Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852 DOI 10.1007/s00267-005-0388-7
Ecological Feasibility Studies in Restoration Decision Making Kristine N. Hopfensperger Æ Katharina A. M. Engelhardt Æ Steven W. Seagle
Received: 12 December 2005 / Accepted: 10 December 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract The restoration of degraded systems is essential for maintaining the provision of valuable ecosystem services, including the maintenance of aesthetic values. However, restoration projects often fail to reach desired goals for a variety of ecologic, financial, and social reasons. Feasibility studies that evaluate whether a restoration effort should even be attempted can enhance restoration success by highlighting potential pitfalls and gaps in knowledge before the design phase of a restoration. Feasibility studies also can bring stakeholders together before a restoration project is designed to discuss potential disagreements. For these reasons, a feasibility study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of restoring a tidal freshwater marsh in the Potomac River near Alexandria, Virginia. The study focused on science rather than engineering questions, and thus differed in approach from other feasibility studies that are mostly engineering driven. The authors report the framework they used to conduct a feasibility study to inform other potential restoration projects with similar goals. The seven steps of the framework encompass (1) initiation of a feasibility study, (2) compilation of existing data, (3) collection of current site information, (4) examination of case studies, (5) synthesis of information in a handbook, (6) meeting
K. N. Hopfensperger (&) K. A. M. Engelhardt Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 301 Braddock Road, Frostburg, MD 21532, USA e-mail:
[email protected] S. W. Seagle Department of Biology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA
with selected stakeholders, and (7) evaluation of meeting outcomes. By conducting a feasibility study using the seven-step framework, the authors set the stage for conducting future compliance studies and enhancing the chance of a successful restoration. Keywords Ecological feasibility studies Decision making Restoration planning Tidal freshwater marsh The purpose for restoring or stabilizing degraded lands is to enhance ecologic processes and structures, preserve regional and historical context, and encourage sustainable cultural practices and uses (Clewell and others 2005). Although virtually all restoration efforts are well intentioned, many projects still fail to meet the goals that motivated the restoration (Kentula and others 1992). Restoration of a natural system is hard to achieve because of the complex interactions intrinsic to natural systems. However, chances of a successful restoration can be increased if scientifically supported and socially accepted decisions are made at the onset of a restoration project. We therefore outline an ecologic feasibility study framework that will enhance the decision-making process before a restoration begins, and that will provide baseline data for monitoring restoration success after restoration of an area has been completed. The term ‘‘feasibility’’ is broadly used to represent studies with many different focuses (economic, engineering, and ecological) in environmental management. Our feasibility study represents an ecologic study that focuses on science first and engineering second. Failures to reach restoration goals have been attributed primarily to inadequate understanding of
123
844
the ecologic system being restored (Westman 1991), poor definition of the initial problem, and unpredicted natural or anthropogenic disturbances (National Research Council [NRC] 1992). Conducting a comprehensive ecologic feasibility study before restoration begins may prevent many of these shortcomings. Feasibility studies have been used to rank alternatives of restoration techniques (Inanc and others 1998), compare the risks and benefits of restoration (Pastorok and others 1997), assess market and nonmarket values of restoration (Johnston and others 2002), and model restoration outcomes to assist in decision making (Geist and Galatowitsch 1999). For example, Inanc and others (1998) carried out a restoration feasibility project to evaluate alternatives for alleviating pollution pressures in waterways of the Golden Horn of Istanbul. Their study considered environmental impacts, public reaction, and political concerns of the municipality and identified a pressure pipeline as the best restoration alternative for disposal of dredge sediment. Geist and Galatowitsch (1999) used feasibility studies to explore obstacles to successful restoration and to examine human commitment to restoration of the environment. Information gained from the feasibility studies then was used to develop a conceptual model for restoration aimed at increasing the probability of consistent participation and ecologically sound restoration by integration of ecology and humans in the restoration. Conceptual models such as that of Geist and Galatowitsch (1999), together with geostatistical models (Turner and others 1991), gradient models (Walker 1995), and landscape mosaic models (Costanza and others 1990), have become integral to predicting the functioning of restored ecosystems and to supporting restoration policies (Sklar and others 2001). Many restoration projects now benefit from such modeling approaches, and some require them. In all these examples, feasibility studies were used to decide how to move forward with restoration by generating alternatives and models. Our proposed framework differs from that in previous studies by illustrating the process of using a feasibility study to make a decision whether or not to restore the area before even considering restoration alternatives or planning the actual restoration. We developed a decision-making framework while conducting a feasibility study that helped the National Park Service (NPS) to decide whether to restore a tidal freshwater marsh: Dyke Marsh Preserve in the Potomac River located just south of Alexandria, Virginia. We first summarized the steps taken to complete the Dyke Marsh feasibility study. We then generalized the lessons learned from Dyke Marsh by defining seven
123
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
steps of a decision-making framework (Fig. 1). The framework was designed to be broadly applicable for helping managers decide whether it is feasible to restore a habitat or ecosystem.
