vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Ada, OK 74820
EPA/600/R-97/078
September 1997
Risk Management
Research Plan for
Ecosystem Restoration in
Watersheds
-------
EPA/600/R-97/078
September 1997
Risk Management Research Plan for
Ecosystem Restoration in Watersheds
by
Eric E. Jorgensen
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Ada, Oklahoma
Chris Geron
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
GuyW. Sewell
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Ada, Oklahoma
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base neces-
sary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or
reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investiga-
tion of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control
of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water sys-
tems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollu-
tion. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-
effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure
effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community
and to link researchers with their clients.
Clinton W. Hall, Director
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document outlines the scope of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory' s
(NRMRL) risk management research in the area of ecosystem restoration. NRMRL is uniquely
positioned to make substantial contributions to ecosystem science because of its in-house expertise
relativeto surface, subsurface, atmospheric, andhydrologic systems. These systems arethe substrata
for biotic interactions, particularly relative to higher plants and animals. Therefore, the data,
expertise, and systems approaches currently available are necessary precursors to ecosystem
restoration research. Also, subsurface, atmospheric, and hydrologic systems are frequently dis-
counted within ecological studies. Thus, modest efforts to integrate ecological measurements with
NRMRL's surface, subsurface, atmospheric, and hydrologic data promises to provide significant
advances.
NRMRL's involvement in ecosystem research is keyed to water resources and land use
because the Clean Water Act provides the goals of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Therefore, effects on water quality and watershed land
use that impact aquatic resources are of foremost concern. As a society we are confronted by a suite
of environmental problems that are large-scale, persistent, and resistant to cost-effective remedy by
current technologies. An excellent example is nonpoint pollution. Despite notable success at
controlling pollution from point sources, substantial water-quality problems persist because of non-
point source problems. Also, there is a strong tendency for research to be conducted within
specialties, at local sites, on short time-lines. Despite detailed knowledge in many fields that bear
upon ecosystems, our understanding of ecosystems as a whole is poor. This is because the discipline,
site, and time-frame specific nature of our knowledge leads to spatial and temporal uncertainty.
Ecosystems are complex, involving interacting biotic and abiotic elements over large spatial and
temporal scales. Ecosystems can only be understood in the context of these interactions.
For the two foregoing reasons, a need for improved understanding of ecosystem processes is
indicated. From this understanding, new and cost-effective approaches to ecosystem restoration and
management can be developed. NRMRL's in-place competencies complement research already
being conducted relative to ecosystem management that is primarily biological and ecological in
nature. NRMRL activities in this developing research area can be best applied through interdisci-
plinary research, incorporating NRMRL's strengths in physical and chemical research with a
developing ecological expertise.
Research conducted under this initiative will develop risk management based decision
support systems and tools for ecosystem restoration. Systems and tools will be developed with
quantified levels of spatial and temporal uncertainty. Finally, the systems and tools will be designed
for use by local stakeholders for application in local restoration initiatives.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW 1
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NRMRL STAFF 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH TOPIC 2
DEFINITIONS-ECOSYSTEMRESTORATION 2
RESEARCH ORIENTATION 3
EXPECTATIONS 4
AREAS OF PRIORITY INTEREST 4
REGULATORY AND POLICY BACKGROUND 5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS: WATER AND LAND USE
AS FOCAL POINTS FOR ECOSYSTEMS 5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5
STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER 6
RESEARCH APPROACH 6
COOPERATION 7
ORDLabs 7
National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL) 8
National Center for Exposure Assessment
(NCEA) 8
National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
(NHEERL) 8
Office of Water (OW) 8
EPA Grants Programs 8
Other Federal Agencies 8
RESEARCH AREAS 8
RELEVANCE CRITERIA 9
SUMMARY 9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 10
LITERATURE CITED 10
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 12
Appendix A. Summaries From Successful FY97 Proposals 13
Appendix B. Research Areas 16
Appendix C. Solicitation Procedure 19
-------
RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PLAN
FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IN WATERSHEDS
Overview
Research planning for the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development
(ORD) is divided into two groups: Human Health Protec-
tion and Ecosystem Protection. This plan is one compo-
nent of the Ecosystem Protection group. It follows the
risk paradigm described in the ORD Research Strategy
(U.S. EPA, 1996a) that governs all ORD research. It is
related to other research within the Ecosystem Protec-
tion group in wet weather flows (U.S. EPA, 1996b),
contaminated sediment, and wetlands (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
Other ORD laboratories specializing in effects, exposure
and assessment conduct research related to ecosystem
restoration.
This plan describes the scope of ecosystem restoration
risk management research in watersheds to be con-
ducted by the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL). The research is intended to
produce technically sound restoration and decision sup-
port tools for local communities and stakeholders. The
plan's scope is limited to NRMRL activities.
NRMRL research in the area of ecosystem restoration is
guided inpart by a need to meet performance measures
specified in the Government Performance Results Act
of 1993 (GPRA). This legislation specifies three objec-
tives for Office of Research and Development (ORD)
ecosystem restoration research:
• By 2002, provide cost-effective and reliable ap-
proaches for restoring riparian zones within water-
sheds.
• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for
assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of
success for watershed restoration projects and is-
sue guidance on the application of the tools and
models.
• By 2008, complete three pilot restoration projects
for developed and partially developed watersheds
with different endpoints of societal value.
The guidance for research conducted under this re-
search plan should be interpreted in light of these
objectives.
This plan places special emphasis on ecosystem prob-
lems in developing multi-use landscapes often associ-
ated with fringe-cities and coastal/estuarine sites. The
plan's research focus will take advantage of NRMRL's
competencies by concentrating on water resources and
changing patterns of land use.
Research conducted under this plan will require sub-
stantial inter- and intra-agency collaboration. Agreement
in concept has been reached that this program will be
conducted in full partnership with other ORD laborato-
ries and the EPA Office of Water (OW).
Opportunities for NRMRL Staff
Risk management in ecosystem restoration provides a
new challenge to NRMRL research and technical staff,
in addition to new opportunities. Some of these chal-
lenges are best addressed through re-training, both
organized and informal. Others require a new outlook
to uncover applications for existing expertise and expe-
rience, such as using ecosystem function orecotoxicology
as measures of ecosystem health instead of statutory
human health based endpoints, or development of inte-
grated media focused outputs. As recent efforts dedi-
cated to defining alternative endpoints and in the area of
groundwater/surface water interactions indicate, the ability
to respond to this type of challenge is present at
NRMRL. The NRMRL research group represents EPA's
core of experts in areas such as subsurface processes,
remediation technologies, process model development,
and engineered risk reduction technologies. This ground-
ing in basic processes is the foundation needed to
develop valid and appropriate approaches to ecosystem
management.
Ecosystem management, including ecosystem restora-
tion activities, needs to be implemented through a
system management approach. NRMRL's risk man-
agement expertise is well suited to this need. NRMRL's
current and past role in risk management/risk reduction
makes it the ideal choice as EPA's lead organization for
developing risk management in ecosystem restoration
as a research program. NRMRL's experience with
systems engineering and systems approaches to prob-
lems will allow it to make significant contributions in the
ecosystem management area, particularly in developing
-------
the tools needed by ecosystem managers and stake-
holders to make risk based restoration decisions. These
tools are decision support systems, restoration tech-
nologies and implementation protocols, watershed hy-
draulic models, ground water/surface water interaction
models, and information databases. NRMRL is experi-
enced in all of these areas.
NRMRL's skills, as noted above, are well suited (and
needed) in the area of ecosystem restoration. For
many, this new research area only requires a fresh
outlook and commitment to recognize the opportunities
it represents. Ecosystem management and ecosystem
restoration are new, developing areas within EPA, ORD,
and the environmental research community. The recent
Stream Restoration Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a) pro-
vides important information that many NRMRL research-
ers will find useful in this research area.
Introduction to the Research Topic
Ecosystem management, restoration, and the concept
of sustainability have moved to the forefront of both
scientific and policy debates (i.e., Boyce and Haney,
1997). Many points remain unresolved, but it is clear
that this attention represents a significant reexamination
of land and natural resource management practices and
policy. Further, uncertainty must be reduced if ecosys-
tem management, and thus restoration is to be suc-
cessful (Haney and Boyce, 1997).
