Restoration of Ecosystems

1. Restoration of Ecosystems Jen Morse Heather Bechtold West Hylebos Creek, WA Hemlock forest in VT

2. Outline • Introduction to restoration • Overview of restoration projects • Myths of restoration ecology • Carbon copy • Field of dreams • Fast forward • Cookbook • Command and control • Lessons learned from past efforts • Is restoration important? • Are current methods working? • Recommendations for future projects • Group discussion • Do we know enough as scientists to inform such efforts

3. http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates an ecological pathway—or trajectory through time—towards a reference state. • Intentional activity: method, tools, implementation • Recovery: ecosystem will be healthier than current degraded state • Damaged by human or natural causes • Toward a historic trajectory or reference state

4. Motivations for restoration • Restoring ecosystem services • Mitigating impacts to ecosystems elsewhere • Habitat for threatened or endangered species • Aesthetic concerns, moral reasons • Legal requirements (Clean Water Act, etc.) • Improve human livelihoods • Empower local people • Improve ecosystem productivity Adapted from SER and IUCN (2004). Ecological Restoration: a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods

5. Restoration of… • Rivers and streams • Drylands and deserts • Old agricultural fields • Prairies and savannas • Wetlands • Forests Long leaf pine restoration, Nature Conservancy, Sand Hills, North Carolina Urban stream restoration, Durham, North Carolina Island Press: Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series Part II: Restoration of Damaged Ecosystems

6. Spectrum of restoration • Spanning a very wide range of size and scope Stream reach scale: ~100m – 1km Iraq: marshland loss of 17,000 km2

7. Restoration: deciding to act • Determine that an ecosystem is damaged • Who decides? What are the criteria? • Who is responsible for overseeing the restoration? • Motivating factors? • Laws, government agencies, NGOs Goose Creek, Durham, NC, USA

8. Restoration: planning phase • Goals for the restoration • Habitat for wildlife • Improved ecosystem functions • Improved appearance • Project design • Timeline, permits, contracts • Funding, budget Planned restoration of Everglades , south Florida, USA

9. Restoration: Implementation Techniques • Engineering interventions • Disturbance regime: • fire, flooding • Planting native vegetation • Removing invasive species

10. Restoration: post-implementation • Monitoring • Reporting • Evaluation

11. Myths of restoration ecology Hilderbrand et al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19 Myth: simplified guiding principle - limitations and assumptions?

12. Carbon copy • Selecting goals and targets • Previous or reference state • Clementsian view: static endpoint or climax • Disturbance is not good • Aiming for specific composition Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

13. Carbon copy (cont.) • Assembly rules and ecological succession • Restoration = “accelerated succession” • Ecosystems are dynamic, shifting mosaics • Restoration targets (mandated?) • Pre-settlement conditions? • Pre-disturbance? • Appropriate, realistic, • Allows impacts to continue • Alternative: functional equivalency? Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

14. Field of Dreams • “If you build it, they will come” • Physical template • Biota and function will self-assemble • Dynamic regime • Assembly process  repeatable trajectory • Wetland and stream restoration • “self-design” • Effectiveness is debated (depends on goals) • Limitations of dispersal, stochasticity of assembly, … Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

15. Fast-Forwarding • Accelerate ecosystem development • Dispersal, colonization, community assembly • Initial species composition determines succession and desired end point • Vegetation planting • Recreate links between biota and physical environment • Motivated by need to show rapid recovery (<5y)? • Little evidence that acceleration is successful • Need longer time horizons (20+ years)

16. Cookbook • Same techniques across all projects • Similar ecosystems will respond identically to restoration techniques • Often published handbooks • Engineering approaches • Repeatable methods • Rarely adaptive, often ignore uncertainty • How idiosyncratic are ecosystems? • Do they behave predictably?

17. Command and Control (Sisyphus Complex) • Common in natural resources mgt. • Active intervention and control • Knowledge, ability, foresight to manage ecosystem state indefinitely • Frequent intervention decreases system resilience • Treating symptoms rather than the root of the problem • Political-social mandates to “do something”

18. Moving Beyond the Myths • Provide a starting point for restoration design • Identifying themes: • Planning for surprise, allow for uncertainty • Helps to set realistic goals • Incorporating science: • Experiments in adaptive management • Testing multiple approaches • Final myth: Bionic World

19. Ecosystem Stressors • Habitat Degradation • Invasion of Species • Climate Change

20. Ecosystem Stressors • Habitat Degradation • Invasion of Species • Climate Change #of restoration projects recorded in NRRSS Bernhardt et al 2005

21. Habitat Degradation • Land-use change • Agriculture • Urban development • Restoration goals • Return an ecosystem to some previous state • Inform scientific and policy decision making • Develop tools to evaluate ecosystem health How do you evaluate ecosystem health?

22. Sept 2008 June 2009 Craig Miller

23. Measure Ecosystem Structure • Patterns in space and time • biological communities and their resources (chemistry), distribution • Biotic indicators • Abundance, diversity and presence/absence Streams: • Fish, invertebrates • Algae • Macrophytes Sensitive Tolerant

24. Measure Functional Processes • Can be equated with ecosystem-level • Rates and pattern of processes • Less commonly used in ecological assessments • Integrate abiotic and biotic aspects • Examples of functional processes • Leaf decomposition • Nutrient retention • Metabolism • Can compare across sites • Within or across landscapes • Multiple streams, forests, grasslands etc.

25. To develop a common set of metrics by which to measure stream restoration success. Examine the links between ecological theory and stream restoration Develop a series of specific recommendations to improve how stream restoration is carried out and its success evaluated. Disseminate this information broadly and on an on-going basis. • (http://nrrss.nbii.gov/)

27. Determining Restoration Success • 67% of restoration projects are considered successful • Post-project appearance • Positive public opinion • 90% had no measurable goals/ lack success criteria • Pre and post monitoring efforts are lacking • Mean cost of monitoring efforts are similar to projects without • Low effort data collection and analyses • Earn mitigation credits or have incentives Bernhardt et al. 2005, Palmer et al. 2010

28. NRRSS Project Recommendations • Greater assessment of ecological effectiveness • Integration of projects in the watershed • Project implementation based on data metrics • Document and make accessible outcomes • Appropriate goals and evaluation metrics • Citizen involvement • New restoration design manuals • Certification programs

29. Successful Restoration • Target more than physical structure • Enhanced habitat heterogeneity does not relate to increased diversity • Restore functional processes • Use of softer self sustaining techniques (i.e. floodplain instead of armor) • Suite of stressors • Target most limiting factor • Assessment and long-term monitoring • Habitat and spp • Nutrients • Function • Conservation and protection • Storm water management • Incentive programs (CRP-USDA) Roni et al. 2008, Palmer et al. 2009