Assessing the Feasibility of Restoring Dyke Marsh Preserve Dyke Marsh Preserve is one of the last major remnants of formerly extensive freshwater tidal marshes along the Potomac River. Dyke Marsh also is a significant ecosystem because of its proximity to Washington DC, and because of its current potential for provision of ecologic services, recreational values, and educational opportunities. Dyke Marsh’s location along a major travel corridor (George Washington Memorial Parkway) to one of the most popular tourist destinations in the Washington DC area, Mount Vernon, provides Dyke Marsh with opportunities to enhance economic productivity and environmental education in the region.
Initiation of Study Study goals Problem of site
Compile Existing Information on Site Topography Hydrology Soils Vegetation Seed bank Resident/ migrant animals
Add New Data Design data collection techniques Collect new data information
Examine Case Studies Reference sites Previously restored sites
Compile Workbook Also include: Primary concerns Restoration goals Fundamental questions Restoration scenarios
Hold Workshop Government agencies Regional organizations Experts
Evaluate Feasibility Evaluate information Make recommendations
Develop Feasibility Report
Fig. 1 Framework for conducting a feasibility study to inform restoration decisions
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
845
Significant dredging from 1940 to 1972 along the fringes of Dyke Marsh led to the loss of approximately half of the emergent marsh area (i.e., 270 acres). In 1959, a legislative mandate (Public Law 86–41) gave the United States government authority over management and restoration of the marsh. To fulfill the mandate, multiple plans and assessments for restoration have been developed (e.g. NPS 1977) but not implemented. Study Initiation The National Park Service initiated a study to assess the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh in 2002 with a meeting between National Park Service site and regional managers, university and U. S. Geological Survey researchers, and the Friends of Dyke Marsh, a local group interested in preservation and conservation of the marsh. Key actions included the following: •
•
•
The group agreed to collaborate on a proposal to fund the feasibility study and tasked our research team to lead the study. The proposal was subsequently written and funded in 2003 by the National Park Service as a collaborative agreement through the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit. The group discussed causes of degradation to the marsh and the need for restoration. The main source of sediments to the marsh had been cut off through urbanization of the area. Without the sediment source, the group conceded that sediment accretion might not keep up with subsidence, leading to erosion of the marsh over time. Deep holes left after sand and gravel dredging and boat traffic on the Potomac River also could increase wave energy and lead to shoreline erosion. The concerns voiced at the initial meeting and the concerns identified later after compilation of data and a meeting with stakeholders established a need to collect data and consider the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh. At the meeting, potential consequences of no action or potential restoration actions on the existing marsh were discussed. The existing marsh supports a diverse flora and fauna, including the only known breeding population of the marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) in the upper Potomac tidal zone (Spencer 2000). Concerns were raised that restoration activities could increase the invasion rate of nonnative plant species and disturb marsh wren breeding. Concerns also were voiced that restoration could destroy the short-nose sturgeon
•
(Acipenser brevirostrum) habitat by filling in the deep holes left behind after dredging. No sturgeon have been observed at Dyke Marsh, but the possibility exists that a potential habitat would be lost that could support this federally endangered species. Finally, a concern was voiced that a restoration would have a negative impact on a nearby marina and decrease recreational opportunities for boaters. These concerns suggested that whether or not to restore was not an obvious decision, but one that needed to be researched and discussed with stakeholders. The group identified goals for a feasibility study. The National Park Service was interested in establishing whether it would be ecologically feasible to move forward with a restoration given the need for restoration as well as the potential consequences for existing and potential flora and fauna. The goal was not to define concrete restoration designs, although general scenarios were considered to establish whether restoration was feasible. This multifaceted problem required input from a variety of stakeholders with different viewpoints and expertise. The goal of the feasibility study was therefore to compile all information known about the ecosystem and to organize a workshop at the end of a 2-year study period to discuss restoration needs, concerns, and potential restoration scenarios with Dyke Marsh stakeholders.