The tasks outlined for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under ecosystem protection are to
ensure public health and environmental protection for
sustainable development. These tasks are frequently
based on specific legislative mandates. Ecosystem
protection is a national environmental goal (U.S. EPA,
1994). The Office of Research and Development es-
tablished a strategic goal to "... develop and provide risk
management alternatives to maintain and/or restore
ecosystems ..." (U.S. EPA, 1996a). Risk management
governs all ORD research (U.S. EPA, 1996a).
Systematic risk management research for ecosystems
as described in this document has not been a focus of
ORD planning. However, risk management is a concept
that has antecedents within ORD. For instance, point
source permitting under the Clean Water Act is based
upon risk reduction. Also, Best Management Practices
are directed towards improved water quality within wa-
tersheds. These antecedents are characterized by a
focus on identification and control of point source
emissions. Success has been focused upon reduced
concentrations of chemical stressors (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
Increasingly, ecosystems are at risk from other types of
stressors. Abiotic factors involving changing patterns of
land use and hydrology interact with biotic factors involv-
ing interspecific competition, non-native species, and an
expanding human population to produce impaired eco-
systems (Hunter, Jr., 1996). Large-scale rapid-change
is occurring at rates in excess of nature's adaptive ability
(Woodwell, 1992).
Accordingly, research conducted under this plan (i.e.,
Risk Management Research Plan for Ecosystem Resto-
ration in Watersheds [RMER]) by NRMRL will develop
tools and practices for implementation by stakeholders
and managers in local restoration initiatives. NRMRL's
existing programs in pollution prevention, technology
development, and water resources management ad-
dress aspects of ecosystem management. Research
conducted under RMER will build upon these competen-
cies by taking a wider view, incorporating watersheds
and their biota. To expand and complement NRMRL's
historic focus on point source stressors, sustainability
(Christensen et al., 1996) relative to water resources
and changing patterns of land use will be the organizing
principle.
Ecosystems are definition sensitive. Likens (1992)
described an ecosystem as "... a spatially explicit unit of
earth that includes all of the organisms, along with all
components of the abiotic environment...". Ecosystem
function includes biota interacting with each other and
abiotic conditions to produce a pattern of energy flow
leading to characteristic trophic structures, biodiversity,
and material cycles. Sustainability of ecosystems re-
sults from preservation of trophic structure, biodiversity,
and material cycles (Christensen et al., 1996). Con-
versely, damage or impairment results from changes to
trophic relationships, biodiversity, and material cycling
(Cairns, 1982, 1988; Magnuson et al., 1980). Restora-
tion/rehabilitation involves manipulation (broadly defined,
including preservation) of the aforementioned to pro-
duce desirable outcomes. Risk management in this
context seeks to quantify the level of certainty associ-
ated with manipulations toward producing desirable out-
comes.
Definitions - Ecosystem Restoration
A rich vocabulary has developed within the science of
ecosystem management. Variously, restoration,
remediation and/or rehabilitation toward a desirable fu-
ture condition are used to distinguish variations on the
restoration theme. All assume that a restoration (ac-
tion) will remedy an identified problem (Figure 1). Typi-
cally, all assume that restorative manipulations will be
conducted and are beneficial. Restorations are fre-
quently intended to restore initial conditions of structure
and function (National Research Council, 1992). Rela-
tive to ecosystem restoration, the science of risk man-
agement is distinguished from restoration per se be-
cause risk management does not accept these assump-
tions. Rather, the science of risk management as-
sesses the appropriateness of the assumptions and
their application based on current knowledge and ongo-
ing assessment of implemented restorative manipula-
tions.
Broadly stated, a full suite of outcomes and actions are
possible for any given site ranging from continued deg-
radation (inaction), to unaided recovery (secondary suc-
cession), to restoration to a desirable condition (rehabili-
tation), or to restoration to initial conditions (restoration)
-------
Research Orientation
Initial
Conditions
Figure 1. The science of ecosystem management has devel-
oped a rich vocabulary. This figure, modified from
Magnuson et al., 1980 and Cairns, 1982, illustrates
how restoration, rehabilitation, and unaided recovery
have been used to distinguish variations on the
restoration theme. All assume that a restoration
(action) will remedy an identified problem. Restora-
tions are frequently intended to restore initial
conditions of structure and function.
(Figure 1). Rehabilitation and restoration involve appli-
cation of planned restorative manipulations in an effort
to direct recovery to a desired condition. A stakeholder
defined Desirable Future Condition (DFC) could include
any of these possibilities. The science of risk manage-
ment can quantify the risk to biological, social, and
economic systems posed by competing outcomes.
Restoration includes a widerange of potential activities
including continued inaction, unaided recovery, or imple-
mentation of multiple restorative manipulations. In the
best case, restorative manipulations are agreed to by
stakeholders to produce a DFC. In reality, DFCs are
only statements of intent. Ecosystems are dynamic and
single sites are always strongly influenced by stochastic
processes (Christensen et al., 1996).
Restoration is not a deterministic process. Multiple
outcomes are possible and any potential outcome is a
function of probability resulting from interacting initial
conditions and restorative manipulations. At least in the
near-term, restorations hold little promise of resembling
native ecosystems (Kentula, 1994). The science of risk
management can quantify levels of certainty relative to
a full array of potential outcomes that could result from
restorative manipulations.
Ecosystem restoration in a risk management context is
the science of quantifying the risks, rewards, and levels
of certainty associated with the full range of potential
outcomes resultant from changes (both intended and
unintended) to the landscape caused by land use and to
functional connections between habitats, flora, and fauna
within the ecosystem.
Spatial and temporal-scales are critical aspects of eco-
system management. Boundaries defined for the study
or management of one process are often inappropriate
for the study of others (Wall, 1992; Christensen et al.,
1996).
Although notable progress has been made in controlling
many aspects of water quality and pollution prevention
from point sources (U.S. EPA, 1995a), substantial water
quality problems persist (U.S. EPA, 1984, 1995b; Smith
et al., 1987; Baker, 1992). From an ecosystem per-
spective, this can be explained on the basis that surface
and ground water receive inputs from entire landscapes
including large areas that are not impacted by point
source controls. In such circumstances, management
of point sources may not enable further progress toward
a realization of fishable and swimmable conditions in
waters that are adversely impacted by nonpoint pollu-
tion.
Many current environmental problems are caused by a
lack of concordance between the spatial-scale of re-
source demands (landscape-scale) (Franklin, 1997) and
the spatial-scale of restoration and management efforts
(local sites). Many current problems with water quality
are the result of multiple land use changes; the net
result has been that water is no longer buffered from
upland regions (Loucks, 1992; Mitsch, 1992; van der
Valk and Jolly, 1992). Therefore, at ecosystem spatial-
scales we observe symptoms that are emergent proper-
ties of deeper causes. Notable examples include wide-
spread eutrophication, red-tide, and the de-oxygenated
zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, problems and
symptoms are not confined to water: deforestation con-
tributes to global warming (Woodwell, 1992), and depo-
sition of atmospheric nitrogen contributes to forest de-
cline through acid rain (Baker, 1992). Frequently, man-
agement has been focused on waterier se, manifested
in lakes, rivers, and wetlands with little regard to the
surrounding ecological and hydrologic landscape con-
text (National Research Council, 1992) that are source
areas for much of the water in these ecosystems.
There is an overwhelming predisposition toward classifi-
cation in all aspects of human affairs. In this regard,
landscape units (e.g., parks, lakes, fields, wetlands) are
viewed as stand-alone entities. Clearly, landscape units
are not isolated (Risser, 1992; Loucks, 1992); rather,
they are interactive. Scant regard has been placed on
the connections between landscape units and the spa-
tial and temporal-scales over which they operate.
To further cloud the issue, there are temporal elements
to these problems. Sedimentation may not be a prob-
lem when it occurs as a result of an extreme precipita-
tion event. This is a one time event that mimics
conditions under which aquatic organisms evolved. Simi-
larly, small amounts of sedimentation do not appear at
first glance to be a problem. However, when sediment
-------
accumulates over decades in ecosystems that are not
adapted to it, cumulative effects result. A failure to
understand the importance of dynamics, particularly of
disturbance, in ecosystems supports a tendency for
object-oriented management objectives (e.g., single spe-
cies, individual park) (Agee and Johnson, 1988) to the
detriment of function and surrounding landscapes.
