, and that the Missis-
sippi is in trouble.
So the long-term goal should not be to have
angina over the idea that we have wetland on
our property but learn to like it—learn to de-
velop a life style that acknowledges water as
okay.
| Comment—John J. Berger: I heard a pol-
icy issue implicit in the previous questioner's
statement about development. He said that de-
velopment is inevitable. My only quibble with
that is that I would say that economic activity is
inevitable. But it is not truly inevitable that we
must continue developing the highest quality,
near-pristine, or relatively undisturbed natural
ecosystems.
If we exercise the impulse to engage in eco-
nomic activity by expressing it in the redevelop-
ment of already disturbed resources, we can
satisfy this primal urge toward development by
conducting useful and relatively nondestructive
economic activity. And at the same time, we can
save the undisturbed ecosystems.
It is a lot easier to destroy an ecosystem than
to restore one. Any yahoo with a bulldozer can
wipe out a pristine ecosystem, but it takes the
best science to even approximate what was lost.
So people committed to restoration need to also
be committed to conservation and to putting a
foot down when it comes to allowing further de-
struction of undisturbed resources.
• Comment: Regarding the question about
finding reference areas for geographic areas, I
am a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey. I work on the National Water Quality As-
sessment (NWQA) program. In using CIS, we
overlaid different physical and land use charac-
teristics and came up with areas that had similar
geological land use. For most of those areas, the
aquatic systems had no reference sites. This pre-
sents a problem about what is actually a refer-
ence site—most U.S. areas have no reference
sites. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
CASE STUDY:
Restoration Through
Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
-------
-------
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Restoring the Grand Calumet:
The Beauty and the Beast
Joseph D. Thomas
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Gary, Indiana
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the
Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal, and Nearshore Lake Michi-
gan Area of Concern by law must spec-
ify the steps required for "complete and
systematic ecosystem restoration."1 Ecological
restoration of this globally unique ecosystem is a
mammoth undertaking since it has been degraded
by heavy industry for the past 100 years.2 No
individual can undertake such a task alone. Fortu-
nately, the RAP has many partners to help restore
the Grand Calumet Area of Concern (AOC).
This panel includes several of those part-
ners, called "RAP participants." These individu-
als play key roles in restoring the Grand
Calumet by helping their respective organiza-
tions focus resources on the ecological restora-
tion of the AOC.
The Challenge of Ecological
Restoration
Before they speak, a brief introduction to the
challenge of restoring the Grand Calumet is in
order.
The Grand Calumet AOC is located in north-
ern Lake County, Indiana, on the southern tip of
Lake Michigan between the Indiana Dunes Na-
tional Lakeshore (IDNL) on the east and Chicago
on the west. It is a globally unique, groundwa-
ter-dependent ecosystem predominated by dune
and swale ecology. The IDNL, where the science
of ecology was invented, ranks third among all
national parks in biodiversity of plant species. In
presettlement times, the entire AOC shared this
outstanding level of biodiversity, as shown by
the remaining fragments of dune and swale and
oak savanna within the AOC today.
The problems of the AOC ecosystem could be
described in highly technical terms. We could de-
scribe the millions of cubic yards of contaminated
sediments or the millions of gallons of oil floating
on the groundwater. However, such technical de-
scriptions of highly contaminated sites prompt
some to discard damaged ecosystems rather than
to work to restore them.
We have found that the key to ecological res-
toration in the Grand Calumet is motivating peo-
ple to raise their sights about the possibilities of
restoration. Only then are they willing to commit
to the long-term work required for complete and
systematic ecosystem restoration.
The Lagoon—a Microcosm of
the Challenge
Fortunately, a specific site within the AOC has
the natural beauty to motivate such long-term
commitment to ecological restoration: the Grand
Calumet Lagoon. It is located at the headwaters
of the Grand Calumet River in Gary on the east-
ern edge of the AOC and the extreme western
edge of the IDNL.
The lagoon area is a microcosm of the chal-
lenges of ecological restoration within this
groundwater-dependent ecosystem. The con-
tamination of the groundwater ranges from slight
to substantial. That groundwater feeds the la-
goon, the adjacent wetlands, and the interdunal
ponds, flowing finally into Lake Michigan. Major
hazardous waste sites are close by.
Since this lagoon is where the Grand Calumet
River begins, its journey from the pristine condi-
tions of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore into
the heavy industrial area of USX can be described
in a more prosaic manner as the story of Beauty and
the Beast.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
The Beauty is the Globally
Unique Ecology
When a government official toured the lagoon
area for the first time, he remarked, "This would
be a nice place to spend my retirement." This
area has retained high enough water quality to
allow this groundwater-dependent ecosystem to
support 150 wetlands, dune and swale ecology,
and a relatively good, three-basin lagoon. Some
coastal dunes are still intact.
The lagoon area provides much of the range
of biodiversity that is impaired within the AOC
because this lagoon area contains the Miller
Woods, part of the IDNL. The lagoon area can be
cherished for its worth by all, regardless of their
scientific background or ecological under-
standing. This ecosystem is truly the Beauty of the
Grand Calumet.
The Beast is the Residue of
Historical Contamination
However, moving from the eastern edge of the
lagoon to its western edge and downstream into
the heavy industrial riparian areas lining most of
the Grand Calumet River, the lagoon area slowly
degrades. Contamination sources affecting the
lagoon include steel slag piles, urban and indus-
trial runoff, sediment transport, residential sep-
tic effluents, air deposition, waste fills, and litter.
The Beast is the massive, if intermittent, in-
dustrial contamination that lines much of the river
corridor.
In the fairy tale, the Beast must get the Beauty
to kiss him before it is too late. The magical kiss
will turn the Beast into a handsome prince so that
everyone can live happily ever after. Such a com-
plete transformation parallels that contemplated
by the RAP for this ecosystem. How can we get the
magical kiss of ecological restoration to transform
the beast of historical contamination?
I believe the site of ecological restoration's
magical kiss should begin at the Grand Calumet
Lagoon. Here, RAP can test innovative restoration
techniques that may be replicated farther down
the river corridor. Here, potential RAP partici-
pants and the public can be inspired to believe that
complete and systematic ecosystem restoration is
worth the effort.
How Complete Is Complete
Restoration?
While the mandate of the RAP is to implement
"complete and systematic ecosystem restora-
tion," how complete can complete restoration be
as a practical matter? How can you test the up-
per limits of restoration systematically over the
entire range of degraded conditions found
within the Grand Calumet?
The lagoon area will serve as a test site to
answer many of these ecosystem-specific ques-
tions for the RAP.4 Here the RAP can discover the
practical, upper limits of ecological restoration
and reconstruction within the AOC.
The International Joint Commission suggests
that an iterative approach be used for restoring
AOCs.5 The Grand Calumet RAP must proceed by
successive approximations because the practical
upper limit of restoration is unknown for many
sites in this ecosystem.
Although the actual presettlement conditions
cannot be fully determined, the RAP must aim
toward a significant increase in the biodiversity of
native species. Problems such as incomplete data
and the lack of a comprehensive scientific under-
standing of the interrelationships among all of the
ecosystem's problems can be overcome by focus-
ing on increasing the biodiversity of known native
species. Working toward a significantly increased
biodiversity with an interactive approach will al-
low restoration to show some progress in the im-
mediate future, without precluding the higher
levels of practical restoration.
Visualizing the Results of
Restoration
Restoring the ecology of this AOC requires visu-
alizing the possibilities, despite the immediate
problems. The RAP will use the lagoon as a spe-
cific restoration site to make ecological restora-
tion of the entire AOC a more approachable
goal. Seeing the results of the lagoon's ecological
restoration will encourage RAP participants to
strive toward the presettlement conditions to the
maximum extent practical.
The panelists will speak about this ecological
transformation of the Grand Calumet AOC and
use the Grand Calumet Lagoon Area in their pres-
entations to help bring ecological restoration is-
sues into focus.
As persons interested in ecological restora-
tion, we are all fairly optimistic about restoration.
If I seem a bit more optimistic than most people
about the chances for ecological restoration of the
Grand Calumet Area of Concern, that is because I
am a RAP coordinator. I have to be an optimist.
Notes
1. According to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
as amended and the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act
of 1990.
2. Stage I of the Remedial Action Plan for Grand Calumet
River, Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and Nearshore Lake
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
J.Thomas
Michigan Area of Concern. 1991. Indiana Department of 4. This is proposed in the Water Quality Component of
Environmental Management, Gary, Indiana. Stage II RAP, which at the time of this writing is out for
3. Doss, P.K. 1991. Physical and Chemical Dynamics of the public comment.
Hydrogeologic System in Wetlands along the Southern 5. See International Joint Commission documents discuss-
Shore of Lake Michigan. Northern Illinois Univ., DeKalb, ing RAP development and implementation. O
IL.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Citizen Activists: Key Partners
in Ecological Restoration
Charlotte Read
Save the Dunes Council
Michigan City, Indiana
In considering ecological restoration through
partnerships in northwest Indiana, citizens
and citizen groups are essential. The Save the
Dunes Council has been a leader in creating
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and aware
that preservation and restoration in this area are
intertwined. Since the headwaters of the Grand
Calumet River—known locally as the Marquette
Park lagoons—are within the boundaries of the
National Lakeshore, the council's concern with
the Grand Calumet River is a natural outgrowth
of our mission.
Many agencies with official responsibilities for
the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore are represented on today's
panel. However, the impetus for creating the Indi-
ana Dunes National Lakeshore and for cleanup of
the Grand Calumet River started at the bottom with
citizens—little initiative came from the top down.
I'm proud to represent "the bottom" today—be-
cause without a bottom, you have nothing.
A Forty-Year Focus
The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore has been
the focus of the Save the Dunes Council since
1952. The council took up the cause of saving the
Dunes from earlier citizen movements, which
started with Dr. Henry Chandler Cowles.
Known as the founder of the science of North
American plant ecology, Cowles began his pio-
neering studies at the Indiana Dunes at the turn
of the century. His initial efforts to gain protec-
tion for the Indiana Dunes privately were unsuc-
cessful. The first federal park proposal in 1916
recommended the Sand Dunes National Park
and would have protected 25 miles of shoreline
and 12,000 acres of duneland. While the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore, created by Congress
50 years later in 1966, contains over 14,000 acres,
it is a different area than that envisioned in 1916.
Without citizens, the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore would not have become law.
The organizations sharing this panel are es-
sential partners in ecological restoration: the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Natural Resources and its many offices, the Na-
tional Park Service, and the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management. Other potential
partners are not here today: industry, the cham-
bers of commerce, developers, local elected offi-
cials. These groups are either our partners in
conflict or ultimately our partners in restoration.
A Region of Contrasts
Northwest Indiana is now the largest steel pro-
ducer in the United States. The Grand Calumet
River, a tributary to Lake Michigan, no longer
catches on fire but remains one of the nation's
most polluted rivers. Lake County, our region's
most industrialized county, experiences more
toxic pollution in its air than do 20 states. Most
of the area's wetlands have been filled with slag,
are superfund sites, or have been ditched. De-
spite the polluted condition of the Grand Calu-
met River, little of it has been straightened. The
Marquette Park lagoons are within in the Grand
Calumet River Area of Concern and also within
the boundaries of the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore. The Indiana Dunes National Lake-
shore includes 13 miles of Indiana's shoreline
along lake Michigan, with a botanic diversity ex-
ceeded in only two other national park areas.
Prosperity Without Poison
Pageants celebrating the Dunes were credited
with helping to persuade the state of Indiana to
protect a small part of the Indiana Dunes in a
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
state park in 1926. Today citizens cannot rely on
pageants to bring us restoration. Not only
should ecological restoration take place, but it
must take place. Petitions and pickets may help.
Politics are extremely important. The ecological
degradation that has been allowed to happen
here creates a moral imperative that ecological
restoration take place here.
But protest is fast becoming the tool of citi-
zens. Many state and federal agency personnel
hate to come to northwest Indiana because we
want clean up, and we want it NOW. In order to
underscore what many citizen groups in north-
west Indiana want, we have endorsed the slogan,
"Prosperity Without Poison." We want ecological
restoration on the land, in the air, and in the water.
We have an area of incredible beauty, incred-
ible pollution, incredible dissatisfaction, and in-
credible opportunity. In northwest Indiana,
restoration of both the physical and the ambient
environment is not only an absolute for ecological
health, it is essential for economic health. Using
the analogy of the Grand Calumet River as a
beast—to kiss the beast and turn it into a hand-
some prince, we will need a lot of people willing
to pucker up. O
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Natural Resource Trustee
Cooperation
Wayne Faatz
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indianapolis, Indiana
As the contaminant program manager
for the Department of Natural Re-
sources, I am often called upon to de-
scribe my job. It is a very complicated
job listing. Some biologists' work has glitch and
glitter—like working with the National Heritage
Program. I, on the other hand, am down in the
sewers with the rats. But it is a vital function.
This presentation is about restoration through
partnerships, specifically about the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Clean Water Act.
How does it work and how do we do this?
Recognize Key Players
First, you must recognize the key players and
know the federal and state trustees. You must
know your partners and have a good working
relationship with them. Avoid a closed mind-
set—this is mine, that is yours, or that is the
EPA's authority, not yours. This can cause all
kinds of trouble—for example, endangered spe-
cies. The endangered bald eagle is a federal spe-
cie. But it is a state-listed specie and it eats state
fish. But with a parochial attitude, you may as
well tell your eagle to go somewhere else.
This is how animosity starts. It also has the
unfortunate drawback of lost information and ex-
pertise. Sometimes states or agencies working to-
gether can accomplish a lot more than one agency
alone, regardless of how large or small.
Assume a biological basis when you attack
these problems. For example, in a CERCLA meet-
ing, do not think in terms of the federal share being
a certain amount of dollars and the state share a
certain amount. Instead, first meet with your trus-
tees and your working groups. Think about one
settlement, one ecosystem, one parcel—not about
dividing up the area like a piece of pie. Either you
settle the whole pie—all the biological criteria—or
you settle nothing. This is a very effective working
advantage. It keeps the potentially responsible
parties from dividing and conquering.