The initial face-to-face meeting with managers, researchers, and private citizens helped to establish a collaborative atmosphere. Initial discussion of needs, concerns, and goals was important to allow the process to move forward efficiently and positively. Collection of Background Information After the initial meeting, proposal submission, and funding of the feasibility project, we started the process of establishing feasibility by collecting background information on the biologic and physical processes and characteristics of Dyke Marsh. Key actions included the following: •
We collected government documents, environmental assessments, and research reports. We found information on legal mandates, historical land use (NPS 1977), hydrology (Myrick and Leopold 1963), floral (Carter and others 1994; Kelso and others 1993; Lindholm 1992; Xu 1991) and faunal (Cartwright 2004; Gaskill 2000; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) diversity, and the presence of rare, threatened, and endangered species (Townsend 2004).
123
846
•
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
We compared our list of existing information with Zedler’s (2001) list of recommended background information (Table 1).
Compiling data on Dyke Marsh was helpful for assessing historical conditions, past disturbances, and more recent inventories of the marsh. Comparing the list of collected data with Zedler’s (2001) list of recommended background information (Table 1) helped us to identify what information for Dyke Marsh still was lacking or needed to be updated. We found, for example, that we lacked information on topography, soil properties, water quality, and current vegetation composition. We remedied this lack of information by collecting additional information (see later). Update of Current Information In collaboration with the National Park Service, we updated data on several site characteristics and added to the information base for Dyke Marsh. Key actions included the following: •
We collected additional information on physical and chemical characteristics. We collected data on surface soil particle size distributions (depth, 10 cm),
elevation of the marsh surface using high-precision surveying equipment, water quality, and water-level fluctuations using a permanent tide gauge. The National Park Service started a separate collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey to measure sediment accretion and subsidence at the marsh using sediment erosion tables. This longer-term study started in 2005 and at this writing is still ongoing. In addition, the National Park Service conducted a study that compared historic aerial photos with current photos to determine the degree of erosion and accretion in the marsh. • We updated or collected new information on biologic characteristics. We studied the diversity of standing vegetation, seed bank in marsh sediments, and seed influx from the Potomac River to evaluate current conditions and the potential for nonnative species invasions from the region. The National Park Service also initiated a separate study to investigate the presence of sturgeon in the Potomac River at Dyke Marsh. Knowledge of the marsh’s physical, chemical, and biologic characteristics can be used to evaluate the health and stability of the ecosystem. If restoration is deemed feasible, information can be used to design the
Table 1 Information to be gathered before restorationa Background Information
Application
Past/historical reference information Journals, books, herbarium Determine flora, fauna, and geology of site before development; important records, oral histories structures and processes Maps and elevations Determine historical extent of marsh, channel morphology, land use Meteorologic data and Determine past levels of variation in rainfall streamflow records Aerial and historical Outline history of changes to marsh, channel morphology, land use photographs Land use and town planning Outline past use of marsh and surrounding areas records Soil cores Abrupt changes to soil profile in sediment characteristics indicate large sediment deposition event, dumping activities, changes in environmental conditions Current site characteristics (existing Dyke Marsh) Indicate extent of tidal influence, patterns of tidal flow, creek density, drainage Topographyb and hydrology Water quality Indicate variation in quality Indicate needs for soil amendment (e.g., nutrients, organic matter) Soil propertiesb (texture, organic matter, TKN) Sediment characteristics Predict nutrient retention, drainage characteristics, toxins, heavy metals (dredge material) Indicate pool of local wetland species and rank abundance, potential colonists, Vegetation cover and exotic species problems compositionb Animal usage Indicate potential colonists, permissible levels of disruption to site during construction Remote sensing image of area Provide measures of aerial coverage of water, vegetation, habitat areas as model for restoration site a
Dyke Marsh some Some Some Some (texture, OM) X (TKN) X Orthophoto
Table taken from the handbook created for the Dyke Marsh Preserve (DMP) feasibility study (Hopfensperger and others 2004). The table was created through the combination of Tables 2.1 and 6.6 from the Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands (Zedler 2001). b Site characteristics recommended for sampling before restoration because they provide important reference information for postmonitoring. Information that was available for DMP is represented by ‘‘,’’ and unknown information is represented by ‘‘X.’’