Ideally, ecosystem restoration research is conducted
over large areas and long time-scales with connections
to multiple ecosystem elements. In practice, these
ideals are almost never met (Christensen et al., 1996)
(Figure 2). By way of comparison, historically the focus
of NRMRL research has been to collect detailed infor-
mation at local sites over short to moderate time frames.
Clearly, there are frequently programmatic constraints
that limit the length of time over which research can be
conducted. In the case of RMER, projects can be
funded for up to three years. This is not long-term in
most ecosystem contexts. However, the program does
provide latitude for the conduct of longer-term research
than is typical for NRMRL.
The goal of RMER is to refocus a portion of NRMRL's
research goals in three ways. First, include connections
to multiple ecosystem components, including plants and
animals. Second, incorporate larger spatial-scales
through studies involving multiple sites and through
integration of site characteristics with those of the sur-
rounding landscape. Third, favor longer-term investiga-
tions when appropriate to hypotheses and studies with
quantifiable temporal elements (Figure 2).
Expectations
There is a desire to restore degraded ecosystems.
However, ecosystems are complex, resulting from a
unique confluence of biotic, abiotic, historic, societal,
and developmental conditions interacting to produce a
current condition. Thus, it is expected that simulta-
neous, incremental improvements along these fronts will
produce both short and long-term benefits. Further, the
complexity of ecosystems dictates that in-place exper-
tise can best be applied by integrating biotic and land-
scape-scale research objectives and data with the sub-
stantial in-house abiotic expertise found within NRMRL.
Finally, it is expected that some failures will occur.
Ultimately, these failures will aid development of strate-
gies that can be implemented with known levels of
uncertainty.
Areas of Priority Interest
NRMRL's interest in ecosystem restoration research is
guided inpart by the need to meet GPRA performance
measures. To reiterate, these measures include:
• By 2002, provide cost-effective and reliable ap-
proaches for restoring riparian zones within water-
sheds.
• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for
assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of
Long
CONNECTIVITY
TIME
SCALE
SPATIAL
SCALE
Large
Figure 2.
Previous Practice
Ecosystem Management
Previous NRMRL practice has been to conduct
studies at single sites (small spatial-scale), focused on
contaminants (low connectivity to other ecosystem
elements), with minimal field time (short time-scale).
Ecosystem management requires that attention be
given to site connections to adjacent areas (larger
spatial-scales), connections to plants and animals
(connections to multiple ecosystem elements), over
time frames sufficient to capture temporal variation
(longer time-scales).
success for watershed restoration projects and is-
sue guidance on the application of the tools and
models.
• By 2008, complete three pilot restoration projects
for developed and partially developed watersheds
with different endpoints of societal value.
Five strategies address RMER research needs as dic-
tated by GPRA: 1) identifying threatened ecosystems,
2) defining environmental goals and indicators, 3) devel-
oping and implementing science based plans, 4) mea-
suring progress and adapting management to new infor-
mation, 5) identifying tools and support that EPA can
provide at the national level (U.S. EPA, 1994). Particu-
larly as these strategies pertain to protection, mainte-
nance, and restoration of lands and waters (U.S. EPA,
1994).
More specifically, ORD and NRMRL have identified the
following areas of known interest.
1) Nonpoint source pollutants, including
atmospheric deposition;
2) Ecosystem degradation by stressors
associated with land use change;
3) Restoration of ecosystems impacted by
contaminated sediment, soil, or water; and,
4) Restoration oriented research.
The performance measures specified by GPRA and
concepts of ecosystem management and sustainability,
when coupled to these areas of interest broadly define
the scope of work to be conducted under RMER.
-------
NRMRL's resources can best be applied to complement
the efforts of other Federal and state agencies. Thus,
lacking indications to the contrary, NRMRL chooses to
focus research on multi-use landscapes most com-
monly associated with suburban fringe-cities associated
with most developing metropolitan areas (e.g, Fairfax
County, VA) and coastal/estuarine sites. Research into
single-use forest or agricultural landscapes is not a
priority under RMER, although it is acknowledged such
landscapes are appropriate for some hypotheses, such
as baseline data.
Regulatory and Policy Background
EPA's ecosystem protection role is based upon a need
to meet performance measures specified under GPRA,
including:
• By 2002, provide cost-effective and reliable ap-
proaches for restoring riparian zones within water-
sheds.
• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for
assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of
success for watershed restoration projects and is-
sue guidance on the application of the tools and
models.
• By 2008, complete three pilot restoration projects
for developed and partially developed watersheds
with different endpoints of societal value.
Further, EPA has a broad mandate to ensure public
health and environmental protection for sustainable de-
velopment. In 1994, EPA released a five-year strategic
plan listing ecosystem protection as a national environ-
mental goal (U.S. EPA, 1994). The strategies identified
for pursuing this goal included 1) identifying stressed or
threatened ecosystems, 2) defining environmental goals
and indicators, 3) developing and implementing a plan
based on sound science, 4) measuring progress and
adapting management to new information, and 5) iden-
tifying tools and support that EPA can provide at the
national level. Finally, EPA identified the overarching
goal for ecosystem protection during the next five years
as "... ability to protect, maintain, and restore the eco-
logical integrity of the nation's lands and waters, includ-
ing human health, urban areas, and plant and animal
species ...". The Office of Research and Development
(ORD) established a strategic goal (U.S. EPA, 1994) to
"... develop and provide risk management alternatives
to maintain and/or restore ecosystems ...".
The current set of EPA regulatory, oversight, and policy
instruments include chemical-specific regulation via reg-
istration, control and classification of processes, as well
as discharge and use permits that require compliance
with ecological criteria (e.g., CWA); technology based
requirements for specific pollutant sources and constitu-
ents as point and nonpoint sources (e.g., CWA); policy
initiatives often in concert with other international, Fed-
eral, or state agencies; review and approval of environ-
mental impact statements for federal projects (NEPA);
and site remediation as part of mandated cleanup pro-
grams (RCRA & CERCLA). Under these programs,
EPA has risk management, regulatory, and advocacy
mandates to reduce or otherwise manage stressor
levels, provide oversight and review to environmental
impact and development activities, conduct remediation,
and to adapt strategies in the face of new information.
Research Questions:
Water and Land Use as Focal Points for
Ecosystems
As noted in the previous section, water resources and
changing patterns of land use will be the organizing
themes for research conducted under RMER. This
does not merely mean impacts relative to chemical
stressors.
Water is a quantifiable source and product of every
ecosystem. Water impacts uplands as well as wetlands.
Water has well-understood and quantifiable characteris-
tics relative to transport and chemistry. Even the
amount of water flowing is a characteristic of water
resources. The interactions of many of these character-
istics with biota are comparatively well understood.
NRMRL recognizes that ecosystems are composed of
more than biota and abiotic conditions interacting with
water. Nonetheless, our knowledge of water provides a
good starting point for NRMRL ecosystem restoration
research.
Changing patterns of land use, especially habitat alter-
ation, historically has been the leading cause of species
and ecosystem decline. These patterns continue, even
in the United States. Wildlife management has enjoyed
great success with some species, returning them from
near extinction. Given this precedent, it is reasonable to
expect that management techniques can be developed
that will benefit ecosystems and their component spe-
cies in response to changing patterns of land use.
Research Questions
Importantly, RMER is not a vehicle for funding or other-
wise underwriting restoration activities unless these ac-
tivities are required for research purposes. Research
activities conducted under RMER will be directed toward
development of high quality tools for application by local
stakeholders. Examples of appropriate tools under
RMER include tools for biotic or abiotic manipulations of
the landscape or tools as data-based decision support
systems. Thus, the key research questions are:
1) How can we improve the known bounds of
applicability for restorative manipulations?
2) How can we improve decision support
systems for state and community planners
to facilitate decisions, with known levels of
certainty and cost, for evaluating probable
outcomes of competing restoration
alternatives on biota and abiotic conditions?
-------
3) How can we improve protocols (with
estimates of uncertainty) for measuring and
predicting quantitative diagnoses of
ecosystem structure and function as
indicators of ecosystem restoration
effectiveness and appropriateness?
Finally, tools developed under RMER should have appli-
cability to GPRA performance measures.