Relying on Imperfect Data
Dr. Dennis King talked about three layers—ab-
solute science, expert science or opinion, and
post science. When negotiating, you are dealing
on the outer edge with very little science to go
on. You must rely on a scientific guess—what
you intuitively feel. You may also be under time
constraints—you may need to settle this situ-
ation in the next six hours. But you will not settle
it in the next six years without the data base.
Without time to collect the data, you must learn
to go with what you have. Through partnerships
with various groups, you can collect an amazing
wealth of data on very short notice.
Another key point is to educate your lawyers.
In negotiations, you have your lawyers and they
have theirs, but you are always outnumbered. It is
not uncommon to go in with three lawyers com-
pared to their nine. Lawyers are operating under a
different philosophy—the letter of the law. A criti-
cal factor is finding a lawyer that understands and
believes in what you are doing. You need to trust
the people you work with, remain flexible, and be
willing to compromise.
You need to be willing to shift plans. You
may think of every contingency for plan A, but
always have a plan B. You need to be prepared to
keep shifting because these situations are dy-
namic. We live in an imperfect world and you
are dealing with imperfect science. You need to
take risks, which require someone to make a de-
cision. Things can drag. Be innovative. Do not be
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
afraid to try new ideas or take new approaches.
The worst that can happen is that the plan does
not work. You need to stay one step ahead. The
other side is smart, too—the better they can an-
ticipate your moves, the better they can mount a
defense against you.
Think Positive
Take a positive approach. Facing difficulties and
obstacles is the nature of the beast. Do not think
of the reasons why it cannot be done or why it
will be hard to do or why you cannot do it. Fig-
ure out what it will take to get over the hump.
One of my favorite lines is, "We haven't got
the money." With $10 million, you can do every-
thing, but sometimes you might only get $1 mil-
lion. With innovation and flexibility, you still can
do a lot. For example, a case called "Fisher-Calo"
was one of our first settlements. The Fish and
Wildlife Service took the lead. Although the fed-
eral interests were limited, with the trustees' ac-
quiescence, we agreed to join in. We also agreed
beforehand that we would not fight over
money—the important issue was the restoration
or mitigation of the property. In this case, the
federal government's share was $20,000 and the
state's $200,000. But the plan we developed pro-
vided that all the money would go toward the
same thing.
The scientific data was less than perfect—in
fact, it was paper thin—but we presented it,
fought hard, and got a settlement. Initially, we
asked for $300,000. The other side countered
with $100,000, challenging us to justify our posi-
tion with data. Our situation was whether to
jeopardize $100,000 in hand or make a counter
offer and risk everything.
It all hinged on the data. So I phoned the
Fish and Wildlife property manager, a 15-year
veteran of the property adjacent to Fisher-Calo.
One phone call provided historical data, animal
and endangered species distribution, and eco-
nomic and land use history. This new data re-
sulted in a $200,000 offer. At first, the lawyers
did not understand that the natural resources
damages were legitimate. When the potentially
responsible parties made an offer, our lawyer
classified it as generous, and refused to carry ne-
gotiations any further. We had to fight with our
own lawyer.
In a current case, our own lawyers would
not recognize our authority, and we were
thrown out of a meeting. However, the second
time we went back, we were much better pre-
pared. In addition, the natural resources dam-
ages became real and the potentially responsible
parties finally understood that they had to face
the issue.
Compromise is Golden
You must remain flexible and be willing to com-
promise. Settlement negotiations are like a poker
game—play the cards and throw in the chips.
Sometimes you win, but you also must be pre-
pared to lose.
In the case of Fisher-Calo, a $200,000 settle-
ment was not bad, but not a lot of money, either.
Suppose we leveraged the $200,000 by borrowing
$2 million from the Division of Fish and Wild-
life—essentially borrowing our own money?
Since we are entitled to federal reimbursement at
75 percent, we would have $1.5. Adding our
$200,000, we would then have $1.7 million. Then
all we would need is $300,000 to buy 2,000
acres—worth approximately $2 million. There-
fore, we have just leveraged our original
$200,000, actually spent $300,000, and ended up
with $2 million worth of land. That is innovation.
You can also try different regulations. In the
past, we might have sent a violator several no-
tices of violations. The violator is generally un-
concerned—after all, he/she has received these
before and nothing happened then, so nothing
will happen now. But during the next inspection,
we charged the violator under a different envi-
ronmental law—a class D felony requiring jail
and a $5,000 fine. He is willing to talk to us now.
You need to keep your partnership going,
know your key players, and be willing to coop-
erate. And as we work in northwest Indiana, we
will be including more and more players in our
restoration efforts. U
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
CASE STUDY; Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Cooperation on Natural
Resource Damage Assessments
(NRDA) for Habitat Restoration
Dan Sparks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bloomington, Indiana
The Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) mandated that
EPA use regulations to get hazardous
waste sites cleaned. CERCLA and the Oil Pollution
Act also has a little-known provision requiring
restoration and compensation for natural resource
injuries at these sites. Wayne Faatz discussed the
importance of trustees cooperating for the re-
source —the regulations even call for it. Yet amaz-
ingly, many of our sister states have not figured
out how to make the most of their limited re-
sources and manpower.
Together with Indiana Department of Envi-
ronmental Management and the Department of
Natural Resources, we have reached some eight
natural resource settlements that EPA and Envi-
ronmental Management have collectively tried
to remediate. Once the regulatory cleanup is
complete, our goal is to restore, replace, or com-
pensate for the natural resource losses.
Huggable Natural Resources
and the Regulatory/Legal
Process
I am somewhat biased about natural resources. I
talk about the fins and furries, the huggable
natural resources. Earlier, several speakers
talked about protecting high value ecological ar-
eas through the 404 permit process. Permitting
can be avoided and possibly managed; but a
spill or a release of hazardous substance can im-
pact these areas. They happen and will likely
continue to happen, but we hope on a smaller
scale in the future.
When science meshes with the legal arena,
the process is incredibly bureaucratic and can be
pretty frightful. Many of today's regulatory
processes are based on numerical standards for
various pollutants as found in 40 CFR and other
regulations. They are not necessarily based on
critter or ecosystem effects—and a lot of that sci-
ence still remains to be figured out.
Include the Ecosystem
Another problem for trustees and trustee re-
sources is that a regulatory cleanup typically
draws a boundary around the problem area but
not around the fully effected ecosystem area.
Every situation is different—our representation
changes, their representation changes, and fre-
quently the ecosystem changes.
In restoration, you start with "X" percent
ecological value. Once you have an event—a spill
or perhaps Solvent Recycling decides to setup
shop in Yourtown, U.S.A., and starts dumping
wastes—obviously, resource values go down. If
you create an attractive nuisance that not only
destroys everything, but also sucks in additional
critters and kills them off as well, natural re-
source losses can actuality go below zero.
When we talk about habitat quality, we are
also talking about all components of habitat
quality. You can build a physically restored, high
quality wetland with chemical quality so bad
that it is an actual detriment to the wildlife you
are trying to rejuvenate and protect. The process
is only as good as the joint strength of the part-
ners. For example, we could not get off square
one if we did not have a good working relation-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
ship. Our partners have biologists out in the
field. We sometimes have good leads into some
of these legal processes. We share good informa-
tion. All this is tremendously beneficial and
draws on all the experts.
Early Coordination Saves Land
Regarding Fisher-Calo, I would like to add sev-
eral points. Yes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice did get $20,000 as opposed to Indiana
Department of Natural Resources' $200,000. But
right before the NRDA settlement by early coor-
dination with EPA's remedial project manager,
we were able to change a minor detail and, in es-
sence, save 277 acres of pristine wetlands of all
types—emergent, scrub shrub, and forested wet-
lands. So the willingness of the remedial project
manager to deal with the ecologist avoided a tre-
mendous additional injury that remediation
could have caused. To EPA's credit, the excellent
working relationship protected those habitats.
Also, $220,000 can buy a lot of marginal agri-
cultural land (degraded wetlands). We can do a
lot of restoration for that kind of money. Consid-
ering the fact that Indiana has lost 87 percent of
its wetlands, $220,000 goes a long way.
In the case of a spill, you are not always go-
ing to get back to where you started. Just talk to
my peers in Alaska about restoring Prince Wil-
liam Sound. You could put some of the pieces
back and in a few million years the Arctic mi-
crobes will take care of the rest. We also must be
concerned about remediation techniques. The
beaches that were not steam-cleaned are actually
recovering faster because the microbial layers
were not destroyed. The steamed-cleaned
beaches were sterilized. So we need to look at
both sides of the coin.
Citizens are Best Source
Grand Calumet, Indiana Harbor, and Marquette
Park lagoons are my favorite areas. This area has
a tiny 47-acre nature preserve with the highest
concentration of state-listed threatened and en-
dangered species. It sits on Lake Michigan's
southern end, a tremendous migratory pathway
for birds. While the area is phenomenal, the av-
erage person looks at it in a different light. The
area has value but lacks a lot of hard science on
the effects of some local problems and issues our
partners were trying to rectify. The best source of
anecdotal information on the effects of some pol-
lutants and habitat destruction is by far local,
concerned citizens. Some elder citizens who
knew the area in the '40s and '50s tell mind-bog-
gling stories of the river's incredible diversity.
Working together now and in the coming
months and years, we will try to fill some of
these science gaps, and through effective studies
find out what is actually happening. In the ba-
sin, we are also hoping for a major settlement on
which we have worked for nearly three years
and EPA has been involved with for over 14
years.* These Natural Resource Damage Assess-
ment settlements are slow processes.
At some sites, paving a contaminated wet-
land to remove the problem may be better be-
cause the technology is just not available to
restore the site. We need to do the best we can
with what we have and learn from our mistakes.
Getting something through the NRDA process is
a lot better than getting nothing. Q
As this proceedings goes to press, the Midco I and Midco II natural resource damage settlement has been finalized. This
settlement involved the purchase and transfer to IDNR Division of Nature Preserves of the 253-acre Bongi Cartage
tract. This site is home to many state and federal endangered species and will be added to the 47-acre Clark and Pine
Nature Preserve. The settling parties have also provided funding for additional habitat restoration on the Bongi tract.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
Natural Resource Restoration at
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Richard Whitman
National Park Service
Porter, Indiana
In my first week at the National Park Service
about four years ago, I was asked my opinion
on an industrial concern seeking clean
closure.
After 10 years of academia, working in a
narrow field, and seeing my colleagues at scien-
tific meetings once a year, I recommended call-
ing in a geologist or a civil engineer. At the time,
I questioned why we were being called—it was
not directly a National Park problem. I discov-
ered that we, indeed, had an interest in what
was happening. Moreover, I soon found out that
not only Fish and Wildlife had an interest, but
also EPA, Department of Environmental Man-
agement, Department of Natural Resources, the
Corps of Engineers, and interest groups like
Save the Dunes Council—even the city of Port-
age had an interest. After three months on the
job, I was freely giving advice and direction to
environmental problems.
Everyone's Problem
Environmental problems are not just National
Park Service problems; they are everyone's
problems. This particular situation was not an
adversarial relationship with the industrial con-
cern; it was something that concerned us all and
a real case example of how we can go forward
with minimal friction and litigation to resolve a
problem. This case is still ongoing and is becom-
ing more and more interesting.
We must work as a community. None of
us—agency or individual—has the experience or
expertise to work alone. We are dealing with
complex problems. We share the responsibilities,
more so in northwest Indiana than in any other
place I can think of. We do not have the eco-
nomic or the political support to do it alone, so
we must form partnerships.
Restoration at Indiana Dunes National Lake-
shore covers a wide area and includes many ac-
tivities (see Fig.l). The National Park Service
started in 1916 with the Organic Act. The Indiana
Dunes area was the third national park recom-
mended by Congress. World War I got us off track,
and we did not get on track again until 50 years
later. Those 50 years were nearly too late for the
Indiana Dunes.
People like Charlotte Read helped build that
park. My boss tells the story of a park tour he and
Charlotte took. He commented about the irregular
and unusual configuration of the park's boundary
line. "Do you realize that I helped draw those
boundaries, and it was not easy," Charlotte re-
sponded. This is a park by the people—possibly
more so than any national park or federal area in the
country. It was built lobbied for, and fought over for
decades before it finally was established in 1966.
The National Park Service has a dual mandate
outlined by the Organic Act. It provides for the
protection of resources and for the enjoyment of
present and future generations. As far as natural
resources, we at Indiana Dunes have a third man-
date—resource restoration. When Congress fi-
nally gave us the Dunes, it gave us damaged
goods. We need to invest far more than our gen-
eration can provide to restore it as best we can to
its original habitat.
Restoration's Patron Saints
We have many patron saints at Indiana Dunes.
An important one is Senator Paul Douglas, who
fought hard and used his political might to es-
tablish the Dunes. Many of the great heroes of
the National Park came from Chicago, including
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 1.—Management areas of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
1 Miller
2 Tollecton
3 West Beach
4 Baffly
5 Dune Acres
6 Indiana Dunes State Park
7 Visitor Center
8 Keifer
9 Tamarack
10 Heron Rookery
11 Hootier Prairie
12 Pinhook Bog
Senator Douglas. One of Senator Douglas' fa-
mous quotes was, "When I was young, I wanted
to save the world. In my middle years, I
would've been content to save my country. Now
all I want to do is save the Dunes."
Another patron saint is Henry Cowles. He
was a pioneering ecologist and co-founder of the
laws of succession. He recognized the process of
succession and the Dunes' magnificent floral di-
versity and biological significance. He laid the
foundation for modern ecology.
A second individual from Chicago, Victor
Shelford, was recently the subject of a biography.
The book suggests that he is the "Father of Ani-
mal Ecology." Most of his work—the develop-
ment of Shelford's Law of Tolerance and
Principles of Eutrophication were developed at
Indiana Dunes. These two people in the north-
west Indiana-Chicago land area helped lay the
foundations of ecology and environmental sci-
ence. So we do have a legacy in history.
Indiana Dunes has 15 miles of beaches—the
largest access to Lake Michigan in Indiana. It
shares jurisdiction with a number of communi-
ties, industries, and other entities. We have al-
ready alluded to the area's biodiversity. Its third
largest plant diversity in the nation makes it re-
markably species rich. The Dunes' perturbations
and stresses also make it remarkable. It probably
is the most threatened park in the country with
every conceivable problem of any park in the
National Park Service, with the exception of the
Everglades.