123
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
restoration project. Some problems comparing historic and current information were encountered when the methodology for collecting and analyzing historic samples was unknown. Case Studies Previously restored sites can be used to inform managers specifically about the process of establishing restoration feasibility. To inform about the restoration feasibility process, case studies do not need to have similar ‘‘reference’’ conditions. We explored five case studies to gain confidence that the process used for establishing feasibility would lead to sound recommendations and ensure positive restoration outcomes (Clewell and others 2000; Pastorok and others 1997; Society for Ecologic Restoration [SER] 2002; Zedler 2001) for Dyke Marsh. Key actions included the following: •
•
•
We selected case studies through specified selection criteria based on Dyke Marsh ecologic and sociologic conditions (Hopfensperger and others 2006). Specifically, we selected sites that were (1) located in the same region as Dyke Marsh so that they shared broad scale environmental factors, (2) managed by the National Park Service so that decisions, relations, and processes would be similar and relevant to establishing feasibility at Dyke Marsh, (3) characterized as tidal wetland systems similar to the Dyke Marsh ecosystem. A survey was distributed to all case study site managers in February 2004. The survey asked managers background information about why each project was initiated, the resources used, the groups involved, the problems encountered, and the results of the decision-making process. We visited each case study site and followed each visit up with site-specific questions during April and May 2004.
The surveys were used to identify commonalities among case studies in how decisions were made before restoration. Developing models, emphasizing strong collaboration, studying restoration materials, and involving the public were some of the commonalities identified. These were used to guide the Dyke Marsh feasibility study and to develop our decision-making framework. Handbook We produced the Dyke Marsh handbook, which summarized historical and current information, described
847
the case studies, and provided copies of government mandates for stewardship and restoration of Dyke Marsh (Hopfensperger and others 2004; http:// www.al.umces.edu/DMP/workbook.htm). We first sent a draft to the National Park Service staff for review, then sent the revised handbook to workshop participants in October 2004. Key actions included the following: •
•
An extensive discussion of primary concerns about restoration including shoreline erosion, sea level rise, urbanization effects, invasive species, and herbivory was conducted. Fundamental questions included in a decision tree (Fig. 2) were used at the workshop to guide discussions.
The decision tree was integral to planning a productive discussion with stakeholders on the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh. Through the use of the decision tree, we were able to facilitate discussions on the need for restoration, potential negative consequences of restoring the existing marsh, and essential information, materials, and financial support needed for moving forward with a restoration. Stakeholder Workshop Dyke Marsh stakeholders were invited for a 1-day workshop on November 4, 2004. Key actions included the following: •
•
• •
Perspectives were given from key organizations including federal, state, and citizen conservation organizations. We wanted to ensure that all stakeholders had a chance to be heard. Submission of written statements for inclusion in a handbook addendum was encouraged. An overview of the case studies was presented for a review of lessons learned from studying other restoration projects. Discussions focused on the decision tree (Fig. 2) and associated study questions. Possible restoration scenarios were discussed because different scenarios may not be equally feasible given ecologic impacts, constraints of availability of materials (e.g., dredge materials), and engineering concerns.
The workshop included 47 individuals from 18 federal, state, and citizen conservation organizations (Table 2). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers played an important role in giving advice and answering questions on past restoration projects and their potential involvement and information needs.
123
848 Fig. 2 Decision tree to establish the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh Preserve (Hopfensperger and others. 2004)
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852 revisit
If no (1) Need for restoration
Restoration not feasible
If yes Restoration not feasible
revisit (2) Negative consequences
If yes
OR Restoration feasible with limitations
If no Reconciliation of limitations
If yes
If no
If no
revisit (3,4) Essential materials and support
Restoration not feasible
If yes If no (5) Have all perspectives been heard?
If yes Other fundamental questions?
Synthesis of workshop perspectives Internal decision by Park
Table 2 Number of individuals representing all government agencies, universities, and organizations that attended the feasibility of restoration for Dyke Marsh Preserve workshop Agency, university, or organization represented
No. of individuals
National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey National Aquarium Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries District of Columbia Department of Health University researchers Friends of Dyke Marsh Consultants Congressman representative
17 1 2 3 1 1 2 8 3 2 1
Representatives from Friends of Dyke Marsh, a local nonprofit organization, spoke of their potential engagement in the restoration and their concern over seeing the existing marsh harmed in the process. Furthermore, a representative from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries discussed the opportunities that the restored site may provide to hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers, as well as their interest in monitoring wildlife data. Finally, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative explained how an environmental contaminant program was used elsewhere to examine effects of toxins from dredge material on local fish and wildlife.