Statement of Appropriate Subject Matter
Research projects should address performance mea-
sures specified in GPRA in the context of ecosystem
management as designated in The Report of the Eco-
logical Society of America Committee on the Scientific
Basis for Ecosystem Management (Christensen et al.,
1996), An SAB Report: Ecosystem Management; Im-
perative fora Dynamic World (U.S. EPA, 1995b), or this
research plan (RMER).
Research must demonstrate both connectivity between
multiple ecosystem elements and an understanding of
risk management. Connections between multiple eco-
system elements need to be more than superficial. For
instance, is effort equally split between ecosystem ele-
ments, or does 90% of the activity go to one element
while 10% goes to the other? Similarly, contaminants
themselves are single features of ecosystems. A show-
ing of contaminant reduction alone does not demon-
strate connectivity. Moreover, a demonstration of con-
taminant reduction is but one part of risk management.
Risk management is a larger subject matter.
Generally, field research is preferred. Ecosystem man-
agement involves key aspects of spatial and temporal
uncertainty (Christensen et al., 1996). Reduction of
these uncertainties is an important element of ecosys-
tem research and, ultimately, restoration. Field studies
with statistical control of spatial and temporal variation
are the best means for improving our understanding of
these uncertainties.
NRMRL's competencies are heavily weighted toward
physical, abiotic, and microbiological functions. Al-
though NRMRL acknowledges that ecosystems are com-
plex and can be characterized by many metrics, NRMRL's
competencies are focused. NRMRL's resources can
best be applied in a directed research program focused
on a few aspects of ecosystem health that are directly
related to these competencies. Therefore, the focus of
RMER will be water resources and changing patterns of
land use. Multiple metrics impact these areas of focus,
thus a wide breadth of research is enabled. However,
all studies must have definable connections to water
resources or changing patterns of land use.
Additionally, NRMRL's competencies tend to be site
specific whereas ecosystem problems tend to be the
result of widespread, landscape-scale activities. There-
fore, ecosystem restoration research must account for
landscape-scale. Research should focus on solutions to
problems that are impacting ecosystems and not merely
single sites, contaminants, or individual components of
ecosystems.
Research Approach
Ecosystem restoration is a very large, integrative, and
inclusive field. There are multiple projects that could be
conducted under ecosystem restoration. Thus, to list or
discuss specific hypothetical examples is pointless, for
100 examples go unmentioned for each one discussed.
Therefore, we choose to develop the conceptual bound-
aries for RMER projects. However, project summaries
from funded FY97 RMER projects are provided in Ap-
pendix A of this document. These summaries are
provided as actual (non-hypothetical) examples and in
no way should be construed to define the bounds of
future research conducted under RMER.
Research activities conducted under RMER will be di-
rected toward meeting GPRA performance criteria
through development of high quality tools for application
by local stakeholders. Examples of appropriate tools
under RMER include tools for biotic or abiotic manipula-
tions of the landscape or tools as data-based decision
support systems. Thus, the key research areas are:
1) Improved restoration practices, with known
bounds of applicability, for restorative
manipulations.
2) Improved decision support systems for state
and community planners to facilitate
decisions with known levels of certainty and
cost for evaluating probable outcomes of
competing restoration alternatives on biota
and abiotic conditions.
3) Improved protocols (with estimates of
uncertainty) for quantitative diagnoses of
ecosystem structure and function as
indicators of ecosystem restoration
effectiveness and appropriateness.
In all cases, the requirement for high quality demands
that several aspects of uncertainty be addressed.
Ecosystems are definition sensitive. Therefore, pro-
posed research needs to explicitly identify the spatial
and temporal-scales under investigation. Further, upon
project completion the limits (boundaries and effects) of
tool applicability must be identified. Explicit identification
of the population under investigation is crucial. For
instance, data from a single constructed wetland cannot
be extrapolated to other constructed wetlands, even
similar ones nearby, with any known level of certainty:
effects obtained from data from Chesapeake Bay can-
not be extrapolated to the Red River with any known
level of certainty. Nonetheless, experience gained in
one ecosystem can provide deductive insights
(Romesburg, 1981) into other ecosystems that are
valuable to society. Further, ecosystem research does
not mean that only large, landscape-scale research can
be conducted. Research can be conducted at all-
scales, however, explicit connections to other ecosys-
-------
tern elements should be identified (Christensen et al.
1996).
Cooperation
NRMRL, in cooperation with other ORD laboratories and
OW, will focus on developing restoration techniques and
data-based decision support systems to enable informed
ecosystem management decisions by local stakehold-
ers and managers. Anticipated clients are state and
local stakeholders and managers. Partnerships with on-
going restorations initiated by stakeholders and on-site
managers are encouraged. Research projects should
be field-oriented and be designed with appropriate spa-
tial replication.
The RMER program will benefit from cooperation with
other relevant NRMRL programs, labs, and the Program
Office. It is expected that improved cooperation will
result from the recent reorganization. Further, the
interdisciplinary nature of the research area will require
collaborative activities.
Ecosystem restoration begins with identification of a
problem that is associated with a current condition.
Insights into the current condition, and future conditions,
can be gained from many disciplines (Figure 3). RMER
defines the problem as a host of concerns related to
water resources and changing patterns of land use.
The current condition is the product of interacting biotic
and abiotic factors (Figure 3). For any given site, a
number of future conditions are possible depending
upon the result of biotic and abiotic interactions through
succession (Figure 3) and the input of many disciplines
is needed to provide a succesful outcome.
Within NRMRL, many opportunities for research and
management are apparent.
1) What is the nature of the interactions in the
current condition?
2) How many potential future conditions are
possible, given the current condition? What
conditions are not possible?
3) What are the natures of the biotic and
abiotic interactions that lead to each potential
future condition?
4) How can biotic and abiotic interactions be
modified to produce a different future
condition?
5) What costs relative to restorative
manipulations are associated with
management towards the future conditions?
6) What are the characteristics of the
successional pathways leading toward each
future condition?
Ecosystems are complex and involve the interaction of
multiple biotic and abiotic processes. Thus, it is ex-
pected that a majority of successful projects will be
comprised of teams of cooperating researchers each
Biotic
Abiotic
Exotics
Autecology
Water
Fragmentation
Trophic
Interactions
Chemical
Erosion
CURRENT
CONDITION
Time
-succession
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
CONDITION
1
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
CONDITION
2
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
CONDITION
Figure 3.
Ecosystem restoration focuses on identified problems.
Biotic and abiotic factors have contributed to the
current condition. Manipulation of biotic and abiotic
factors through restoration leads to future conditions,
interacting with succession. Future conditions are
time-specific as succession is a continuous process.
contributing the insights of their specialty to the planning
and outcome.
ORD labs can participate in RMER at a variety of levels.
Areas include functional, structural, process, and sys-
tems-related interactions between biotic and abiotic eco-
system constituents relative to habitat, competition,
chemistry, hydrology, geomorphology, spatial and tem-
poral-scale. Potential cooperating ORD labs include
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), Na-
tional Center for Exposure Assessment (NCEA), and
National Health & Environmental Effects Research Labo-
ratory (NHEERL).
Other federal and state agencies have expertise that
NRMRL can apply to ecosystem restoration. It is
recognized that a substantial amount of research is
conducted by universities.
ORD Labs
As noted, RMER will benefit from interactions with other
organizations performing effects, exposure, and as-
sessment research related to ecological processes.
Within EPA, this work is conducted by other ORD
Laboratories in the context of ecosystem protection
(U.S. EPA, 1997b). Research conducted under RMER
-------
will be related to activities of other ORD laboratories.
Following is an abbreviated list of these activities.
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
Characterize ecosystem vulnerability at multiple spatial
and temporal-scales via remote sensing, landscape
composition analysis and pattern indicators, including
the use of Geographic Information Systems.
1) Determine critical landscape patterns for
watersheds to avoid significant decline in
ecological processes that sustain desirable
environmental conditions.
2) Relate spatial distribution of human and
ecological resources in watersheds to valued
environmental attributes.
3) Develop exposure indicators of ecological
stress, including fish, macroinvertebrates,
periphyton, and toxicity tests.
National Center for Exposure Assessment (NCEA)
1) Develop ecological risk assessment
guidelines and methods to characterize risk
to ecosystems and field sites.