All of the Above
When I go to Shenandoah and hear about air
quality, or to the Grand Canyon and hear about
visibility problems, or about oil and other prob-
lems in Alaskan parks, or the visitor problems at
Yellowstone, I think, "We've got a little of all of
these." In fact, if you are looking for an outdoor
laboratory or experiment, come to the Indiana
Dunes—we have it for you. We have two fossil
fuel plants within the Dunes, many sewage
treatment plants, three steel mills, and a whole
variety of interspersed industrial-municipal
complexes within the park itself.
At Indiana Dunes, we are trying to restore
black oak savannas by razing home sites that we
bought up, leased out, and took down. (On some,
we removed sod and exotic grasses.) Our plant
ecologist is trying different treatments to deter-
mine the best way to restore the land to a target
vegetation and habitat.
When I got to the Indiana Dunes, I was sur-
prised that we did not have a prescription to re-
store black oak savanna or other habitats. I
assumed a basic strategy was already in place.
But, in fact, we are just at the beginning of under-
standing how to bring them back. Among the dif-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
R. Whitman
ferent treatments we are using are herbicide,
physical removal, sod removal/scalping, and
fire.
A Mixed Blessing
Fire is a bit problematic in the Dunes. We use it
to maintain the system and to restore critical
habitats, especially with the Karner blue butter-
fly, an endangered species. We have the second
largest population of the Karner blue butterfly in
the nation. Just listed this year as an endangered
species, it has incredible requirements. The para-
dox is that at Indiana Dunes the Karner needs
black oak savanna which needs fire—but the
same fire kills the larvae. So we just cannot burn
an area and hope that the Karner will come back.
If we do not burn in a controlled fashion, we will
take the population out completely. Because this
problem is incredibly complex, we have our new
animal ecologists looking at it.
We also have exotics like purple loosestrife.
With loosestrife, we are cooperating with the De-
partment of Natural Resources and the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin. We are trying to understand
the basic biology and inventory to get a handle
on its control. Other exotics include the zebra
mussel. It started invading in 1990 and now we
have over 50,000 per square meter on higher
solid substrates. We have just begun to realize its
impact. The first year I looked for funding to
support it, no one knew what a zebra mussel
was. Now they know. We are really concerned
about places like St. Croix, which has the perfect
habitat for it, several endangered mussels, and a
whole variety of other mollusks that will be
affected.
These are just a few of the many exotic
plants and animals with which we deal. We do
weekly continuous water quality monitoring of
well sites, stream sites, and lake sites and try to
respond to perturbations that we witness.
We have sacrificed areas like Mount Baldy,
allowing visitors to enjoy and trample. This is a
living dune, and it probably would not have
much vegetation on its face anyway. But we also
have dunal plants—for example, the dune this-
tle, a federal threatened species. We try to direct
people away by putting in boardwalk fenced ar-
eas and maintain a habitat that the dune thistle
needs to survive.
Much to Learn
At Indiana Dunes, we have slack water areas
called pannes—they are ecologically unknown.
We understand a little bit about their water
chemistry and something about their vegetation;
but as for the rest of the biology, we know little.
Part of our effort is to understand the baseline.
We are putting together cooperatives with Dan
Sparks and probably the Department of Natural
Resources to look at the great blue heron, PCBs,
and what problems are created. We need to look
at restoring the Little Calumet River to its natu-
ral flow and biological status.
The Great Marsh is a valuable natural re-
source. Formerly going from Michigan City to
Gary—about 20 miles—the marsh is now less
than three miles wide. Some 3,000 acres were
heavily dredged and filled to accommodate mu-
nicipal and agricultural development. We need
to study three creeks—Derby Ditch, Dunes
Creek, and Kintzle Ditch—with the idea of
deditching at least some of them and trying to
restore the Great Marsh. This is an incredible
problem, but it is an incredible resource.
Derby Ditch is a point source that floods our
beach with bacteria and introduces iron, tannic
acids, and many other pollutants. It is a big eye-
sore. We would like to close it, but we do not
have the political or legal muscle. We cannot do
it without partnerships.
Oftentimes a beach on the Great Lakes will ap-
pear to be just sterile sand around the river. But
most areas have some organisms taking advantage
of the resource. For example, a whole community
that was poorly understood and undiscovered until
three or four years ago is the interstitial melo-
fauna. It is obligate to groundwater. So now bi-
ologists have an indicator community for
groundwater. We are still discovering communi-
ties and animals. We need to start at the bottom
in more ways than one.
A Success Story
One of our great restoration success stories was
a salt storage facility by the Department of
Transportation at Pinhook Bog. Through several
years of study by a doctoral student, we were
able to document the salt's impact on this pre-
cious resource, a national landmark. We bought
the property from the Transportation Depart-
ment and removed the facility. After 12 years, we
are continuing to monitor the slow recovery of
the bog species.
We have used Geographic Information Sys-
tems (GIS) as well. While we know we cannot
bring back the buffalo, we have looked at reintro-
ducing the bobcat. That would obviously include
the Department of Natural Resources, the local
community, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. We
have mapped the potential bobcat habitat, but
the bobcat probably cannot locate far enough
away from human disturbances to successfully
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
breed at Indiana Dunes. So bringing back the
bobcat is unlikely. But we are getting some coyo-
tes back and we have other wildlife—some not
so desirable.
The deer, for example, have become a nui-
sance as they are in Chicago and Brown County.
We are working with the state to put together
programs for comparative status. We need to de-
velop some exclosure studies. Although we know
the deer are affecting rare plants, we need docu-
mentation before we can take action. These ani-
mals and others carry diseases. We are
cooperating with Ball State and the Department of
Natural Resources to document the deer tick and
trying to monitor Lyme's disease frequency.
Problematic Cuddlies
Other cute little cuddlies like the racoon have
become a problem, especially when people feed
them. We have a fragmented habitat that encour-
ages their overpopulation. Not only do they
have problems like distemper and rabies, but
they likely have a tremendous impact on our
nest and bird populations. We are planning to
document the problem to justify control.
The black oak savanna at the Dunes is the tar-
get of restoration efforts where an incredible floral
diversity exists. The Marquette Lagoons are just
north of the Miller Woods savanna. We under-
stand more about these interdunal ponds than in
any other aquatic park area. We not only under-
stand the hydrology, the water quality, and the
land use, but we also understand the historical
context of research going back to the turn of the
century. We have some of the oldest baseline
data in the world.
One of our largest interdunal ponds, Long
Lake, had a fish kill in 1990.1 wrote it up as win-
ter kill. But recent data shows toxicant levels
high enough to cause stress on the environment;
and it needs to be looked at more closely. Be-
cause this pond has no point or nonpoint source,
most of its input probably comes from atmos-
pheric deposition. If that is true, then most of our
waters have the exposure. Other research has
already shown predominantly atmospheric
deposition of heavy metals and organics.
The Great Social Experiment
The Indiana Dunes is a great social experiment
to see whether humans and the environment can
coexist—and the jury is still out. Many genera-
tions must pass to see the success or failure of
the Dunes' experience. This experiment reminds
me of Ben Franklin's comment at the signing of
the Declaration of Independence. He looked at
the sun and said he was not sure whether it was
rising or setting. I ask the same question for the
natural areas of the country—is the sun rising or
setting? The answer lies within us all. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
CASE STUDY: Restoration Through Partnerships in
Northwest Indiana
General Panel Discussion
Joseph D. Thomas
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Gary, Indiana
Charlotte Read
Save the Dunes Council
Michigan City, Indiana
Wayne Faatz
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dan Sparks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bloomington, Indiana
Richard Whitman
National Park Service
Porter, Indiana
Question: Would it not have been a
tremendous advantage to have had a
central natural resources data collec-
tion? What are you doing to make sure
that the information and anecdotes are
available for the next war? This is surely not the
last one in that area or the region.
• Answer—Wayne Paatz: This is a pet peeve
of mine. I go to many meetings where we need
to get GIS data to the public. What does getting
it to the public mean? Does it mean putting it
into a library where no one ever sees it?
The data is out there, but that is a problem.
EPA, the state, and Fish and Wildlife Service all
have tons of data. The trick is to centralize the
data base; the hard part is putting GIS data into
a practical application. Those who generate the
GIS data say it has a variety of uses. But they
lack the expertise or the partnerships to provide
the GIS data in a useable form.
The cost of centralizing data is enormous.
Everyone enjoys collecting data, but the down
time involved in entering it into the system is
horrendous. And who absorbs the expense? I,
too, would like to see centralized data. Indiana
very seldom has an ecological history of over 24
hours—sometimes it is even shorter than that.
Often good data is out there but we do not even
know it exists. The information transfer system
is also a real problem.
• Comment: We are getting started. This sum-
mer, we are undertaking a major effort to get a
handle on what is going on beyond just an anec-
dotal situation. We have about eight different
studies, although they are not totally in-depth.
We hope to have enough of the right kind of in-
formation to get started. Some of these studies
will take a long time—five, six, 10 years. But we
need to start somewhere and start now. It is a
long drawn-out process, but at least now we
have some resources to begin.
• Comment: Steve Gorinson is heading up an
interagency group looking specifically at that
problem. One problem is that we have comput-
ers and GIS systems that do not even talk to each
other, much less share data—and that is just at
the federal level. The best and most comprehen-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
sive data out there is locked up behind library
walls and on shelves—in dissertation and theses.
We rarely look at that data when we need his-
torical information.
• Comment: I was recently with the Illinois
Department of Energy and Natural Resources at
the U.S. Geological Survey and now I'm in pri-
vate practice. I was one of the original principal
investigators in developing the critical tran-
sassessment project in Illinois. The project's focus
and mission was to bring in data sets to look at en-
vironmental conditions throughout the state.
Trying to assemble the data— trying to get it re-
leased from various agencies—was the largest
stumbling block. In fact, it is still a problem. Data
protocols needed to be established between
agencies to allow the data to be shared. Much of
Illinois data were on three-by-five cards stored
in the third sub-basement. The problem and ex-
pense was organizing this and pulling it to-
gether into a form that can be easily accessed by
all the people who need it. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
PANEL: Incentives
for Restoration
-------
-------
PANEL: Incentives for Restoration
There's More to Restoration
Opportunities than Mitigation
David H. Behm
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
St. Paul, Minnesota
Remove the whole concept of a regula-
tory framework from your mind. Just
imagine that people out there, volun-
tarily and with the right incentive, are
willing to come forward and do some ecological
restoration. For the moment, just believe that
myth.
This situation has nothing to do with regula-
tion—regulation is not driving the desire to par-
ticipate in ecological restoration. Many people
living on the landscape participate in voluntary
programs and have made voluntary efforts.
The Programmatic Pyramid
What motivates people to do things? A simple,
conceptual model—the programmatic pyramid
(see Fig. 1)—will illustrate. This model has three
components—education, incentive, and regula-
tion. The whole of the pyramid represents all
Figure 1 .—The Programmatic Pyramid.
Incentives
EDUCATION
those activities that resource managers use in
their collective attempts to influence the re-
source management decisions and actions of pri-
vate landowners. The bottom of the pyramid is
the education component. This illustration is of a
relative effectiveness scale, not an exact number.
It represents the relative effectiveness of soley an
education-based approach to affect resource
management decisions. Most people will change
their behavior and do the right thing if pre-
sented with convincing information in an appro-
priate educational context.
Information, different from education, is not
terribly convincing unless put in a learning con-
text. Most agencies have done a poor job of edu-
cating people. We find it easy to put out a
brochure, but we tend not to follow up or put
the information in context. If we would do a bet-
ter job of education, we would see many more
people doing the right thing.
Benefits—Public and Private
Part of the education process is to learn that do-
ing these things creates some public benefits,
such as groundwater protection. It also creates
private benefits—economic viability of a farm,
for example. The public benefit, of course, is that
groundwater does not just benefit one person,
but is an aquifer that serves many. The soil being
conserved and the nutrients being properly man-
aged not only help the individual's pocketbook,
but doing the right thing prevents contamination
of the groundwater—a public benefit.
Some individuals will actually stop harmful
activities, or more likely modify them, and do
the right thing simply from education alone.
Others, though, will agree and understand, but
their individual private costs to modify this be-
havior prevents them from being able to provide
public benefits. That is where incentives come
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
into play—the next tier of the pyramid. The pub-
lic expects these benefits and is willing to pay for
some of the public benefits that private interests
simply cannot afford to provide. In matching in-
centives with education, most individuals will
be convinced to change their activities to do the
right thing.
Leveraging the Program
Of course, we do not have the luxury to pay
for every conceivable education and incentive
program. So we need to leverage as many indi-
viduals as we can through volunteer activities.
In this way, we can reach large masses of peo-
ple who control and influence the landscape
through voluntary programs.
Regulation sits atop the pyramid. It illus-
trates the ability to effectively leverage the large
majority of individuals affected by voluntary ac-
tivities contained in the lower components.
Regulation, on its own, is the least effective fac-
tor affecting the smallest group of people. Good
regulation must be focused. If your aim is to
regulate the farming community, you have un-
dertaken a broad task. If, however, you wish to
address sugar beet farmers near the Red River in
Minnesota, you will likely have more success in
fine tuning the regulations to fit the particular
individual and the type of farming operation.
Regulation—the Last Effort
Not only should regulation be focused, but it is
placed at the top of the pyramid because it
should be the last initiative employed, and only
after sound education and incentives programs
are in place. If you have done an appropriate job
through education and with incentives to bring
volunteers out and do the right thing, regulation
may not be needed. Most people will discon-
tinue activity simply for private gain once they
are shown that their actions are not in the public
interest.
Obviously, this is a gross over simplification,
but that is the nature of models. Regulations cer-
tainly have a place, and presentations at this
symposium have shared the regulatory frame-
work. Most of us have talked about restoration,
particularly wetland restoration and creation,
from the standpoint of what we are going to
achieve through mitigation. Mitigation, by its
very nature, is tied to a regulatory framework.
I heard here that the federal 404 permits—
the principal means of mitigation activities in
this multi-state region—will achieve hundreds
of acres of wetland restoration. Yet, Charlie
Wooley from the Fish and Wildlife Service men-
tioned that 40,000 acres of wetland restoration
are in roughly in the same area from one pro-
gram. Just look at the difference in magnitude of
scale between these approaches.