123
An independent facilitator was hired to lead discussions at the workshop. As ideas were discussed, they were recorded on an easel. A note-taker took extensive notes. Discussions also were recorded on a tape recorder. Ideas supported by the majority of the participants identified as different discussions were summarized. For example, a list of potential negative consequences of a restoration for the existing marsh included a change in marsh processes, loss of species, and impact on the public. Furthermore, the workshop participants suggested that more information may be needed on the extent of shoreline erosion, sources of dredge material, vegetation dynamics, public attitude
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
toward a restoration, and costs of different restoration scenarios and similar restoration projects in the area (Kenilworth Marsh, Kingman Lake). None of the participants perceived these information needs to be so great as to prohibit a decision to move forward with a restoration. At the end of the workshop, the National Park Service made the decision to move forward with an environmental assessment of Dyke Marsh. The handbook that streamlined discussions, the opportunity for stakeholders to voice opinions at the workshop, and the facilitator who helped the group resolve any disagreements all made an efficient decision by the National Park Service possible. Furthermore, the focus on science rather than public opinion clarified issues and thereby moderated disagreements. Any disagreements were resolved through expert advice and the call for additional information (e.g., source and timing of dredge material). Final Report and Recommendations The final feasibility report submitted to the National Park Service in April 2005 included a summary describing all the perspectives of the stakeholders, a thorough account of the workshop, and recommendations on how to move forward with restoration. Key actions included the following: •
•
A restoration-planning framework (Pastorok and others 1997) to provide suggestions for moving forward with restoration at Dyke Marsh A review of the steps necessary to successfully plan, design, implement, and monitor a restoration project at Dyke Marsh.
Using the workshop discussions as a guide, we recommended in writing that the National Park Service move forward with restoration planning. We further recommended collecting additional data on the longterm stability of ecosystem processes, sea level rise, elevation–vegetation relationships, sediment dynamics, and physical stressors to the marsh. Not much is known about the stability of ecosystem processes in relation to community dynamics in tidal freshwater marshes. Therefore, the goal is to understand how much diversity is needed for a marsh to function properly and be stable over the long term. Sea level rise is occurring at a fast pace in the Washington DC area, and longerterm data would greatly increase the capacity for realistic prediction of community changes. Furthermore, a successful marsh restoration hinges, in part, on creating appropriate elevations. Consequently, learning more about the movement of sediments and ele-
849
vation–vegetation relationships in the marsh may ensure a more successful restoration.
Seven Steps for Assessing Restoration Feasibility The decision-making framework emerging from our experience in conducting the Dyke Marsh feasibility study, including the comparison of five case studies (Hopfensperger and others 2006), includes seven recommended steps. The steps included in the framework are frequently incorporated into plans on how to restore degraded land or water (Baker and others 2004; Casagrande 1997; Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration 2001; Yozzo and others 1996). Instead of focusing on how to restore, the steps are used here within the context of determining whether restoration is ecologically feasible. The seven steps of the decisionmaking framework are as follows: (1) initiate a feasibility study, (2) compile existing data, (3) collect current site information, (4) examine case studies, (5) compile a handbook, (6) convene stakeholders, and (7) evaluate outcomes. Initiating the Study Existing stressors causing site degradation need to be identified at the beginning of a feasibility study (Inanc and others 1998; Pastorok and others 1997) to establish the need for restoration. Without a clearly defined need, the feasibility study should not move forward. For example, a wetland may be eroding, which creates the need either to minimize the causes of the erosion or to create new wetland area to mitigate the erosion. A terrestrial system may be invaded by a noxious weed, which creates the need either to restore a natural disturbance regime, such as fire or grazing, or to control the weed using mechanical, chemical, or biologic control techniques. Several stressors, and therefore several restoration needs, may be identified at a degraded site. This step may seem self-evident, but identification and ranking of all stressors and associated restoration needs is often not done explicitly, yet this step is crucial to a focus on the selection of relevant and attainable restoration goals. If a need for restoration can be established, the goals of the feasibility study need to be defined and agreed on by all decision makers. The goals of a feasibility study may include consensus among stakeholders, a list of prioritized restoration goals, or descriptions of restoration scenarios. If establishing consensus is a goal, then consensus needs to be clearly defined. Consensus itself can be defined in multiple ways, one of which is
123
850