2) Develop case studies for assessing risk to
specific types of watersheds.
3) Conduct risk assessments for restoration
options being considered by NRMRL.
National Health & Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory (NHEERL)
1) Define reference conditions, including
monitoring of approaches and indicators of
effects.
2) Evaluate the effects of intervention, including
performance criteria and siting guidelines.
3) Define ecological effects for contaminated
sediments and wetlands.
4) Define ecological effects of exotic species.
Office of Water (OW)
RMERwill be conducted in partnership with OW. Within
OW, the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW) is particularly active with ecosystem protec-
tion and restoration activities, including work under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and Coastal Zone Act, Reau-
thorization and Amendments (CZARA). These Acts call
for nonpoint source management measures for inland
and coastal areas, respectively. OWOW programs,
such as the National Estuary Program, focU.S. EPA
resources on protecting and restoring coastal wetlands
through state activities. OW also administers the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a portion of which is
concerned with ecosystem protection and restoration in
the context of source water protection for both ground
water and surface water.
EPA Grants Programs
Substantial opportunities exist for collaborative relation-
ships with EPA grantees receiving funds from programs
administered by OW and ORD. Applicable OW grants
include watershed planning assistance to local govern-
ments and states, and a $100 million-per-year nonpoint
source program to states to facilitate planning for urban,
agricultural and forestry needs. Many of these grants
offer opportunities for research sites.
ORD grants are administered through a series of Re-
search Focus Areas (RFAs). Applicable RFAs include:
Ecological Assessment
Environmental Fate and Treatment of Toxics
and Hazardous Waste
Risk-Based Decisions for Contaminated Sedi-
ments
Bioremediation
Water and Watersheds
Decision Making and Valuation for Environmen-
tal Policy
Contacts with grantees will be made through OW for
research sites and by individual researchers to ORD
grantees to exchange information or to define other
appropriate collaborative arrangements.
Other Federal Agencies
Numerous departments and agencies have programs
that bear upon ecological restoration. These include,
Regions within EPA, Department of Defense (DOD),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conser-
vation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Energy
(DOE), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), National Oceanographic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA), and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Many of these departments and
agencies conduct on-going restoration projects, and
have hands-on expertise. OWs watershed programs
are closely coordinated with these agencies for field
projects and technical transfer activities such as the
"Watershed 96" conference and preparation of a stream
corridor restoration handbook. Cooperation between
NRMRL and these agencies will be used to achieve
maximum research results.
Research Areas
The Research Areas outlined in Appendix B describe
areas of interest to NRMRL. The appendix is intended
to inform NRMRL's coordination and integration of RMER
with EPA and the larger environmental research com-
munity. RMER is a NRMRL-developed vision of the role
risk management research must have in ecosystem
restoration research. NRMRL approaches its role in
ecosystem management as previously described in this
-------
document to improve consensus and heighten coordina-
tion between the many agency, governmental, univer-
sity, and private groups involved in ecosystem restora-
tion. NRMRL intends to coordinate and cooperate with
these groups whenever possible.
The RMER is intended to be, first and foremost, scien-
tifically defensible and technically sound. Program and
resource issues are not directly considered. It is the
goal of RMER to raise the level of certainty for restora-
tion of ecosystems. To that end, the program outlined
by the following research areas is to guide program
focus and project selection. It is intended that research
proposed under RMER should fall within the research
areas.
Research projects will be solicited. Proposals should
address research needs and uncertainties as desig-
nated in The Report of the Ecological Society of America
Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Man-
agement (Christensen et al., 1996), An SAB Report:
Ecosystem Management; Imperative for a Dynamic
World (U.S. EPA, 1995b), or this research plan.
It is important to recognize that the research areas are
further limited and informed by the overall focus of the
program, particularly water resources and land use as
they relate to risk management for ecosystem restora-
tion. Thus, for instance, although phytoremediation is a
technology that has ecosystem restoration applications,
from an ecosystem perspective it is not enough to
demonstrate that phytoremediation by one or a few
species can reduce contaminant concentration at a site
while impacts to other species present are unquantified.
As a further example, suppose a phytoremediation
prescription called for planting of a monoculture of a
particular species because it is efficient at reducing
contaminants. Lacking supporting evidence, this action
would have little benefit to the ecosystem. Monocul-
tures are biotically impoverished and inherently unsus-
tainable.
RMER will be implemented through annual calls for
proposals that will be reviewed for technical merit and
relevance. An outline of this process is presented in
Appendix C.
Relevance Criteria
Proposals submitted for research under RMER must be
relevant to the program. All successful proposals will
undergo relevance review in addition to peer review for
technical merit. This research plan broadly describes
the bounds of relevance for the RMER program. Addi-
tionally, five specific guidance points are presented
below for criteria that will be weighed during relevance
review.
1) Connections to Multiple Ecosystem
Elements?
Does the proposed study investigate re-
sponses of several ecosystem elements
(e.g., plants, insects, water chemistry, and
contaminant concentration together) or does
it focus on single characteristics? Also, is
the effort equally divided between ecosys-
tem elements, or are some elements in-
cluded at a very cursory level of investiga-
tion?
2) Risk Management or Contaminant
Reduction?
Related to Point 1, and simply put, risk
management is a larger subject than con-
taminant reduction. Reducing contaminants
does not in and of itself reduce risk.
3) Is There Appropriate Replication?
Ecosystem research requires that attention
be paid to spatial-scale (i.e., landscapes,
hierarchies, emergent properties); (Allen and
Starr, 1982; Ahl and Allen, 1996; Brown,
1995). Therefore, studies must be con-
ducted with appropriate spatial replication.
For instance, constructed wetlands in gen-
eral cannot be studied when research is
conducted in a single constructed wetland.
4) Field Orientation Preferred
Spatial and temporal uncertainty are given
in ecosystem management. Reduction of
these uncertainties is a key element of
ecosystem restoration. Field studies with
statistical control of spatial and temporal
variation are the best method for improving
our understanding of these uncertainties.
5) General or Site Specific Results?
Site specific solutions are not a focus of
ecosystem restoration. Research should
be conducted on topics that are widely
generalizable and have direct impact on
products that can be used by turnkey cli-
ents (i.e., are not site-specific, but can be
quickly incorporated into site-specific resto-
ration programs).
Summary
This document describes the scope of ecosystem resto-
ration risk management research to be conducted by
NRMRL. Special emphasis is placed on developing
multi-use landscapes, often associated with fringe-cities
and coastal/estuarine sites. Research will take advan-
tage of NRMRL's competencies in surface, subsurface,
atmospheric, and hydrologic systems by concentrating
ecosystem restoration risk management research on
water resources and changing patterns of land use.
Water impacts uplands as well as wetlands. Water has
well understood, and quantifiable characteristics, rela-
tive to transport and chemistry. The interactions of
-------
many of these characteristics with biota are compara-
tively well understood. Our knowledge of water provides
a good starting point for NRMRL ecosystem restoration
research.
Changing patterns of land use, especially habitat alter-
ation, historically have been the leading cause of spe-
cies and ecosystem decline. Wildlife management has
enjoyed success in mitigating some impacts of land use
change. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that manage-
ment techniques can be developed that will benefit
ecosystems and their component species in response to
changing patterns of land use.
Contaminants alone are not stressed under this re-
search plan. Contaminants alone are single features of
ecosystems. A showing of contaminant reduction does
not demonstrate connectivity. Moreover, demonstration
of contaminant reduction does not address risk man-
agement. Risk management is a larger subject matter.
Research must demonstrate both connectivity between
multiple ecosystem elements and an understanding of
risk management.
Ecosystems are complex, involving interacting biotic
and abiotic elements over large spatial and temporal-
scales. Previous NRMRL practice has been to conduct
studies at single sites, focused on contaminants, with
minimal field time. Ecosystem restoration requires that
attention be given to site connections to adjacent areas,
connections to plants and animals, over time frames
sufficient to capture temporal variation. Ecosystems
can only be understood in the context of these interac-
tions. The interdisciplinary nature of ecosystem re-
search suggests that substantial inter- and intra-agency
collaboration will be required.