In the Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) reserve
conservation easement program that I pre-
viously presented, we have achieved about 9,000
acres of wetland and adjacent upland restora-
tions. This is for only one state and one program.
The magnitude of opportunity for voluntary ef-
forts is different from the regulatory framework.
This alone should spur you to try a voluntary
framework—that is the greatest opportunity to
make a substantial gain in ecological restora-
tions on a broad scale.
Cost-Effective Restoration
This is not to say that you should back away
from regulation. The technical challenges ahead
demand that you use regulation to turn failure
into success. But most of the restoration is rela-
tively easy and inexpensive. For example, the
cost of easement, program administration, and
practices for RIM Reserve is about $1,250 an
acre, including all the costs for a wetland resto-
ration easement, and with an average size of 33
acres.
A lot of opportunities exist out there. Collec-
tively and as individuals, you can make a much
greater contribution to ecological restoration
from the voluntary side than you will ever be
able to achieve through the regulatory side.
While I acknowledge and understand the need
for a regulatory framework, mitigation, and the
high expectations that we have for mitigation,
many more opportunities await you "on the
other side." Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
PANEL: Incentives for Restoration
Incentives on Private Lands
Don Butz
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Washington, D.C.
Much discussion about wetland resto-
ration throughout the United States
in the past years has existed in a
void—we had no true guidance on
how to restore wetlands. However in the past two
years, EPA, Corp of Engineers, the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS), Extension Service, and others
have developed a wetland restoration chapter to
add to the Soil Conservation Service's engineering
field handbook. It identifies the procedure that
should be followed and the types of practices
required to restore the hydrology for restoration,
creation, and enhancement of wetlands.
We also developed a training course on wet-
land restoration, which SCS and Fish and Wild-
life have given in several U.S. locations. A
number of state agencies involved in wetland
restoration have attended these training ses-
sions, which have been well accepted. In fact, the
demand for guidance is greater than our ability
to meet it. Some good efforts are going on
throughout the United States—team efforts as
opposed to one individual agency.
Benefiting Society
Two incentive programs worth mentioning are
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and
the Wetlands Reserve Program. Both programs
have and will provide many benefits to society.
Congress initially established the Conservation
Reserved Program to reduce agricultural sur-
pluses—wheat, corn, rice, and similar crops—re-
duce erosion, improve water quality, and develop
wildlife habitat. Farmers receive an annual 10-year
rental payment to stop producing commodity
crops on the land and establish a vegetative cover
of grass, trees, or wildlife habitat. Farmers also re-
ceive 50 percent of the cost of establishing the
vegetation needed to protect the land.
Currently, we have approximately 36.5 mil-
lion acres in the program, consisting very
roughly of 2.5 million acres of trees and 34 mil-
lion acres of vegetation. The vegetation includes
native or warm season grasses and nearly 26
million acres of cool season, or introduced,
grasses such as timothy, orchid grass, broom
grass, and other similar types, many of which
have been seeded with legumes. Nearly 300,000
acres of wetlands have been brought into the
program during a short period of time.
In many places, Fish and Wildlife Service has
assisted with restoration of these wetlands. The
remaining acres consist of things such as filter
strips along the streams, lakes, and rivers; well-
head protection; windbreaks; grass waterways;
and wildlife habitat development vegetation.
This program has provided substantial bene-
fits above and beyond its overall objective. We
hear every day that wildlife improvement has
been tremendous. The number of pheasants, deer,
and other wildlife has increased throughout the
United States. But the first 10-year contract will
terminate in September 1995. The real question is
this: what will happen when the contracts termi-
nate? Will they convert back to crop land? What
will Congress do? Will it extend the contracts? Will
Congress offer an easement program or purchase
the land? We could speculate, but at this point we
really do not know what Congress will do. A num-
ber of task forces are working on the problem, in-
cluding a USDA task force, which is currently
looking at life after CRP and trying to make sure
that the program's gains are maintained.
WRP—New and Exciting
The rest of this presentation will focus on the
new and exciting USDA Wetlands Reserve Pro-
gram (WRP). In 1990, Congress passed the Food
Agricultural Conservation Trade Act authoriz-
ing the program. A team—including USDA,
EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and nongovern-
mental groups—established the program's rules
and regulations.
WRP is a voluntary program offering agri-
cultural landowners a chance to receive pay-
ment for restoring wetlands on their properties.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
The program purchases conservation easements
from participating landowners, provides 75 per-
cent cost share payments for wetland restora-
tion, and is authorized to restore up to 1 million
acres through 1995.
The main thrust of the program is to restore
wetlands. The program includes minimal pro-
tection of existing wetlands but focuses on re-
storing wetlands lost or altered in the past. In
1992, the appropriation provided $46.3 million
for pilot programs in nine states, enrolling up to
50,000 acres. This allows Congress to see if the
program is accepted by landowners under a va-
riety of restoration opportunities in different
types of wetlands. The states are North Carolina,
California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Louisi-
ana, Mississippi, Missouri, and New York.
The USDA Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service administers the program
and the SCS, in consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, provides technical assistance
for the restoration effort.
Strict Land Requirements
Land and landowners must meet several re-
quirements. A landowner must have owned the
land for at least one year, and the land must
have grown crops at least one year out of five be-
tween 1985 and 1990. The land must also have
hydric soil, indicating that it once was a wetland,
making the likelihood of restoring it relatively
easy compared to creating a wetland. The act
gives permanent easements a priority over
short-term easements, but the pilot program
only allows permanent or perpetual easements.
The SCS and Fish and Wildlife Service first
determine land eligibility and then develop a
wetland restoration plan on the eligible lands—
with the landowners' involvement a key to the
plan's success. A site must be restored to its
original wetland condition as is "practical." But
how do we do determine "practical"? Since the
majority of wetlands have been altered in the
past 50 years, we have numerous historical re-
cords and photos. We have employees who re-
member what many of these areas were like
prior to being cropped. With that background,
we can easily decide if the land should be a for-
ested wetland, a prairie pothole area, or a shrub
scrub wetland.
Developing a Plan
The wetland restoration plan is developed by
SCS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the land-
owner. The landowner is involved in all deci-
sions about how the wetland will be restored.
The plan identifies the restoration's objective
and lists all the functions and values to be ob-
tained from the restoration. It identifies the prac-
tices required to restore the hydrology, describes
the types and methods of vegetation restoration,
identifies future maintenance required of the
landowner, and lists all compatible uses.
The conservation easement removes all
rights from the landowner except quiet enjoy-
ment, personal hunting, and control over who
can come on the property. The landowner must
maintain the property and pay all taxes. In real-
ity, all rights are removed. The plan can grant
back certain compatible uses such as timber har-
vest, haying, grazing in controlled condition,
and selling hunting rights. The plan also identi-
fies the cost of all restoration requirements so the
landowner knows the cost up front.
Landowners use the plan to submit a bid for
acceptance into the program. The federal gov-
ernment is restricted from paying more than the
appraised value of the land with the easement.
Once accepted, landowners must record and file
the easement with the court. SCS helps imple-
ment the restoration and monitors the easement
with assistance from Fish and Wildlife.
Choosing the Land
Establishing priorities is difficult—for example,
determining which easements bidding down be-
low the "bid cap" should be accepted into the
program. Is one 500-acre easement better than a
105-acre wetland restoration? Is a wetland in
Virginia better than one in California? How do
you establish priorities in a national program?
ASCS goes through a process called an environ-
mental benefit index that evaluates a number of
different issues. It looks at the amount of hydrol-
ogy that can be restored, the location of the ease-
ment, environmental concerns such as off-site
damages affecting the proposed restoration, and
length of the easement. Another consideration is
management risk—will someone definitely look
after the restoration and make sure it will be
maintained down the road?
In June 1992, one week after the program
was announced, we began accepting intentions
from landowners. We received 2,337 intentions
on 462,000 acres from the nine states—land-
owners seemed to be standing at the door wait-
ing to offer land to be restored back to wetlands.
Landowners prepared restoration plans for
nearly 1,400 bids representing some 250,000
acres and used those plans to submit bids by
September 24 (Fig. 1).
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. Butz
After extensive review and considering re-
quirements such as eligibility, bid cost, and bene-
fits, SCS accepted 265 offerings representing over
49,000 acres of wetlands in January. We are cur-
rently finalizing plans, preparing detailed imple-
mentation plans, and waiting for landowners to
file easements.
Mississippi and Louisiana landowners sub-
mitted the most eligible cropland and Minnesota,
the least. Iowa landowners submitted 367 bids, the
largest number; and North Carolina and New
York had the fewest accepted. North Carolina bids
were the largest, averaging 785 acres per ease-
ment; New York bids were the smallest, averaging
11 acres—two bids on Long Island were accepted.
In reviewing the distribution of the accepted
farms by acres per farm, we find that 39 percent of
the bids were from 5 to 50 acres in size. Farms over
500 acres in size represent 10 percent of the farms
accepted, but represented 52 percent of the acres
enrolled (Fig. 2). Landowners were willing to pro-
vide fairly large offerings.
Figure 1.—1992 Wetland Reserve Program: intentlons-bids-accepted.
2,337 INTENTIONS
462,078 ACS.
1,314 BIDS
249,059 ACS
265 ACCEPTED
49,886 ACS
100 200 300 400
500
ACRES
Figure 2.—1992 Wetlands Reserve Program: distribution of accepted farms by acres per farm.
NUMBER PERCENTAGE
OF FARMS OF TOTAL
ACREAGE
PERCENTAGE
OF ACREAGE
< 5
9 3%
39 < 1%
5 - SO
103 39%
2332 5%
51 - 100
46 17%
3408 7%
101 - 500
79 30%
18188 36%
> 500
28 10%
25922 52%
ALL STATES
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
The majority of accepted acres are concen-
trated in a relatively small geographical area, in
particular, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri.
Lands are more widely distributed in the midwest,
more centrally located in Iowa, and concentrated
in one particular area in Wisconsin. Lands in Cali-
fornia are located in the north central.
Variety Represented
The nine pilot states represent a variety of wet-
land types. In California, for example, the prob-
lems are completely different because of the
water issues. In some places, like California and
Mississippi, the hydrology has been so altered
that it may never return to its original state. A
dike with large pumps surrounds a county in
Missouri to keep the water down. How could
the hydrology return to its original state without
shutting down the pump and flood the entire
county?
The total federal cost per acre is $923. Local
costs are less than $100 per acre with the ease-
ment, settlement costs, and technical assistance
making up the remainder (Fig. 3).
Figure 3.—1992 Wetland Reserve Program: per acre
federal cost
TECH ASSISTANCE
124
RESTORATION
52
SETTLEMENT
4
One 100-acre easement in New York was in a
muck area that had been drained with opened
ditches. We put in two ditch plugs for less than
$1,000 to bring back the original hydrology. So
size of the easement relative to cost is important.
Figure 4.—1992 Wetland Reserve Program: types of
land accepted.
FARMED
16354
RIPARIAN
148
UPLANDS
1293
NATURAL
2689
PRIOR CONVERTED
29404
49 888 ACRES IN NINE STATES
Figure 5.—1992 Wetland Reserve Program: types of
wetlands to be restored.
SHRUB
2,865 6%
OTHER
2,051 4%
EMERGENT
14,105 28%
EASEMENT PAYMENT
742
FORESTED
30,868 62%
AVERAGE TOTAL = $923 PER ACRE
USDA is targeting certain types of land:
"prior converted cropland," a wetland altered
substantially to easily produce an annual crop;
and "farm wetlands," altered cropland with
some wetland characteristics (Fig. 4). A portion
of the easements sometimes contains some natu-
ral wetlands, so a small amount of natural wet-
lands may also be included.
The major type of wetland that will be re-
stored is forested wetland (Fig. 5). The major
type of lands, located in Mississippi and Louisi-
ana, is bottomland hardwood; the next major
type is emergent, located in the upper midwest.
DISCUSSION
• Question: You mentioned that originally the
program had all permanent easements and later
changed to temporary easements? What was the
reason for the change and how long are the tem-
porary easements?
• Answer—Don Butz: The Conservation Re-
serve Program was an annual 10-year pro-
gram; at the end of 10 years, it was terminated.
Minor easements were only on certain prac-
tices; few acres really came in under the ease-
ment program.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. Butz
• Question—Bill Painter: I am a little con-
fused—you say you have restored all of the wet-
lands, yet the majority are bottomland
hardwoods. If those were to be cut over or the
hydrology changed, you would not have any-
thing resembling a functional wetlands for quite
sometime. Why did you put such a heavy em-
phasis on a wetland type that takes a long time
to restore, compared to some emergent types
that come back more quickly?
I would like hear a history of the funding of
the program since 1992. It appears to have been
up and down. Also, will you receive any money
if the president's incentive package goes
through? And finally, do you have any data on
jobs created from these programs? One way to
get money for things like this is to create jobs
quickly and get a lot of bang for the buck.
• Answer—Don Butz: I'm not sure we really
concentrated on the bottomland hardwood, al-
though it came out that way. One reason is be-
cause more landowners bid below the appraised
value. The real question is this: do you start
where you can get the ultimate wetland back
quickly or do you just start restoring wetlands?
I'm not sure of the answer. You must start with
bottomland hardwoods sometime and restore
the hydrology above and beyond just planting
trees.
The 1993 Congress did not fund the program,
mainly to see how the pilot program went and
how well it was accepted by the landowners. We
have a report in to Congress, which is very re-
sponsive. I believe you will see substantial dol-
lars in 1994 set aside for the Wetland Reserve
Program to restore 350,000 to 400,000 acres.
We have no information on jobs at this point
because we have not started to implement the
program and put it on the land. But the costs in-
dicate that jobs are being created.
• Question: What are the future possibilities
of extending the program to other states?
• Answer—Don Butz: If we get substantial
dollars and the acres we need, the program will
go national in 1994.
• Question: Will the compensation that the
owner gets more than cover the taxes for 10
years? What is the incentive for a landowner to
give this easement?
• Answer—Don Butz: One incentive is that
in the total bid process owners get compensated
for the easements' appraised value. They get
compensated for projected costs of mainte-
nance—long-term maintenance cost—and soil
productivity on a fluctuating scale.
The Extension Service should advise land-
owners accepted into the program to put aside a
portion of their lump sum easement payment to
pay taxes and maintain it over an extended time
period.
