Wetland Restoration

1. Wetland Restoration Some cautions and strategies

2. Beware of simple conceptual models Ecosystemfunction Degradation Restoration Degraded site Communitystructure Adopted from A. D. Bradshaw, 1987

3. Recognize that… • Restoration is not a one-time activity; it requires continual stewardship • We need to engage stakeholders who will follow through….forever • We must be strategic at every step--choosing from the many things one can do those with high gain/effort

6. Wetlands in landscape sinks have many constraints (the usual situation)…. (Zedler & Kercher 2004)

7. (Zedler & Kercher 2004)

8. WRM 2005 example: Restore wetlands in Upper Rock R. Basin

9. Identify existing high-value resources and make sure they’re protected (e.g., biodiversity reserves, public needs) Horicon Marsh, a Wetland of International Importance, and other significant wetlands and wildlife areas: (WRM 2005)

11. Pay attention to the landscape context. One wetland type will not perform all functions. The wetland’s position might limit the site’s potential functioning.. Existing and former wetlands Biodiversity Abate floods Clean water Zedler 2003

12. Wetland configuration affects ecosystem performance X-section Top view Size P removal Sediment removal Smaller N removal Biodiversity Larger High “edge” A comparison of 32 constructed wetlands in Sweden suggests that N removal and biodiversity objectives are compatible, as are P removal and sediment removal. (Hansson et al. 2005. Freshwater Biology 50:705-714)

13. Aldo Leopold established a vision for the Arboretum: • Create a collection of WI native communities • For teaching/research • Not a typical arboretum

15. Constraints on achieving Leopold’s ambitious vision: • Area: too small for lots of viable ecosystems • Recreational impacts: will increase • Invasive species: a problem in every habitat • Climate: too warm for northern communities • Global warming: will further constrain “ • Restoration record: rarely 100%; esp. rare spp. • Novel environments: need novel ecosystems?

16. Challenges at the Eastern Arboretum Wetlands • Too much water of too low quality • Treatment systems usurp valuable habitat • Water table is too high for infiltration • Inflows are pulsed, but water tmt requires long retention times • Invasive species are favored by stormwater inflows • Full range of contaminants is not known • Water tmt and diversity are not maximized in the same wetlands

17. Challenges, cont. • Two projects require immediate input: • how to design the retention pond to serve as habitat, not just sediment trapping • optimal plan for WHA radio tower replacement and the environmental impact analysis (a legal issue and opportunity to identify actual impacts) • Meanwhile, problems must be considered as part of the entire Eastern Arboretum Wetlands system

18. • Insufficient knowledge of how to restore Although you can make a former wetland wetter, it’s not easy to meet a specific target in a specific place in a specific time period using a specific approach. Be adaptive. Identify the adaptive managers who can collect information and make mid-course corrections.

19. A useful strategy:adaptive restoration • Identify the target and the unknowns: what do you need to know to do what you want to do? • Restore larger sites in phased modules • Each module = an experiment that tests alternative ways to achieve the target(s) • Each module employs techniques that have passed experimental testing and tests new approaches that are less certain • Efforts improve over time

20. It might be necessary to shift the target: e.g., Post-Leopold vision • The Arboretum sustains ecosystems dominated by native species • with minimal maintenance and • optimum research and educational use. • Strategically selected projects employ adaptive restoration approaches to contain invaders and replace native plants and animals. • Partners share the vision and help us work toward it

21. Adaptive approach for designing a stormwater retention basin for Southeast Marsh Target: a multi-purpose basin…..traps sediments and P, reduces N, provides habitat (details needed), potentially supports a radio tower Unknowns: What configuration and/or plant species will Maximize N removal? Support more animal species (if that’s a target)? Design experiment that tests effects of alternative configurations on denitrification or plant growth or animal use For example, meandering shoreline with sedges might support more dragonflies than straight soreline or one without sedges.

22. Strategy for getting started • Literature review--some areas to consider: • Watershed strategies for improving habitat support functions (see 2005 WRM rept) • Treatment wetlands (see Knight and Kadlec’s book) • What wetland design best serves each purpose (see Hansson et al.) • How restoration should be strategic at the watershed scale (Zedler 2003 paper in Frontiers in Ecology and Environment)

23. Subdivide the task • Meet with those whose input is needed • Arb director, Kevin McSweeney • Stormwater Committee (Dave Liebl, Chair) • Stakeholders, other experts, etc… • Draft a series of papers, one person leads each • Brainstorm, then focus, then write, then review and rewrite, and review… • Accumulate a list of all who should receive the report

24. Work as a team to use existing skills and develop new ones • Gather materials • Maps • GIS • Historical information, theses (Michaud, Friedman) • Collect field data • Map vegetation types • Map flow patterns • Establish a timeline, and try to beat it

25. Finish the report • Review early draft of each section in sequence • Get advisors’ input early • Compose the final document on the web? • Turn in your best version before the end of Augus • Advisors edit and ask questions…..pls be available • Forward edited version to Arboretum for formatting