Acknowledgments
Many individuals contributed to the successful comple-
tion of this research plan. Notable among these were
Frank Freestone, Dolloff Bishop, Mike Borst, Donald
Brown, John Burckle, Brian Hill, Jim Lazorchak, Dan
Murray, Dennis Timberlake, and Albert Venosa who
crafted the original draft and saw it through peer review.
Reviews and helpful commentary that improved earlier
versions of the plan were provided by Thomas Baugh,
David Burden, Timothy Canfield, Robert Carsel, Clyde
Dempsey, Jean Dye, Patricia Erickson, Richard Field,
Barbara Finazzo, Iris Goodman, Jim Goodrich, Clinton
Hall, Jim Harrison, Jon Herrmann, Bruce Jones, Mary
Kentula, Steve Kraemer, Rose Lew, Norma Lewis, Dou-
glas Norton, Bruce Peirano, Tom Powers, Robert Puls,
Steve Schmelling, Robert Thurnau, Candida West, Joe
Williams, and Steve Wilson.
Literature Cited
Agee, J. and D. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem management
for parks and wilderness. Univ. of Wash. Pr. Seattle,
WA. 237 pp.
Ahl, V. and T.F.H. Allen. 1996. Hierarchy theory: a
vision, vocabulary, and epistemology. Columbia Univ.
Pr., New york, NY. 206 pp.
Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy:
perspectives for ecological complexity. Univ. Chicago
Pr., IL. 310 pp.
Baker, L,A. 1992. Introduction to nonpoint source pollution
in the United States and prospects for wetland use.
Ecological Engineering 1:1-26.
Boyce, M.S. and A. Haney. 1997. Ecosystem
management: applications for sustainable forest and
wildlife resources. Yale Univ. Pr., New Haven, CT.
361 pp.
Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. Univ. Chicago Pr., IL.
269 pp.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1982. Restoration of damaged ecosystems.
pages 220-239 in W.T. Mason and S. Iker, eds.
Research on fish and wildlife habitat. U.S. EPA,
Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8/82/022.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. Restoration and the alternative: a
research strategy. Restoration Management Notes
6:65-67.
Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H.,
Carpenter, S., A'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin,
J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J.,
Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G., and Woodmansee,
R.G. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of
America committee on the scientific basis for
ecosystem management. Ecological Applications
6:665-691.
Franklin, J.F. 1997. Ecosystem management: an
overview. Pages 21 -53 ]n M.S. Boyce and A. Haney,
Eds. Ecosystem management: applications for
sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale Univ.
Pr., New Haven, CT.
Haney, A. and M.S. Boyce. 1997. Introduction. Pages 1-
17 in M.S. Boyce and A. Haney, Eds. Ecosystem
management: applications for sustainable forest and
wildlife resources. Yale Univ. Pr., New Haven, CT.
Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation
biology. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. 482 pp.
Kentula, M.E. 1994. Wetland ecosystems. Pages 21-23
in Symposium on ecological restoration. U.S. EPA
Office of Water. EPA/841/B-94/003.
Likens, G. 1992. An ecosystem approach: its use and
abuse. Excellence in ecology, Book 3. Ecology
Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe Germany.
10
-------
Loucks, O.L. 1992. Predictive tools for rehabilitating
linkages between land and wetland ecosystems.
Pages 297-308 in M.K. Wall, ed. Ecosystem
rehabilitation; preamble to sustainable development;
volume 2: ecosystem analysis and synthesis. SPB
Academic Publishing bv. The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Magnuson, J., Jr., H.A. Regier, W.J. Christie, and W.C.
Sonzogi. 1980. To rehabilitate and restore Great
Lakes ecosystems. Pages 95-112 in J. Cairns, Jr.
ed. The recovery process in damaged ecosystems.
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape design and the role of
created, restored, and natural riparian wetlands in
controlling nonpoint source pollution. Ecological
Engineering 1:27-47.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic
ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 552 pp.
Risser, P.G. 1992. Landscape ecology approach to
ecosystem rehabilitation. Pages 37-46 in M.K. Wall,
ed. Ecosystem rehabilitation; preamble to sustainable
development; volume 1: policy issues. SPB Academic
Publishing bv. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Romesburg, H.C. 1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable
knowledge. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:293-
313.
Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and M.G. Wolman. 1987.
Water-quality trends in the nation's rivers. Science
235:1607-1615.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Office of policy and analysis: The cost
of clean air and water report to congress.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Wetlands research plan FY92-96; an
integrated risk-based approach. EPA/600/R-92/060.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Framework for ecological risk
assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/
R-92/001.
U.S. EPA. 1994. The new generation of environmental
protection. Office of the Administrator. EPA/200/B-
94/002.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Ecological restoration: a tool to manage
stream quality. EPA/841/F-95/007.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. An SAB report: ecosystem
management; imperative fora dynamic world. EPA-
SAB-EPEC-95-003.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Strategic plan forthe office of research
and development. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/600/R-96/059.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Risk management research plan for
wet weather flows. EPA, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. River corridors and wetlands
restoration: partnership handbook: restoring the
functions and values of river corridors and wetlands.
USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Draft, 12 March; Ecological research
strategy; strategic directions and priority research
objectives. USEPA Office of Research and
Development.
van der Valk, A.G. and R.W. Jolly. 1992
Recommendations for research to develop guidelines
for the use of wetlands to control rural nonpoint
source pollution. Ecological Engineering 1:115-134.
Wall, M.K. 1992. Ecology of the rehabilitation process.
Pages 3-23 in M.K. Wall, ed. Ecosystem
rehabilitation; preamble to sustainable development;
volume 1: policy issues. SPB Academic Publishing
bv, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Woodwell, G.M. 1992. When succession fails .. . Pages
27-35 in M.K. Wall, ed. Ecosystem rehabilitation;
preamble to sustainable development; volume 1:
policy issues. SPB Academic Publishing bv. The
Hague, The Netherlands.
11
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BLM
BMP
CWA
CZARA
DFC
DOD
DOE
DOI
EPA
GPRA
MSA
NCEA
NERL
NEPA
NHEERL
NPS
NRMRL
NOAA
NRCS
ORD
OW
OWOW
RCRA
RMER
RFA
SDWA
USAGE
USDA
USFS
USGS
Bureau of Land Management
Best Management Practice
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Act, Reauthorization and Amendments
Desirable Future Condition
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Government Performance Results Act of 1993
Metropolitan Statistical Area
National Center for Environmental Assessment
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Environmental Policy Act
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
National Park Service
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Office of Research and Development
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Management Research Plan for Ecosystem Restoration in Watersheds
Research Focus Area
Safe Drinking Water Act
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Forest Service
United States Geological Survey
12
-------
APPENDIX A:
SUMMARIES FROM SUCCESSFUL FY97 PROPOSALS
Project 1
TITLE: Water, Soil, and Air Quality Impacts of
Riparian Ecosystem Restoration
Agricultural and forestry practices, point source pollu-
tion, and urban development have had considerable
deleterious impacts on riparian habitat and water quality
in the United States. Among these are stream bed
sedimentation and bank erosion, nutrient loading and
oxygen depletion, metal contamination, water tempera-
ture increases, and general decline in the quality of
drinking water and wildlife habitat. To mitigate these
impacts, efforts have been initiated to repair or restore
riparian zones and stream beds using a variety of
techniques, including revegetation, grazing restriction,
and physical alteration of the stream bed itself. A
particularly common strategy is to establish bottomland
woody vegetation species in the riparian zone while
eliminating grazing and other disturbances. Although
this approach has been applied in several areas, very
little data is available concerning its effectiveness in
improving water quality and wildlife habitat. In particu-
lar, almost no information is available on long-term
effectiveness or potential soil and air impacts. Since
this vegetation is often established to buffer agricultural
and forestry operations, it is important to understand
how effective the plantings are in mediating soil and air
transport of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment to the
stream corridor. In addition, the vegetation planted is
usually from the Liquidambar, Platanus, Populus, or
Salix genera, all of which are highly productive early
successional and shade intolerant species. They also
emit significant quantities of isoprene and other organic
compounds, which are significant sources of atmo-
spheric organic acids and photochemical oxidants, which
ultimately impact the riaprian zone as well. Our intent is
to characterize some of the key air, soil, and water
quality impacts of such riparian ecosystem restoration
activities.