• Comment: In Minnesota, for the last three
years we have taken only perpetual easements.
But in the program's seven-year history, we have
nearly 1,700 easements covering about 45,000
acres, the majority of which are perpetual. No one
has protested continuing property tax payments.
One individual started to create a problem. In
Minnesota, property taxes must be unpaid for
seven years before the property reverts back to
the county for disposal. This landowner was in
year five and finally decided that protesting to
the county was not worth it. His problem was
with the county, not the state.
In the early years of Minnesota's program,
counties were not required and therefore did not
reduce the tax rate, even though the land was
producing no economic return. However, over
the years a number of counties have realized,
out of a sense a guilt if nothing else, that they
should lower taxes. Most of the counties are now
assessing a more appropriate rate. But the obli-
gation is on the current landowner and all future
landowners to pay taxes at the current rate.
• Comment: Taxes vary from state to state. In
Wisconsin, for example, wetland is considered
recreational land, increasing the value of the
land from cropland. So landowners pay higher
taxes when they restore wetlands.
• Question—Charlotte Wolf: Is it feasible to
apply a landscape approach to restore these wet-
lands and work with other agencies or groups?
• Answer—Don Butz: It is feasible but not
easy to accomplish. Few people really under-
stand the landscape concept of restoration. That
will be slow in coming, but we are making pro-
gress. This program allows states to establish
certain eligibility criteria, and states can move in
that direction.
• Comment: Don and I come from agencies
that traditionally are in soil and water conserva-
tion work. However, neither of us would say we
are truly restorationist, ecologist, or soil and
water conservation experts. Don and I need to
be held accountable for things that should be on
the landscape. Otherwise, our limited perspec-
tive will guide these easement areas and the mil-
lions of acres under contracts and easements. So
the restoration experts need to keep us account-
able for the broader public benefits that should
be derived from these acres. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Emerging
Issues in Restoration
-------
-------
I
PANEL: Emerging Issues in Restoration
Ecosystem Management
Dave Cleland and Thomas R. Crow
U.S. forest Service
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Eunice A. Padley
Huron-Manistee National Forest
Cadillac, Michigan
The Forest Service has adopted a policy
called ecosystem management. As an
ecologist, I think the initiative holds a lot
of promise for improving resource man-
agement while resolving many resource issues and
conflicts. Some of its strategies involve partner-
ships, adaptive management, and working with
other individuals and research organizations.
The Forest Service's definition of ecosystem
management is a skillful, integrated use of eco-
logical information to meet multiple-use objec-
tives while also sustaining ecosystem diversity
and productivity. A bit of controversy exists
within the Forest Service and the scientific com-
munity in general about what this actually
means, however. The basic questions are these:
What is an ecosystem and what is ecosystem
management?
Obviously, in order to manage something,
you need to know what you are managing,
where it is, and possess an understanding of
how that something functions. Some land man-
agers are looking at maintaining ecological proc-
esses without obtaining information on the what
and where of ecosystems. The rationale is that
ecosystems are too complex to define or deline-
ate and that ecosystems have no real or only dif-
fuse boundaries. But I disagree—although
ecosystems are complex, and although we cannot
rely solely on available information and reduction-
istic science to comprehensively understand them,
we still need to tackle the problem. If we avoid it
because of its complexity, we will not make much
needed progress. And emerging environmental
concerns and changing public expectations simply
will not allow such complacency.
To discuss ecosystem management, we need
to reach a common definition of each term. In a
recent public meeting I attended in Duluth, for-
est industry representatives were upset about
the new ecosystem management policy; they felt
that the term "ecosystem" caused a lot of confu-
sion. These individuals were viewing the term
"ecology" as being synonymous with "preserva-
tion." While preservation is a very important as-
pect of ecosystem management, ecology is a
science and not a political movement. Although
I personally approve of the environmental
movement, the movement is political and not
necessarily scientific in all respects. This presen-
tation describes what an ecosystem is and is not.
Management Defined
I recently was privileged to speak at a Presi-
dent's Council of Environmental Quality—EPA
joint session in Boston. I followed a Harvard
professor whose topic was tools for managing
biological diversity. But he talked about our in-
ability to manage biological diversity because of
the complexity of ecosystems. He discussed
theories of chaos, and he was absolutely bril-
liant. I had a problem, however, since my topic
was ecosystem management. So I ran down to
the front desk, got a dictionary out, and looked
up the word "management." I found that man-
agement means to render submissive, to domi-
nate, to achieve objectives, to use sparingly, to
tender, or to husband—in other words, it means
everything from Mother Theresa to Adolph
Hitler.
To the Forest Service, management means to
carefully achieve objectives using judgment and
scientific methods. The objectives of ecosystem
management are to meet people's needs while
ensuring that national forests and grasslands
represent diverse, productive, and sustainable
ecosystems. Decisions ranging from the extrac-
tion of commodities to the preservation of wil-
nm
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
derness are all management decisions. A differ-
ence exists between human dominated land-
scapes, which really happen arbitrarily, and
human managed landscapes. The latter repre-
sent careful analysis, management, and monitor-
ing for achieving multiple-use management
objectives.
When I spoke in Boston following that really
wonderful thinker, I pointed out that if we
cannot even identify what an ecosystem is, we
are in real trouble, since it is obvious that we can
affect them. To demonstrate, I pulled out my
Michigan fishing license that said that children,
pregnant women, and women planning on hav-
ing children should not eat fish harvested out of
this Great Lake ecosystem.
Ecosystem management is a means or tool to
meet multiple use and sustained yield mandates
while attending to other critical needs, including
the conservation of biological diversity. The
President's Council on Environmental Quality
has issued new guidance on implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act for conserv-
ing biological diversity. The report makes sev-
eral recommendations: (1) that we must assess
biological impact using landscape analysis, and
agencies must look beyond site level effects to
assess impacts within local ecosystem, land-
scapes, or broader regional contexts; (2) that we
need to minimize fragmentation and promote
conductivity of natural areas; (3) that we need to
mimic natural processes; and (4) that we must
look beyond species and protect the ecosystem.
This does not mean we should ignore species or
supplant those efforts with ecosystem and land-
scape-level efforts. Instead, we must augment
species-level efforts and try to arrest the decline
in biological diversity before a species becomes
threatened or endangered.
Ecosystem Defined
In 1935, Tansley introduced the term "ecosys-
tem," and the explicit idea of ecological systems
defined by abiotic and biotic factors of climate,
physiography, soil, water, plants, and animals
was formally expressed in our language (Major,
1969; Cleland et al. 1992). The ecosystem concept
brings the biological and physical worlds to-
gether into a holistic framework within which
ecological systems can be described, evaluated,
and managed (Rowe, 1991).
Ecosystems are volumetric segments of
landscapes and waterscapes composed of asso-
ciations of factors that vary at different spatial
scales (Rowe, 1980). Ecosystems are defined by
the interactions of their biotic and abiotic com-
ponents that occur within and across different
hierarchical levels. Ecosystems change through
space and time. Ecosystems are not simply spe-
cies, biotic communities, or underlying environ-
ments. Nor are they simply geographic areas
such as administrative units (e.g., counties or na-
tional forests) or watersheds. By recognizing
these fundamental properties, we can begin to
understand how conditions and processes affect
their stability and resiliency.
Ecosystems are scale-dependent phenomena
whose boundaries depend on specific parame-
ters of concern or interest. The globe is an eco-
system. Lake Superior is an ecosystem. A
10-acre, 40-acre, or 100-acre piece of forest land
that folks are comfortable seeing, touching, and
comprehending is an ecosystem. A few grams of
soil are ecosystems. All of these earth segments
are composed of living and non-living elements.
They undergo interactions and processes like
succession, natality, and mortality.
Multiple Factors and
Ecosystems
The occurrence, distribution, and vigor of biota
are largely regulated along energy, moisture, nu-
trient, and disturbance gradients. These gradi-
ents, in turn, are affected by climate,
physiography, soils, hydrology, flora, and fauna
(Hix, 1988; Cleland et al. 1985; Spies and Barnes,
1985; Barnes at al. 1982; Jordan, 1982). Integrat-
ing these ecological factors at their respective
scales of influence define and delineate ecosys-
tems (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.—Multiple factors comprise ecosystems.
(ECOSYSTEM) f
Fauna ^) ^ ^ (Hydrology;
While the association of multiple factors is
all important in understanding ecosystems, all
factors are not equally important in defining
ecosystems at all spatial scales. The important
factors at coarse scales are largely abiotic or
physical variables (e.g., macro-climate, gross
physiography), while both biotic and abiotic fac-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. Cleland, T. Crow, & E. Padley
tors are important at finer scales (e.g., micro-cli-
mate, soils, vegetation).
Macro-climate dominates ecosystems at all
spatial scales. Photoperiod, temperature, and pre-
cipitation exert primary control over the structure,
composition, and genetic differentiation of plant
populations (Denton and Barnes, 1988). At macro-
scales, ecosystem patterns correspond with cli-
matic regions, which change mainly due to
latitudinal, orographic, and maritime influences
(Bailey, 1987; Spurr and Barnes, 1980).
Within climatic regions, physiography or
landforms modify the intensity and flux of solar
energy and moisture. Varying elevations, slopes,
aspects, and geologic parent materials cause
large variations in temperature and moisture
within climatic regions (Bailey, 1988; Rowe,
1980). Landforms affect organism movement,
watershed orientation, and the frequency and
spatial pattern of disturbances such as wind and
fire (Swanson et al. 1988). Soils develop in parent
materials on the mantle of landforms; hence
landforms often exhibit patterns in soil charac-
teristics, as well as patterns in vegetation (Host
et al. 1987; Forman and Godron, 1986; Rowe,
1984).
Within physiographic regions, vegetation
changes with local topography and soils. Topog-
raphy causes variations in micro-climate and
water drainage patterns (Bailey, 1987; Omernik,
1987). Within plant rooting zones, soil physics,
chemistry, and microbial populations govern
moisture and nutrient availability. Thus, soils ex-
ert a strong influence on vegetation and indi-
rectly affect wildlife populations.
Flora and fauna are integral components of
ecosystems (McNaughton, 1983; Pregitzer and
Barnes, 1984). Flora mediate in situ levels of light,
temperature, and moisture, and affect soil devel-
opment processes, nutrient cycling, and carbon
storage (Waring and Schlesinger, 1985). Fauna
rely on vegetation for food and shelter and affect
ecosystem developmental through seed preda-
tion or dispersal, selective herbivory, and many
other mechanisms (Marquis and Brenneman,
1981; Gysel and Stearns, 1968). Micro-flora and
micro-fauna are critical biogeochemical proces-
sors that all life forms depend upon; they pro-
duce oxygen, fix nitrogen, and reduce carbon
from organic to inorganic forms.
Disturbance regimes affect species distribu-
tions, community structure, and landscape pat-
terns. Wildfires, blowdowns, insects and disease,
and other forms of disturbance modify ecosystems
at a variety of spatial and temporal scales (Heinsel-
man, 1973; Shugart and West, 1981; Runkle, 1982;
Grimm, 1984; Knight, 1987). Human activities
have long influenced ecosystems throughout the
world, but increased human population pres-
sures and advanced technologies are accelerat-
ing the rate and magnitude of human induced
change as never before. Humans as integral
components of ecosystems, which both affect
humans and are affected by them, are central to
the ecosystem management concept.
Spatial Scales and Nested
Hierarchies
Ecosystems exist at many spatial scales, from the
global ecosystem down to regions of microbial
activity (Meetenmeyer and Box, 1987). Ecosys-
tems can be conceptualized as occuring in a
nested geographic arrangement, with numerous
smaller ecosystems within larger ones (Allen
and Starr, 1982; O'Neill et al. 1986; Albert et al.
1986). This hierarchy is organized in decreasing
orders of scale by the dominant factors control-
ling biological and ecological systems. Condi-
tions and processes within larger ecosystems
superpose those of smaller, embedded ecosys-
tems; properties of smaller ecosystems emerge
within larger systems (Bailey, 1985).
Discerning management's effects on ecosys-
tems requires examining conditions and proc-
esses above and below the level under
consideration (Rowe, 1980). For example, timber
harvesting affects not only the stand level but
also the micro-site and landscape levels; these ef-
fects may be harmful or beneficial (Noss, 1983;
Andren and Angelstam, 1988). A major ecosys-
tem management challenge is to distinguish
natural associations of ecological factors at dif-
ferent spatial scales and to understand natural
and human-induced processes within and across
these different organizational levels.
Spatial and Temporal
Variability
Since the structure and function of ecosystems
change through space and time, we must con-
sider both spatial and temporal variability while
evaluating, mapping, or managing ecosystems
(Delcourt et al. 1983; Forman and Godron, 1986).
The many states of life and environment that we
observe through space are spatial sources of
variability; the changes in these states through
time are temporal sources of variability. Figure 2
shows spatial variations measured at local and
regional scales, and temporal variations
measured in years and centuries.
The effects of spatial and temporal variabil-
ity on animal species are illustrated by the local
and landscape ecosystems of the Kirtland's war-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Figure 2.—Spatial and temporal sources of ecosystem
variability.
imax
sional
SPACE
bier (Dendroica kirttandii), the Karner blue butter-
fly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), and the black bear
(Ursus americanus).
The Kirtland's warbler, a federally listed en-
dangered species, is endemic to jack pine ecosys-
tems in the northeastern part of lower northern
Michigan. This area has a relatively cold macro-
climate (short growing seasons, low winter tem-
peratures), and is composed primarily of glacial
outwash plains with xeric sandy soils. This cli-
mate constrains succession in outwash sands to
conifer-dominated communities. Variations in
regional climate, landscape level landforms, and
local level soil conditions, then, determine the
warbler's spatial niche.
The Kirtland's warbler inhabits jack pine
stands generally between 6 and 23 years old and
5 to 16 feet high (Probst, 1991). As these stands
grow older or change temporally, they become
unsuitable habitat for this endangered species
and favor other species under changed condi-
tions. Thus, both spatial and temporal sources of
ecosystem variability affect this species' habitat
distribution, and consequently its population vi-
ability. The Kirtland's warbler has a very narrow
spatial and temporal niche, or a narrow ecologi-
cal amplitude in space and time.