Our approach will be to use gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS), soil enclosure chambers, and
environmentally controlled leaf cuvette systems to char-
acterize soil and plant trace gas exchange. Ambient air
samples will also be analyzed for organic acids and
VOC. Soils will be analyzed for litter quality and depth,
nutrient content, porosity, and organic matter. Changes
in sediment input from stream banks and sediment and
nutrient fluxes in overland flow will be quantified. We will
attempt to collect data prior to, during, and for at least
two years after establishment of vegetation at a site in
the mountains of Western North Carolina. The primary
candidate sites are on the Little Tennessee River and its
tributaries upstream of Fontana Reservoir. Here local
stakeholder groups are currently engaged in restoration
efforts aimed at improving water quality and fish and
wildlife habitat. During the second or third years, we will
also consider similar studies at a site in Eastern North
Carolina on the Neuse River. Nutrient runoff into this
system is suspected to trigger blooms of toxic di-
noflagellates, which are thought to be responsible for
large fish kills (in excess of millions of fish during each
event) in the river and its estuary. Shellfish populations
(and their marketability) have also been adversely af-
fected with large resulting impacts on local economies.
Work at this site will be coordinated with other groups,
including North Carolina State University, who will be
studying atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, nutrient
runoff, hydrologic properties, and dinoflagellate popula-
tions in the Neuse River.
Data from these field studies will be used to examine the
actual impacts of riparian ecosystem restoration on air,
soil, and water quality. We will also obtain cost data
from local stakeholder groups (some of which is already
available) so that we may perform cost-benefit analyses
based on results from these studies. Ultimately, we
strive to develop a better mechanistic understanding of
man's role in ecosystem degradation, and to develop,
refine, and apply cost-effective restoration techniques.
Project 2
TITLE: Phytoremediation Handbook for Site
Managers
Phytoremediation is the name given to a set of technolo-
gies that use vascular plants to contain, extract, or
destroy contaminants. Research has been proceeding
for many years to identify and optimize plants which can
clean contaminants from ground water, or remediate or
extract them from soil. Phytoremediation has received
remarkable popular press in the last few years. Such
diverse media as the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Times, and National Public Radio have each had mul-
tiple stories of phytoremediation projects. The potential
of phytoremediation is that there is some evidence that
plants might be able to clean some sites faster than
microbial bioremediation or natural attenuation, at much
less expense than landfilling or physical and chemical
technologies, and with less intrusion.
As a result of the partial information provided by the
popular media, site managers and regulators need com-
prehensive and reliable information available on
phytoremediation. The site owners and interested citi-
13
-------
zens groups will demand that the cleanest and cheapest
technologies be employed in the remediation of a haz-
ardous site. There are many sites where
phytoremediation is clearly not applicable. This project
would compile the research and field work that has been
done to date into a form accessible to EPA RPMs, state
regulators, and others who need to choose between
alternate technologies using the resources of the internet
to both gather and disseminate information, this hand-
book would be written in sections that could be regularly
updated to keep it relevant as the technology changes.
Project 3
TITLE: Investigation of Organic Pollutants in
Surface Waters: Implications for Ecosys-
tem Restoration
The transport and dispersion of organic pollutants in
surface waters to the sites of their ultimate deposition is
often the result of their adsorption to particles sus-
pended in the water. The size of the particles contrib-
utes to its diffusion and mechanical transport by surface
water currents and to their sedimentation properties.
Smaller particles typically sediment slower than larger
particles, and thus may be transported further, allowing
greater geographic dispersion throughout the water-
shed. The role of particle size and (associated) sedi-
mentation capability is, therefore, an important issue in
the transport of pollutants and, in turn, the assimilation
of pollutants by the ecosystem. The heterogeneous
nature of these particles causes experimental difficulties
in characterizing their adsorptive behavior toward or-
ganic pollutants, resulting in a lack of available data
about the ecological role of these substances.
In order to bridge this gap in knowledge, the proposed
research will employ a technique called field flow frac-
tionation, which can efficiently separate suspended par-
ticulate matter into discrete fractions based on particle
size/sedimentation capability. In the past decade, this
technique has been increasingly applied to environmen-
tal problems, and has generated unique and significant
data.
Although additional ecologically significant research
should be performed in field flow fractionation technol-
ogy, the objective of this proposed three-year research
plan is to relate the particle size/sedimentation proper-
ties of suspended water particulates to their ability to
adsorb organic pollutants. The proposed research will
identify specific properties of water systems which influ-
ence the ability of suspended particles in the water
system (i.e., a river) to sediment, and, in turn, which
water systems are particulary susceptible to pollution
release. By relating water system properties to sedi-
mentation ability, the results of this study may provide
watershed risk managers experimental data with which
to make ecologically, scientifically, and financially sound
decisions about the release of pollutants into surface
waters. The data generated by the proposed research
will also be of interest to other ecology studies, such as
computer modeling and bioavailability. In the process,
an important scientific tool, field flow fractionation, for
ecological studies will be further developed.
Project 4
TITLE: Geohydrologic Foundations for Ecosys-
tem Restoration: Modeling ofBaseflow Load-
ings of Nutrients in Mid-Atlantic Coastal
Plain Watersheds
The Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries of the mid-
Atlantic coastal plain are threatened by the abundance
of nitrogen from anthropogenic sources. Up to 80% of
stream flow in the region is supported by ground water,
with its associated load of nitrate-nitrogen. The combi-
nation of geographic setting and ground-water flow
pathway controls the delivery and form of nitrogen to the
discharge reaches along the streams and the bays. The
effectiveness of ecosystem restoration approaches, such
as source control and use of riparian buffer strips,
depends upon the site specific geohydrological function
of the groundwatershed. The proposed research will
synthesize understanding of the role of the subsurface
in transporting nitrogen from the land to the surface
water drainage systems. A computer modeling ap-
proach is proposed that will be conditioned by field
observations at select watersheds within the study re-
gion. Hydrogeologic mapping and geologic modeling will
provide the foundation for evaluating nitrate yields from
geomorphic regions and nitrate residence times within
groundwatersheds. Conjunctive ground-water/surface
water modeling will be explored in the Chester River and
the Patuxent River watersheds to document process-
level understanding of nitrate baseflow loadings. In-
sights will be extrapolated to the Delmarva Peninsula
coastal bays and the northern necks region of the
Virginia western shore. The research will be conducted
in close collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey, ex-
ploring the extensive data sets and field capabilities of
the District Offices in Towson, MD, Richmond, VA, and
Dover, DE. Baseflow modeling of nitrate will be linked to
the hydro/ecological/economic modeling in the Patuxent
River watershed that is being done through the NSF/
EPA grant to the University of Maryland. This will
provide an opportunity to explore state-of-the-art in
ecosystem restoration decision support systems. Em-
powerment of community-based approaches to ecosys-
tem restoration will be supported in this project through
the development of scientific visualizations, models,
maps, and reports, made available over the Internet.
Project 5
TITLE: Development of Isotope Hydrologic Tech-
niques for Resolution ofRecharge-Discharge
Processes in Natural and Constructive Wet-
lands: Application to the Grand Kankakee
14
-------
Marsh Within the Calumet Lacustrine Plain
Ecosystem
Recharge-discharge dynamics in a wetland water bud-
get influence the hydrology of an ecosystem. There
exists disagreement over the role of wetlands in re-
charge. Often attempts are made to support wetland
protection on the basis that wetlands are recharge
areas. However, many studies indicate that wetlands
are primarily discharge areas. Constructed wetlands
are used to enhance or restore some ecosystems
generally without deciphering beforehand the expected
recharge-discharge dynamics. Some constructive wet-
lands evolve into sinks for contaminants while other
wetlands become infiltration galleries to local water
supplies.
This proposed research primarily investigates how envi-
ronmental isotopes can better define hydrologic pro-
cesses occurring in the grand Kankakee Marsh, 32 km
south of Gary, Indiana, currently being constructed in
the Kankakee outwash and lacustrine areas of the
Calumet plain ecosystem in northern Indiana. The
focus of this research is how well environmental iso-
topes describe flow components, flow paths, residence
times, and source regions impacting the recharge-dis-
charge dynamics of a wetland. Isotope hydrologic
techniques are direct tracers of fluid properties of the
water cycle plus storage regions; and when combined
with traditional indirect hydrometric techniques should
result in improved indicators of recharge-discharge dy-
namics in wetlands. Also the isotope data will be used to
(1) extrapolate the isotope point data to the entire flow
system; (2) visualize the hydrologic processes indicated
by the isotope data to be occurring; (3) calculate sur-
face- and ground-water flow rates; (4) determine the
hydrologic effects and consequences of different wet-
land restoration approaches; and (5) estimate the ef-
fects of wetland restoration on nearby agricultural land.
Development of analytical protocols will include stable
and unstable isotopes for waters and solutes. Water
isotopes appear favorable tracers for surface water-
ground water interaction studies. For example, the
strong isotope fractionation effects of 18O and 2H from
evaporation may result in subtle contributions between
wetland surface waters and subsurface flows to be
quantified. Further, since the water molecule contains
3H, a distributed model of the exchange process can be
measured in time and space. Other stable solute
isotopes (e.g., 13C, 15N, 34S) and certain radionuclides
(e.g., 87Sr, 210Pb, 32Si, 14C, 85Kr, 39Ar, 36CI) may trace
solute/gas processes and estimate flow path residence
times and recharge-discharge rates. Thus forecasting
restoration trends before measurable water quality pa-
rameters improve is viable for wetlands.
The anticipated products include (1) a report describing
wetland recharge-discharge processes of wetlands in
the Grand Kankakee Marsh currently being reconstructed
in the Kankakee outwash and lacustrine areas of the
Calumet plain ecosystem; (2) a ground-water model
that simulates and displays hydrologic processes and
assists in wetland management decisions; (3) a prelimi-
nary assessment of hydrologic functions on vegetation
composition; (4) a performance assessment of mea-
sured isotope tracers for wetland hydrology; and (5)
analytical protocols transferable to constructive wetland
planning and development.
15
-------
APPENDIX B:
RESEARCH AREAS
I. ECOSYSTEM MEASUREMENTS
A. Ecosystems Evaluation
1. Stressor Management
Stressor attenuation, broadly defined as including chemical, biotic, and abiotic limiting factors,
is the operational focus of RMER. As such, proper evaluation of stressors is a key project
area.
a. Stressor Identification
b. Stressor Interaction
Multiple stressors affect ecosystems. Proper evaluation of the interactions is critical to
ecosystem evaluation.
2. Sustainabilitv
Sustainability is the long-term goal of ecosystem management. However, our ability to define
and predict ecosystem sustainability is limited.
a. Productivity Prediction
Develop capability to predict the ability of reconstructed, remediated, and current ecosys-
tems to produce desirable biological, social, and economic outputs over the long-term.
b. Diversity/Complexity Determinations
Diversity is associated with sustainability. However, the performance of metrics for
diversity under different conditions is poorly understood.
c. Uncertainty Evaluations
Evaluate uncertainties and key knowledge gaps in evaluation of sustainability.
3. Ecosystem Function
Our understanding of ecosystem function is still developing.
a. Media Interfaces
Interfaces between water, land, and air are thought to be active areas of chemical Stressor
attenuation. Research is needed to evaluate the significance of these interfacial areas to
attenuation processes.
b. Uncharacterized Ecosystems Systems
Many ecosystems are poorly understood. Additional research into such basic processes
as energy cycling and biotic/abiotic interactions is needed to assess restoration potential.
c. Material Cycles
Ecosystems maintain function by cycling material (e.g., nutrients, trace components,
energy). Maintenance and restoration of these cycles is critical to restoration of
ecosystem structure.
d. Boundary/Fringe Effects
In practice, ecosystems are artificially defined according to societal constraints. The
impact of these constraints on measurements of ecosystem parameters and function, and
thus predictions of sustainability are not known.
B. Ecosystem Measurements for Evaluation
1. Decision Support Systems for Ecosystem Restoration
a. Goals Definition Protocols for Ecosystems Management
Provide protocols, information, and tools for stakeholders and decision makers to select
appropriate and achievable goals and endpoints for ecosystem restoration actions.
16
-------
b. Links to Human Health /Environmental Effects Database
Develop informational linkages to databases on human health.
c. Value Added Determinations
Protocols for evaluating the expected benefits of ecosystem restoration in the context of
expected costs and uncertainties.
Protocols for Hvdroecological Assessment
a. Hydraulic Models
Regional, watershed, and local hydraulic models for surface and ground-water character-
ization.
b. Ecosystem Models
Wildlife, landscape, and trophic models for evaluating and predicting ecosystem function
and response.
c. Boundary Definitions
Protocols for selection and evaluation of boundary conditions on ecosystem models.
Restoration Technologies Selection
a. Restoration Technologies Identification
Database development, access protocol, and linkages for disseminating restoration
technologies.
b. Appropriate Use Protocols and Guidelines
Performance evaluation of restoration technologies for specific goals and endpoints under
various ecological constraints and uncertainties.
c. Restoration Approach Selection Protocols
Evaluation protocols and criteria for the selection of appropriate ecosystem management/
restoration approach.
Protocols for Restoration Assessment
a. System Effects Evaluation Protocols
Protocols for evaluating ecosystem function and identifying key indicators during restora-
tion.
b. Cost Prediction and Monitoring Protocols
Protocols for predicting, monitoring, and evaluating costs of restoration.
c. Goals Attainment Protocols
Protocols for evaluating incremental improvement in ecosystem function and sustainability.
RESTORATIVE MANIPULATIONS
A. Restoration Technology
1. Engineered Restorations
a. Constructed Wetlands
Methods for providing enhanced assimilative capacity in conjunction with utility to plants
and animals.
b. Streams - Riparian Zone
i) Urban
Methods for enhancing ecosystem function of urban streams.
ii) Suburban - Developing Fringe
Methods for maintaining ecosystem function of streams in developing areas.
Remediation Technologies
Developing sustainability through improved function by maintaining nutrient retention, reducing
erosion, fostering connections to adjacent areas, and controlling anthropogenic stressors.
17
-------
a. Sediments
b. Soil
c. Ground Water
d. Aquatic Systems
3. Predicted Assimilative Capacity
a. Chemical Pollutants
Ecosystems receive pollutants of various types, through intentional discharge or as result
of natural cycling. Sustainability of ecosystems can be affected. Therefore, it is important
from management, preservation, and restoration perspectives that we develop a thorough
understanding of assimilative capacity.
i) Effects on native ecosystems
ii) Effects on restored ecosystems
b. Land Use
How does land use in and around restored ecosystems affect assimilative capacity of
component habitats and ecosystems?
c. Cycling - Transport
Material transport and cycling through the ecosystem plays a critical role in determining the
limits of restoration. Further, many ecosystem problems are the result of phenomena that
involve material transport. Eutrophication is one example.
i) Water
ii) Nitrogen, Phosphorus
iii) Carbon
iv) Trace Elements
v) Contaminants
vi) Heat Transport
4. Predicted Effects of Activity Restriction
a. Land Use
To what extent can simple access and activity restrictions affect ecosystems? What
conditions indicate application of access and activity restrictions?
i) ORV's
ii) Grazing
iii) Hiking
iv) Water Sports
b. Engineered Controls
What are the limits in terms of restored or preserved ecological structure and function that
are inherent in engineered systems.
i) Water Level
ii) Barriers
iii) Buffer Zones
B. Restoration Assessment
1. Restoration Evaluation
Development of methods for evaluating intended and unintended effects of restorative
manipulations.
a. Systems Function
b. Sensitive Species
c. Utility
d. Adaptive Management
2. Stressor Attenuation
18
-------
APPENDIX C:
SOLICITATION PROCEDURE
Development of methods for evaluating stressor attenuation and effects thereof on restorative
manipulation.
Research projects under RMER will be solicited annually through FY2001. The following timeline represents the
annual cycle that will be followed. Participants are reminded that this is a developing process that will undergo
modifications in the face of experience and new program needs. This timeline represents NRMRL's intended
outcome at this time.
DATE
OCTOBER-JULY 1
MAY 1
JULY1
JULY 2-JULY 31
AUGUST 1 - SEPTEMBER 30
OCTOBER 7
ACTIVITY
Proposal Preparation
Call for Next Fiscal Year's Proposals
Proposals Due, Process Closed Until Next Call
Internal NRMRL Relevancy Review
Outside Peer Review
Announcement of Successful Projects
19
------- |