The Karner blue butterfly, also a federally listed
endangered species, inhabits oak savannas in out-
wash plains in southwestern lower Michigan. This
area has a relatively warm macro-climate, compared
to northeast Michigan. This warm macro-climate
allows succession on xeric outwash sands to proceed
to pin and black oak communities, as opposed to the
conifer dominated communities common in north-
eastern lower Michigan. The Karner blue's spatial
niche, differs from that of the Kirtland's warbler
because of regional climate, although both species
occupy very similar landform and soil areas.
Oak savannas in Michigan are perpetuated
by more frequent fire disturbances than the jack
pine ecosystem of the Kirtland's warbler. Oaks
are coppicing species, which do not depend on
progeny of seed origin to restock an area follow-
ing fire. Restocking surveys conducted by the
Huron-Manistee National Forests for several
years following the Mack Lake fire, show that
jack pine needs from one to several decades to
mature and produce enough viable seed to re-es-
tablish the next generation in stem densities re-
quired by the Kirtland's warbler. In a sense, the
Karner blue uses a different spatial and temporal
niche than the Kirtland's warbler.
The Kirtland's warbler and Karner blue but-
terfly are both fire-dependent species that oc-
cupy xeric soils in Michigan outwash landforms.
These species' habitats differ, however, because
of spatial and temporal variability sources. The
Kirtland's warbler and Karner blue butterfly's
narrow niches must be available in both space
and time if the dependent species are to survive.
In today's society, these niches will be actively
restored or maintained through ecosystem man-
agement. If left to chance, unmanaged rural de-
velopment, fire suppression, and other human
activities will cause further decline of species
populations.
A third example, the black bear—a state-
listed sensitive species in Michigan—uses xeric
jack pine communities to forage on blueberry
and bearberry; dry-mesic pine-oak communities
to forage on hawthorn and maple leaf vibur-
num; mesic northern hardwood communities to
forage on ribes, jack-in-the-pulpit, and wild
leeks; and wetlands to forage on several species
and to escape from human predation (Rogers
and Allen, 1987). In regenerating forests, the
black bear forages on light-loving plants includ-
ing blackberry and raspberry; in mature forests,
it forages on the aforementioned species; and in
over-mature and old growth forests, it forages
on insects inhabiting dead and dying trees.
The black bear inhabits many spatial and
temporal niches throughout its range and has an
extremely wide ecological amplitude, compared
to the Kirtland's warbler or Karner blue butter-
fly. Resource managers can enhance bear popu-
lation viability, however, by evaluating
requirements based on spatial and temporal
sources of ecosystem variability at multiple
scales. Spatial states, or conditions of life and en-
vironment, affect ecological processes; under-
standing the interactions forming processes
helps to define class limits of ecologically vari-
able associations. Thus, spatial and temporal
variations should be examined together to man-
age species and the dependent ecosystems.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. Cleland, T. Crow, & E. Padley
Effects of Scale on Attributes
of Change
The attributes of change through space and time
vary according to scale of observation. To under-
stand ecosystems, we must understand how
differences in spatial and temporal scales affect
our perceptions of the world around us.
Space and time are generally related.
Changes over large spatial areas generally re-
quire long time periods; changes over small ar-
eas often occur within short periods (Fig. 3).
Although change is intrinsic to ecosystems, the
rates of change of interest to ecosystem manag-
ers are not so great as to make them incompre-
hensible or unquantifiable. Indeed, human
concerns about changes, particularly changes we
are responsible for or affected by, led to the evo-
lution of management into an ecological ap-
proach. Concepts of change like homeostasis,
stability, and resiliency are more meaningful
from the perspective of natural associations of
space and time.
Figure 3.—Change at commensurate spatial and
temporal scales.
geologic
time
Plate tectonics
evolution
climate change
species migration
disturbance
succession
drought
mortality
seconds
nano - ,
seconds
seasons
^phenology,
diurnal
Vcycles
global
continental
landscape
ecosystem
local -
ecosystem
organism
molecular
atomic
Figure 3 shows examples of environmental
and biological changes that have occurred at
commensurate spatial and temporal scales (For-
man and Godron, 1986). Plate tectonics has al-
tered evolution at a global scale over millions of
years. Climate change has altered species distri-
butions at a continental scale over thousands of
years. Episodic disturbance through fire has al-
tered landscapes over centuries. Meteorologic
drought has altered growth and mortality of or-
ganisms and local ecosystems over decades. Sea-
sons have altered the phenology and physiology
of plants and animals over months. Diurnal cy-
cles have altered individual organism's habits
daily (e.g., photosynthesis, sleep cycles). Within
organisms, molecular reactions such as metabo-
lism have occurred within seconds. Within mole-
cules, atomic reactions have occurred within
nano-seconds.
This natural space-time association has nu-
merous implications. The first is that ecosystem
managers should consider rates of change ac-
cording to a particular phenomenon and its rela-
tive spatial and temporal heterogeneity. A
second implication is the prospect of evaluating
human effects on complex ecological systems
from our knowledge of natural space-time asso-
ciations. At a global scale, for example, some are
concerned that climate is warming at an un-
precedented rate from a greenhouse effect. This
is an example of a human-induced alteration of a
natural time-space relationship. If climate
changes within periods several orders of magni-
tude less than natural rates, species and ecologi-
cal systems' ability to adapt and compensate
through migration or other mechanisms at
commensurate spatial scales may be exceeded.
Ecosystem Management
Ecosystems are defined by organism interactions
and the environments in which they occur.
Granted, relating life forms to environment is
complex. Understanding the physiology and life
histories of individual species, the biogeography
of species and communities, and the processes
taking place within and across ecosystems en-
compasses many scientific disciplines. Making
progress in ecosystem management will there-
fore require a long- term commitment to inte-
grated research and management.
From a practical viewpoint, ecosystem man-
agement involves placing traditionally managed
elements, such as commercial tree species or
popular game species, into a broader context of
the intrinsic and spiritual values of all ecosys-
tems (e.g., their history, complexity, beauty, and
cultural significance). This more comprehensive
approach does not mean that using natural re-
sources to meet human needs is being dimin-
ished. On the contrary, understanding and
protecting ecosystem processes is essential to en-
sure a lasting supply of the materials and com-
modities that people require.
To manage ecosystems, we must advance
our ability to predict how processes will change
present conditions; these changes will occur
within a range of possibilities set by ecological
potentials. Management for an endangered spe-
cies that is obligate upon a specific habitat, for
example, depends on an area's potential to sup-
port that habitat and the endangered species.
Successful management for any species or eco-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
system depends on our knowledge of existing
conditions; biotic, physical and ecologic proc-
esses; and underlying potentials regulated along
environmental gradients.
Species and ecosystems are being affected,
deliberately or inadvertently, by the introduction
or exclusion of different types of disturbance
(Swanson et al. 1990). Excluding fire in jack pine
and oak savanna ecosystems is a form of distur-
bance that has adversely affected these ecosys-
tems and their dependent populations,
including the Kirtland's warbler and Karner
blue butterfly. Harvesting timber, prescribed
burning, and planting of jack pine seedlings are
also disturbances that have advantageously af-
fected the Kirtland's warbler populations.
In managing forested ecosystems, we may
be able mimic natural disturbance regimes using
various silvicultural systems. Noting the nature,
spatial and temporal scale and pattern of distur-
bance with which ecosystems codeveloped will
provide management models that can be tested,
verified, adjusted, or refuted as appropriate.
This will require long-term research.
Conclusion
Managing ecosystems has practical implica-
tions for the sustainability of humankind as well as
other species. In 1966, the prominent scientist
Eugene P. Odum presented a presidential address
at the Ecological Society of America (Odum, 1969)
stating
Man has been generally preoccupied with obtaining
as much "production" from the landscape as possi-
ble But, of course, man does not live by food and
fiber alone; he also needs a balanced COi-Oi atmos-
phere, the climatic buffer provided by vegetation, and
clean (that is, unproductive) water for cultural and
industrial uses. Many essential life-cycle resources,
not to mention recreational and aesthetic needs, are
best provided man by the less "productive" land-
scapes
Until recently mankind has more or less taken for
granted the gas-exchange, water purification, nutri-
ent-cycling, and other protective functions of self-
maintaining ecosystems, chiefly because neither his
numbers or his environmental manipulations have
been great enough to affect regional and global bal-
ances. Now, of course, it is painfully evident that such
balances are being affected, often detrimentally. The
"one problem, one solution approach" is no longer
adequate and must be replaced by some form of eco-
system analysis that considers man as part of, not
apart from the environment.
As a management recommendation, Odum
proposed that
We can compromise so as to provide moderate quality
and moderate quantity on all the landscape, or we can
deliberately plan to compartmentalize the landscape
so as to simultaneously maintain highly productive
and predominantly protective types as separate units
subject to different strategies (strategies ranging, for
example, from intensive cropping on the one hand to
wilderness management on the other). If ecosystem
development theory is valid and applicable to plan-
ning, then the so-called multiple-use strategy, about
which we hear so much, will work only through one
or both of these approaches, because in most cases, the
projected multiple uses conflict with one another.
These statements are more relevant today than
they were 27 years ago. Public opinion and ex-
pectations have caught up with this thinking,
and the policy of ecosystem management was
born as a consequence.
Although ecosystems are extremely com-
plex, we can formulate meaningful hypotheses,
conduct research, and improve management by
taking an ecological approach. It is time to marry
ecological concepts with natural resource
management and research to ensure that natural
systems and the well-being of species dependent
upon them, including humankind, are
sustained.
References
Albert, D., S. Denton, and B. Barnes. 1986. Regional
Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan. School of Nat. Re-
sour., U. Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Allen, T., and T. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for
Ecological Complexity. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Andren, H., and P. Angelstam. 1988. Elevated predation
rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: Experimental
evidence. Ecology 69:544-47.
Bailey, R. 1985. The factor of scale in ecosystem mapping.
Environ. Manage. 9:271-76.
Bailey, R. 1987. Suggested hierarchy of criteria for multi-
scale ecosystem mapping. Landsc. Urban Plann. 14:313-
319.
Bailey, R. 1988. Ecogeographic analysis: A guide to the eco-
logical division of land for resource management. Pub.
1465. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Barnes, B., K. Pregitzer, T. Spies, and V. Spooner.
1982. Ecological forest site classification. J. Forest.
80:493-498.
Cleland, D., J. Hart, K. Pregitzer, and C. Ramm.
1985. Classifying oak ecosystems for management. In J.
Johnson, ed. Proc. Challenges for Oak Management and
Utilization. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Cleland, D., T. Crow, P. Avert, and J. Probst. 1992.
Principles of land stratification for delineating ecosys-
tems. In Proc. Taking an Ecological Approach to Man-
agement National Workshop. Salt Lake City, UT.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
D. Cleland, T. Crow, & E. Padley
Delcourt, H., T. Delcourt, and T. Webb. 1983. Dynamic
plant ecology: The spectrum of vegetative change in
space and time. Quant. Sci. Rev. 1:153-75.
Denton, D., and B. Barnes. 1988. An ecological climatic
classification of Michigan: A quantitative approach. For-
est Sci. 34:119-38.
Forman. R., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology.
Wiley, New York, NY.
Grimm, E. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling the big
woods vegetation of Minnesota in the mid-nineteenth
century. Ecol. Monog. 54:291-311.
Gysel, L., and F. Stearns. 1968. Deer browse production
of oak stands in central lower Michigan. Res. Note NC-
48. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Heinselman, M. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the
boundary waters canoe area. Quat. Res. 3:275-89.
Hlx, D. 1988. Multifactor classification of upland hardwood
forest ecosystems of the Kickapoo River watershed,
southwestern Wisconsin. Can. J. Forest. Res. 18:1405-15.
Host, G., K. Pregitzer, C. Ramm, J. Hart, and D.
Cleland. 1987. Landform mediated differences in suc-
cessional pathways among upland forest ecosystems in
northwestern lower Michigan. Forest. Sci. 33:445-57.
Jordan, J. 1982. Application of an integrated land classifi-
cation. In Proc. Artificial Regeneration of Conifers in the
Upper Lakes Region. Green Bay, WI.
Knight, D. 1987. Parasites, lightning, and the vegetation
mosaic in wilderness landscapes. In M. Turner, ed.
Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY.
Major, J. 1969. Historical development of the ecosystem
concept. In G. Van Dyne, ed. The Ecosystem Concept in
Natural Resource Management. Academic Press, New
York, NY.
Marquis, D., and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of
deer on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. Tech. Rep.
NE-65. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
McNaughton, S. 1983. Serengeti grassland ecology: The
role of composite environmental factors and contin-
gency in community organization. Ecol. Monog. 53:291-
320.
Meentemeyer, V., and E. Box. 1987. Scale effects in land-
scape studies. In M. Turner, ed. Landscape Heterogene-
ity and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Noss, R. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain
diversity. BioSci. 33:700-6.
O'Neill. R., D. DeAngells, J. Waide. and T. Allen.
1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Odum, E. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development.
Science 154:262-70.
Omernik, J. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Annals Assoc. Am. Geogra. 77:118-25.
Pregitzer, K.. and B. Barnes. 1984. Classification and
comparison of upland hardwood and conifer ecosys-
tems of the Cyrus H. McCormick Experimental Forest,
upper Michigan. Can. J. Forest Res. 14:362-75.
Probst. J. 1991. Kirtland's Warbler. In R. Brewer, G.
McPeek, and R. Adams Jr., eds. The Atlas of Breeding
Birds of Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Press, East
Lansing, MI.
Rogers, L., and A. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index
models: Black bear, upper Great Lakes region. Biol. Rep.
82 (10.144). U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC.
Rowe, J. 1980. The common denominator in land classifica-
tion in Canada: An ecological approach to mapping.
Forest Chron. 56:19-20.
Rowe, J. 1984. Forestland classification: Limitations on the
use of vegetation. In Proc. Forest Land Classification:
Experience, Problems, Perspectives. Madison, WI.
Rowe, J. 1991. The ecosystem approach to forestland man-
agement. Forest Chron. 68:222-24.
Runkle, J. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some old-
growth mesic forests of eastern North America. Ecology
63:1533-46.
Shugart, H. Jr., and D. West. 1981. Long-term dynamics
of forest ecosystems. Am. Sci. 69:647-652.
Spies, T., and B. Barnes. 1985. A multifactor ecological
classification of the northern hardwood and conifer eco-
systems of Sylvania Recreation Area, Upper Peninsula,
Michigan. Can. J. Forest Res. 15:949-60.
Spurr, S., and B. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology, 3rd Ed.
John Wiley Sons, New York, NY.
Swanson, F., T. Kratz, N. Caine, and R. Woodman-
see. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and
processes. BioScience 38:92-98.
Swanson, F., J. Franklin, and J. Sedell. 1990. Land-
scape patterns, disturbance and management in the Pa-
cific Northwest, USA. In Changing Landscapes: An
Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Waring, R., and W. Schlesinger. 1985. Forest Ecosystems
Concepts and Management. Academic Press, Inc., New
York, NY. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
PANEL: Emerging Issues in Restoration
Landscape Ecology as a
Restoration Tool
Christopher P. Dunn
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois
A key question to be addressed in this
symposium is how to apply concepts of
biodiversity, conservation biology, and
landscape ecology to restoration. These
three concepts are strongly linked, as I will briefly
review here.
Defining Landscape Ecology
Before relating landscape ecology to restoration,
we need to define landscape and landscape ecol-
ogy. A common definition of a landscape is an
area on the earth's surface that contains several
kinds of ecosystems. A landscape might contain
different kinds of forest systems—for example, in
parts of the upper Midwest, a natural landscape
might consist of closed forest, savanna, and prai-
rie. These systems are closely linked through the
ecological processes that transcend their bounda-
ries. Aquatic systems may also be interspersed
throughout the landscape. Typically, landscapes
can include disturbed or undisturbed natural ele-
ments as well as dominating human elements
such as agriculture, roads, and settlements.
The spatial arrangement of these different
landscape elements (both natural and human-
dominated), as well as their size and shape, is re-
ferred to as landscape pattern.
Another important component of landscape
is spatial scale. This is typically several square
kilometers, which reflects our anthropocentric
view of the world, although some landscape
ecologists look at one- or two-square-meter
landscapes relating to beetle movement and
other similar measurements. Finally, because all
systems are dynamic, landscape ecology in-
cludes a temporal component.
Landscape ecology is the study of different
ecosystems, the processes that link them, and the
effects of disrupting one or more ecosystems.
What processes are then compromised, and how
can we mitigate these effects? For example, what
might happen to a natural forested landscape
subjected to human disturbances? An essentially
pristine forested landscape in the upper Mid-
west may have a variety of forested ecosystems
dominated by birch and sugar maple, various
kinds of pines, a mixture of hardwood species,
areas disturbed by wind, and several kinds of
aquatic systems. Within each of these ecosys-
tems are particular complements of vegetation
and wildlife and a suite of ecological processes
such as dispersal, nutrient flows, and water
flows. Thus, landscapes are just one important
component of an ecological hierarchy, which
ranges from organisms to landscapes.
Ecosystem Components
The ecosystem is one component of a land area
that includes biota, soil, wind, and temperature.
The species populations—the biotic compo-
nent—along with the abiotic component give us
the ecosystem. Communities are groups of spe-
cies populations that occur at the same time in
the same place. If you disrupt a population, re-
move it all together, kill off a sizeable portion of
it, or present some barrier to the individuals' in-
teractions within that population, the entire
community is affected. If an entire species is re-
moved, then the remaining species will interact
differently. Any change to the community
changes the ecosystem and creates implications
at the landscape scale. So, links occur not only
between populations and communities, but also
between communities and landscapes.
Some of these interactions may be obvious—
others may be subtle. The landscape, or restora-
tion, ecologist's challenge is to discover how to
reconstruct these broken links.
7BH
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Shifting to Broader
Considerations
When appropriate, our focus as traditional
ecologists, restoration ecologists, or land manag-
ers must shift from specific impact studies to
broader considerations. This idea is not new. The
National Environmental Policy Act advises us to
consider an activity's entire suite of environ-
mental consequences. And the President's Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality has long been
advocating a broader scale approach to environ-
mental impact assessment.
Landscapes are a very important considera-
tion, but they are only one component of the eco-
logical hierarchy. To restore land areas, we must
understand interactions and how ecosystems are
linked. Disturbance is a compounding factor and
an important phenomenon in ecology. Some eco-
system types are more susceptible to distur-
bances than others. For example, oak savannas
are more susceptible to fire than mesic beech-
maple forests. A recently disturbed landscape
will have a new patchiness or pattern. Under-
standing the natural recovery process is impor-
tant for successful restoration.
The Flambeau River area in northern Wis-
consin experienced a severe wind storm in 1977.
The old-growth white pine northern hardwood
forest was essentially decimated. Large areas
were completely destroyed, although some po-
tential seed source areas were relatively undis-
turbed. The patterning after the storm was very
different than it was before the storm. Changes
occurred rapidly in the initial succession process.
Within three or four years, the dominant
vegetation was essentially a raspberry thicket.
The bear population exploded. Different wildlife
species took advantage of different forest materi-
als .While the aquatic systems are relatively undis-
turbed, as nutrients and sediments wash down
from these exposed soils into the aquatic systems,
over time they too will undergo some changes—
but on a different temporal scale. Therefore, the
hydrologic processes are also important.
Other ecological systems areas are prone to
fire. Following a fire, relatively undisturbed areas
might be interspersed with burned areas, altering
the processes and the links. Any disturbance may
occur at one temporal scale, while the recovery
process occurs at a different order of magnitude.
One of the most dramatic kinds of human
disturbance is in the upper Midwest where large
areas of forest have been cleared and converted
to agriculture. This kind of disturbance to natural
systems is a principal focus of landscape ecology
and restoration. Following deforestation and
conversion to agriculture, an agricultural land-
scape might contain remnants of natural old
growth forests. The landscape in Green County,
Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin/Illinois border, has
some areas of relatively undisturbed old growth
forest, areas of second growth forest within the
intervening agricultural landscape, some ripar-
ian forests along streams, and small areas of scat-
tered trees along some intermittent streams.
Creating New Landscapes
As a consequence, we have created a new land-
scape. Because of the altered ecological and envi-
ronmental conditions, the species typical to the
landscape before human intervention must cope
with a new kind of environment. If they are un-
able to cope, they may be prone to local, re-
gional, or even global extinction. To restore
communities or ecosystems in this landscape,
we need to understand which environmental
conditions have been altered by human impact
and which need to be restored to bring back cer-
tain species or groups of species.
These altered landscape environmental con-
ditions result from fragmentation and depend in
some part on patch size. Remnant patches in
most highly disturbed human-modified land-
scapes have a wide size distribution. The Si-
uslaw National Forest in the Pacific Northwest
has a large number of small remnant patches
and a small number of large patches—typical
also of the agricultural landscape in southern
Wisconsin.
These remnant patches of forest within a
landscape alter the microclimate around the for-
est edge. This is sometimes referred to as the
"edge effect"—the edge of the forest tends to be
brighter during the day than the interior. In ad-
dition, the edge may be windier and drier.
Greater temperature extremes and an altered mi-
croclimate around the forest edge allows en-
croachment of species that might be undesirable
or thwart some of the native species. If the
patches are above a certain critical size, the for-
est interior conditions might still be able to sup-
port typical regional species. As the patch size is
reduced, the edge width will remain about the
same, but the interior area will decrease mark-
edly. As the patch gets smaller and smaller, even-
tually the entire patch contains edge
microclimate conditions. Therefore, even with
green landscape patches, conditions are condu-
cive to harbor primarily weedy, exotic, or unde-
sirable species. In restoring a landscape, we
must be aware of this phenomenon and manage
for patches above a critical size to avoid purely
edge patches.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
C.Dunn
Fragmentation Issues
Species dispersal problems are another implica-
tion of fragmentation. With patches scattered
throughout a landscape, how do species get
from one area to another? Large birds move
about fragmented landscapes quite readily, but
small mammals may have difficulty traversing
the hostile environment of an agricultural field.
Therefore, patch size and location have impor-
tant effects on species dispersal in landscape
ecology.
My colleague, Carter Johnson at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, studied seed dispersal
from isolated basswood, sugar maple, and ash
trees in old fields by measuring the distance of
the seedlings to determine their effective disper-
sal distance. He found that basswood seed dis-
persal may be 40 meters from its seed source;
sugar maple may be 90 to 100 meters; and ash
may be 300 meters. What happens if landscape
patches are greater than those distances?
In comparing today's southern Wisconsin
landscape pattern to the pattern in 1882, we find
that 100 years later a large portion of forested
area has been cleared for agriculture. Forest
patches are much smaller and considerably far-
ther apart—from an average distance of 150 me-
ters in 1882 to over 400 meters today. Even
though stands are isolated physically, they may
be connected by the seeds' dispersal distances if
those dispersal distances are sufficiently great.
Fragmentation is not necessarily a problem if
dispersal is maintained. However, in many in-
stance patches do remain isolated. Activities
such as overgrazing and logging have exacer-
bated the problem of restoring lost species, short
of actually growing seedlings and planting
them.
Using Existing Policies
One way to "reconnect" landscapes is to take ad-
vantage of policies already in place. Justifying the
continuation and expansion of agricultural poli-
cies such as the Conservation Reserve Program is
important for reasons beyond soil erosion con-
trol. If all eligible agricultural lands were enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program, the land-
scape pattern in the southern Wisconsin area
would revert to a condition similar to that in
1882. As a result, this landscape would become
"linked" or reconnected as fields were set aside
and allowed to go through natural succession.
Another way to restore the landscape is to
establish vegetative corridors and make sure
they are not destroyed. For example, a 16-hec-
tare area of old growth forest containing species
typical of the region is connected to a small
highly grazed area that also contains a large pro-
portion of such species, thanks to the existence
of corridors.
These corridors allow the dispersal of cer-
tain species that may not be capable of crossing a
much larger distance. The corridors do not nec-
essarily need to be intact, but they do need to be
connected enough to allow species to migrate
through the landscape. Recent ecological litera-
ture is controversial regarding the relevance of
corridors. However, I see no harm in estab-
lishing and maintaining corridors. If one cannot
reconstruct a presettlement landscape, at least
one can consider patch size and isolation, using
corridors to reestablish some of those links.
Disconnected Patches
A Canadian landscape ecologist directed a study
comparing field mice population sizes in con-
nected patches with those that were isolated.
Simulation models showed that in isolated areas,
the population sizes of mice were much lower
than in connected patches. The importance of
this is that a high population size of mice main-
tains a high population of predators, with a cas-
cading effect throughout the landscape.
Other restoration ecologists have looked at
the importance of fragmentation. Jerry Franklin
and Richard Forman studied an area in the Pa-
cific Northwest and showed that as the land-
scape became more and more fragmented, the
incidence of fungal and insect pests increased. In
addition, as smaller patches become a larger
component of the landscape, the probability of
ignition and burning increases because of the in-
creased amount of windier and drier edges sur-
rounding isolated patches.
Another consideration is that if, under the
Conservation Reserve Program, a modest
amount of land were to be enrolled in perpetu-
ity, the total forest area would increase consider-
ably, increasing the amount of interior forest
relative to forest edge. The decreased distance
would bring some patches within dispersal dis-
tance of many species, which would effectively
reconnect the landscape.
The Biodiversity Issue
An important but overlooked result of patch iso-
lation is the effect on biodiversity. Biodiversity
includes not just the number of species inhabit-
ing an area but also their genetic diversity. Iso-
lated patches affect species physical movement
across the landscape and can impede the flow of
pollen (i.e., genetic material). Patches may be-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
come isolated, and the genetic diversity that
characterizes those populations within the larger
region could be reduced. While we do not know
the full implications, we suspect that reducing
genetic diversity prevents species from adjusting
to changing conditions caused by human activ-
ity or to long-term natural processes. In small
mammals that cannot cover great distances, for
example, some loss of genetic diversity may
occur. For long-lived tree species, some rare
alleles are not present in smaller, overmanaged,
or overgrazed patches in the Wisconsin land-
scape. If that process were to continue, a great
deal of genetic diversity could be lost from the
landscape.
The landscape ecologist, the conservation bi-
ologist, and the restoration manager must con-
sider these myriad effects and their implications.
This is a daunting task. The challenge is to pro-
mote ecologically sound restoration by integrat-
ing a broader landscape approach, while being
cognizant of population dynamics and consider-
ing temporal and spatial scales necessary to
protect and enhance biotic diversity. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
PANEL: Emerging Issues in Restoration
General Panel Discussion
Dave Cleland
U.S. forest Service
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Christopher Dunn
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois
Question: Dave Cleland commented
on the private lands located within old
growth areas and questioned the suc-
cess of getting landowners involved.
Do you see the Forest Stewardship Pro-
gram as being a potential opportunity to get pri-
vate landowners involved in this kind of a
program?
• Answer—Dave Cleland: I would like to see
that. The political reality is that private land-
owners oftentimes view Forest Service activities
as posing a threat, and they do not want Big
Brother telling them how to manage their lands.
State and private forestry was intentionally ex-
cluded from the ecosystem management policy
because of the possible political backlash. In the
eastern United States, on the other hand, be-
cause of the dispersed ownership patterns, the
National Environmental Policy Act requires fed-
eral agencies to consider all proposed actions,
federal or not.
Therefore, we must factor how private land-
owners and state agencies actions will affect our
management strategies. But we cannot dictate
their actions.
This is a complicated problem. In a meeting
last week, someone in industry pointed out that
many private land owners are tree huggers,
whose lands are contributing to an interior habi-
tat, for which we are not accounting in our man-
agement practices.
• Question: Chris Dunn referred to genetic
diversity loss in isolated populations. We have
been working with salmon, which tend to isolate
and return—not as much as literature would
have you believe—to their birthplace in periodic
intervals to rebreed. This is not a reduction in ge-
netic diversity in the metapopulation, although
each subpopulation becomes isolated as they
adapt to the selective pressures in their particu-
lar environment. This results in one large
adapted metapopulation and many small spe-
cially adapted and probably not very plastic sub-
populations.
By overlaying this onto the landscape, units
start connecting to get those populations back
into breeding, depending on the behavior of the
species. As plant communities become more iso-
lated, each subcommunity becomes genetically
less diverse and the metapopulation has a larger
array of genetic types.
• Answer—Christopher Dunn: Addressing
long-lived species such as trees is difficult. How-
ever, some work has been done with sugar ma-
ple seedlings, saplings, and mature trees.
Populations defined by mature trees maintain
genetic diversity. But genetic diversity is much
less in seedling populations.
Although the process is more difficult, fur-
ther study may determine if the genetic diversity
loss in seedlings is due to fragmentation. Many
expect that it might be. Another issue is whether
the loss of genetic diversity would be restored
after going through a genetic bottleneck.
• Comment—Dave Cleland: One theory
about high diversity within tropical rain forest
relates to changing climate. It involves the
warming and drying period resulting in isolated
populations, followed by a cooling trend, result-
ing in tremendous genetic diversity. But if these
populations are isolated and losing diversity
and plasticity, the potential for adverse impacts
is large.
• Comment: Over the last few years, I have
been increasingly concerned about the use of
certain terminology. Specifically, when we say
we are restoring ecosystems, we might more ap-
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
propriately say that our goal is to restore an eco-
system. In fact, all we are talking about is restor-
ing habitats or a particular condition in time and
space. Our goal may be bigger—to restore an en-
tire ecosystem—but while we may have restored
a wetland habitat, we have not in fact restored
the system's function or total ecosystem capacity.
• Answer—Dave Cleland: Terminology is a
problem. To me, habitats are ecosystems in rela-
tion to the animals that use them. In restoring
habitats that must support wildlife population or
other populations, the ecosystems will function if
the restoration is done appropriately.
But your question about recognizing restored
and functioning ecosystems that support the en-
tire compliment of species is difficult to answer.
That is why consideration of temporal scale
must be involved both in research and practical
application.
• Question: In Ontario, our systems are
slightly different but the principles still apply. If,
as part of a restoration plan, we are obliged to re-
instate or replace something that might have
been there, success must be defined on a relative
scale. How long is long enough to define the suc-
cess of a project? We are looking at fairly long
windows for some of these systems—for exam-
ple, terrestrial systems—to be put back in place.
So when do you sign off on a project? In restor-
ing a habitat, that is one consideration, and over
time it may evolve into a component of the total
system.
• Answer—Christopher Dunn: Restoring a
beech-maple forest with all the different stocks
of wildlife is a huge task. You need to define the
goal. Many have made a distinction between the
terms restoration, rehabilitation, and reclama-
tion, particularly Tony Bradshaw, a British ecolo-
gist. Once you determine your goal, then you
know what processes and species to reintroduce.
To simply control erosion into an aquatic system,
where you put the soil during excavation may
not matter as long as sedimentation is reduced.
Putting a beech-maple forest back may not be
the issue—any kind of land cover may be suffi-
cient. The hierarchy of restoration, not ecological
hierarchy, may be the issue.
• Comment: Habitat is usually defined as a
specific area where interacting living and nonliv-
ing biotic factors provide at least minimal life
support conditions for a given species.
• Answer—Dave Cleland: I do not feel badly
about the term ecosystem because my orienta-
tion avoids dealing with minuscule pieces. This
is similar to dropping a mirror and examining
each piece to try to restore it to get an accurate
reflection. This prevents progress.
We cannot comprehensively quantify the
myriad processes and structural functioning at-
tributes of ecosystems. Human medicine cannot
do that. Complexities are inherent in dealing
with biological and ecological systems, but we
need to get on with understanding ecological
systems at various scales. Although the single
species approach is necessary, it cannot be used
alone.
• Question: What is the width of the edge ef-
fect in a mature beech-maple forest in the Great
Lakes Basin? What sort of edge effect would you
find in the same forest if you now had hemlocks
and white pines?
• Answer—Christopher Dunn: In a beech-
maple forest in southeastern Wisconsin, the edge
effect is between 50 and 100 meters. Any patch
less than a couple of hectares will have edge con-
ditions throughout.
• Question: Does the width change much
with the percentage of coniferous trees?
• Answer—Christopher Dunn: I do not
know. I would suspect the edge effect might be
less, but I should refer that to someone from
northern latitudes.
• Question: We have talked a lot about sus-
tainable yield and ecosystem restoration but not
about allowing natural evolution to reestablish
itself and take it course. What is the future of the
three competing management strategies—man-
aged sustainable, versus ecosystem restoration,
versus natural evolution?
• Answer—Dave Cleland: Regarding the bi-
otic edge, the environmental edge effect of 100
meters may be one measure. But deer browse,
for example, and the edge can extend farther.
In approaching competing uses—restoring,
managing, deriving products versus wilderness—
we need to accommodate each. Man is part of the
ecosystem. If we were to put everything in a pres-
ervation mode, every four or eight years we would
have a new president and conditions would flip-
flop back and forth. The management outcome
would be long lasting while the short-term politi-
cal decisions would be arbitrary. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Recommendations
for Action
-------
-------
I
Recommendations for Action
Research Needs
Edwin Herricks
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
T
he following is a summary of issues re-
quiring research support. These issues are
not in priority order.
Information Technology
Compendium
We need an information technology compen-
dium. Since both regulators and the regulated
are often faced with not having the best informa-
tion, useful information must be made available
in a timely fashion and in an easy-to-use form.
For example, if it is important to use a plant spe-
cies, information on effective use should be
readily available.
The compendium should contain informa-
tion such as a definition of success, references to
provide a means for comparison, and comments
about successful reclamation projects.
Focus on Both Elements
and Systems
Restoration projects are seldom successful when
the project focus is too narrow. Restoration must
consider systems as well as elements. We need to
know the ecology of the organisms in the sys-
tems in questions. We should know tolerance
ranges, capacities, and other factors that contrib-
ute to successfully establishing and maintaining
an organism. Since we cannot ignore the organ-
ism's operation in the associated environmental
system, we also need to build an understanding
of the nature of those environmental systems. In
many respects, our research is inadequate to ad-
dress many system issues.
System Trajectory Issues—
Starting and Ending
Another research area relates to system trajec-
tory issues and the need to have some idea about
starting and ending points, particularly in a
regulatory context. However, we need to recog-
nize that ecological systems are constantly
changing and progressing along a successional
gradient operating within some environmental
constraints. Multiple stable states and alternate
trajectories for development offer alternatives in
restoration planning, but we need to develop a
better understanding of ecological systems and
how they progressively change.
We may, for example, establish and achieve a
restoration goal. But within a relatively short
time period because of the natural system's pro-
gression, the goal that was met is no longer be-
ing met. Goals may change. How, then, do we
judge success or failure?
Systems Integration Needed
Systems integration is the area that needs the
most attention. Starting with basic information
about the landscape and incorporating historical
elements gives us a better context and a land-
scape view. With this perspective, we can then
integrate the technical, social, and economic fac-
tors that relate to and affect the ecology or eco-
systems.
Canadians, particularly under the Great
Lakes Water Agreement, have identified an eco-
system approach that deals with integrating en-
vironment, economy, and society. The Europeans
are also a bit ahead of us on this integration. Sig-
nificant research could involve all parties, incor-
porating the information presented in the past
few days, to improve our integration capacity.
Continuing Learning
This may not be a clear-cut research issue, but
continued learning and effective communication
are essential parts of research. For example,
people in our agencies are overworked simply
by doing day-to-day tasks, leaving no time to
read current literature. This results in people
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
operating with knowledge gained upon leaving
their educational institution, plus on-the-job
information and experience. But they are rela-
tively uninformed about new techniques and
developments.
Fundamental Information
Exchange—Validity of
Measures and Indices
We need to find better ways to exchange infor-
mation and to communicate and use research re-
sults. This is more fundamental than technology
transfer. It requires real research directed at the
validity of measures and indices. For example,
in the case of using conservative plants for wet-
lands, questions come up about broad applica-
bility. Can the plant be used in Colorado or
California or is it only useful in the Northwest?
What is the result of peer review? What are its
fundamental foundations?
Whole set of questions need to be addressed,
but many of us are using personally developed
techniques and procedures or those developed
by peers. We need a directed effort that contrib-
utes information and uses the previously sug-
gested compendium.
Monitoring
We need to learn to do better research monitor-
ing using more effective design. We do not know
how long to implement monitoring after a pro-
ject. We need to know much more about moni-
toring; not only about developing monitoring
procedures, but also about how to integrate all
these factors. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
I
Recommendations for Action
Management Issues
Daniel Willard
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
T
he management group made the fol-
lowing recommendations for priority
actions:
• Develop restoration plans in the context
of the landscape (watershed ecosystem).
• Collect available data, ecological
histories, social and economic
information by available means
(corollary: do not get hung up in
technology).
Ample background information
often exists. Much information is cheap
or free. To develop rational restoration
plans, you must know the opportunities
in the watershed. You should also know
what ecosystems were formerly present.
• Solve agency and jurisdictional turf
battles (focus on the resource). For
example, state transportation and natural
resource departments are often at odds.
Yet, between the two, they have the
capability to provide a strong natural
resource data base.
• Use local citizens groups and
government as sources. Work bottom up,
not top down. State and federal
governments should provide data and
technical support. Planning and
implementation work best when
performed locally.
• Plan for the worst—you will not be
disappointed. Floods hurricanes, fires,
recessions, lawsuits will happen.
Planning for them is cheaper and more
environmentally efficient in the long run.
• Start yesterday. We are still losing
wetlands, species, ecosystems, open
space, and life support systems. Air and
water still contain substances inimical to
long-term human health, safety, and
welfare. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
-------
I
Recommendations for Action
Priority Ecosystems
William G. Painter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Without the time or expertise to de-
velop a list of priority ecosystems,
this group focused on the process
of prioritizing.
While EPA has begun to pay more attention
to ecological issues, it has a long way to go. Former
EPA Administrator William Riley made great
strides in moving the agency in this direction;
however, Administrator Carol Browner is ex-
pected to go even further, especially since she has
named ecological protection as one of her five
major themes.
Information, Information,
Information
We need more information. We need a lot more
information. But we also need to take action im-
mediately. Permits are coming up, grants are be-
ing issued, and we need to choose between
restoring one area or another. So while we need
more research and want nearly perfect informa-
tion, we need to somehow get along with what
we have, because we cannot afford to wait for
five or 10 years to accumulate more data.
We need to get beyond the site-by-site reactive
mode. For example, when we have a permit com-
ing up, what do we do? Do we have key sites
identified? Will we need to muddle through be-
cause we have not gotten ahead of the curve by
developing some proactive plans? This returns to
the theme of ecosystem planning, watershed plan-
ning, and landscape planning.
Focus on Best Opportunities
We need to focus on our best opportunities. EPA
is good at some things, but not good at others.
EPA can give money for some things but not for
others. We can regulate some things, but others
we cannot. EPA needs to focus on situations
where we have a reasonable chance to create an
incentive or otherwise compel someone to do
what needs to be done.
We cannot just look at EPA's comparative
advantage. We must look out to see what other
people and organizations are doing—what res-
toration activities are already going on and
where. What can EPA do to push the project
over the top, add value, and involve others? We
need to think about key ecological sites and eco-
systems and their potential for restoration.
We must not reinvent the wheel—EPA is fa-
mous for this. In determining that we need a list
of priority restoration sites, we cannot appoint
an EPA committee and take two years to develop
the list. Other organizations with ecological pro-
tection as their prime mission have already done
this work. EPA needs to use that information.
We had unanimous agreement that EPA
ought to enthusiastically participate in Bruce
Babbitt's call to do a biological survey to give us a
better idea of what is left, what is gone, and what
could be restored. The survey is still being for-
mulated, and EPA should participate. EPA should
not only draw on what is being put together by
other groups with more expertise, but also get
behind efforts like the state heritage programs.
We need to do what we can to support those ef-
forts rather than just passively wait to receive the
information or reinvent it ourselves.
Use Existing Data Bases
The first recommendation on targeting priorities
is to look for high priority ecosystems using ex-
isting data bases. You may want to add or sub-
tract areas.
What do you do when you must make a deci-
sion but the area or state has not been adequately
mapped or surveyed? You must issue a permit or
decide on giving a state grant for nonpoint
source programs—what areas do you steer them
toward? Talk to the outside experts—Department
of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Service,
the heritage programs—and get their informal
input if the information is not already assembled.
Proceedings • March 1993
-------
Symposium on Ecological Restoration
Reaching out is also related to the need for
ecologists at EPA. Ecologists are invaluable as
the link between EPA's engineers, chemists, and
attorneys and ecologists and biologists in the
rest of the world. Sending an engineer out to talk
to someone in a state heritage program will
likely cause a communication breakdown. Most
outside observers do not realize that EPA has
relatively few staff members with training in
ecology and biology. And we will not be very ef-
fective without them.
We need to look for restorable systems and
consider the landscape context. However, we
need to balance our approach. We should not be
restricted to only those sites that are part of a
large ecosystem plan, but also try to do some-
thing with remnant sites.
We need to assure permanent protection of
the site, its surrounding buffer zones, and to the
degree possible the overall surrounding land-
scape. EPA could really use some of its regula-
tory authority in this area. While we cannot buy
up all the land, we might be able to use regula-
tory authority to affect how land in the water-
shed or landscape is used and managed. We may
need to huddle with people working on these
restoration projects and see where we can help.
We should focus on situations where EPA can
truly offer value added.
Stick to Our Knitting
In some areas, EPA does not have the expertise,
the money, or the regulatory authority. We need
to stick to our knitting. We cannot become the
world's expert on everything.
We need to look for places where something
is already happening. In choosing between two
sites of equal environmental value and restora-
tion potential, you might choose the one that has
a group of volunteers ready to go or already
working on the project.
In addition to receiving information about
where restoration groups are active, EPA might
benefit from getting some information out to the
restoration groups. For example, a restoration
group can only work on one site and must
choose among three sites with problems with the
stream chemistry, riparian zone, and the stream-
bed. On two sites the permit to the dischargers
causing the chemical problem will not be up for
renewal for several years; on the third site, the
permit comes up for review in the next year.
The restoration group may decide to go to
the third site. They know that, once EPA im-
proves the stream chemistry, the chances for
rapid ecological recovery resulting from restora-
tion of the stream channel and riparian zone will
be greater than for streams where stream chem-
istry will remain impaired for years. Q
Proceedings • March 1993
------- |