that ‘‘all parties can live with the decisions that are being made with no major disagreements.’’ Complete consensus may not always be within reach, which may have varying consequences among restoration projects. Furthermore, some projects may be legally mandated and will move forward regardless of consensus. Compiling Existing Data The importance of understanding the historical conditions of a degraded site often is highlighted in the restoration literature (Bedford 1999; Inanc and others 1998; Zedler 2001). Information on key ecologic processes of the site should be diligently gathered, as should information on site conditions (Pastorok and others 1997). Information on ecologic processes may include food web interactions as well as nutrient and sediment dynamics. Site conditions relate to hydrologic conditions, substrate characteristics, the physical environment, and flora and fauna. Information also needs to be placed within a regional context to decrease the risk of failure resulting from interaction between degraded sites and their surrounding landscapes (Bedford 1999). For example, examining the process of nutrient removal at a wetland site would require study of its watershed and sources of potential pollutants, not just the nutrients at the specific locale. Missing or incomplete information can be assessed and priorities for essential research to inform restoration decisions suggested (Wyant and others 1995) at this step of the decision framework. Collecting Current Site Information Site characteristics change through time because of natural and human disturbances, successional dynamics, interannual variation, or directional trends in environmental conditions (e.g. interannual variation in rainfall or climate change). Thus, some historic site characteristics may not accurately represent the current site conditions. For example, deep soil profiles taken 30 years previously could still be relevant today if no problems with the methodology are detected. However, water quality measurements taken 30 years previously are most likely not representative of the current site. If a decision is made to restore, the data can be used in conceptual models that inform the planning of a restoration (Pastorok and others 1997, Sklar and others 2001). For example, Sklar and others (2001) used current site information to modify their conceptual model of Everglades restoration, which in turn assisted in creating new performance measures
123
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
and monitoring plans, and reduced restoration uncertainties. Examining Case Studies Case studies can be useful for describing ecosystem structure and functions (Zedler 2001), for illustrating principles in the development of restoration projects (Kentula 2000), for providing perspectives on different approaches to restoration ecology (Kangas 2004), and for supporting the initial design and evaluation of restoration alternatives (Pastorok and others 1997). Case studies inform us specifically about the process of establishing restoration feasibility, which can involve (1) study of reference sites that focuses on identifying environmental conditions of a pristine or less degraded ecosystem and (2) exploration of previously restored sites that focuses on the process of establishing feasibility or the process of restoration. Case studies chosen for the site to be restored should be within the regional area, should have similar management regimes, and should have similar ecosystem characteristics (Hopfensperger and others 2006). Compiling the Handbook A handbook of site information may assist stakeholders and managers in restoration decision making. The historic and current information should be included, as should insights gained from the case studies. All government mandates and legal documents discussing the management of the degraded site also should be provided. An assessment of all stakeholders’ primary concerns about restoration should be addressed. Lists of what information remains unknown about the site, all possible restoration end goals, and brief descriptions of several restoration scenarios should be included. A discussion of fundamental questions specific to the restoration in the form of a decision tree also is helpful to include in the handbook (Fig. 2). The handbook should be reviewed internally and externally for completeness and soundness of data before it is distributed. Convening the Stakeholders The next step in the feasibility study process is to convene targeted stakeholders at a workshop to evaluate the compiled information (handbook) and to discuss the benefits and pitfalls of moving forward with a restoration. Targeted stakeholders should include agencies and organizations that manage or depend on
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852
the goods and services of the area to be restored, agencies and organizations that may help with the restoration or stabilization of the area, and individuals who can contribute a scientific or engineering background specific to the system. The number of invited stakeholders should be kept to a manageable level so that everybody at the workshop has a chance to be heard, particularly key individuals and organizations. The handbook should be sent out to all participants before the workshop so that the attendees may prepare ahead of time. The workshop could include a summary of perspectives on restoration from the major stakeholders to allow all participants to be heard equally and fairly. Discussions on the needs for restoration, goals for restoration, and resources and information needed for restoration are helpful, and discussion of disagreements or concerns is vital. The workshop also could include a field trip to the degraded system and possible restoration reference sites. Hiring a facilitator, a neutral party, to guide the workshop is beneficial so that potential conflicts can be handled professionally and workshop organizers can focus on the content of discussions. Multiple benefits arise from organizing a meeting of the stakeholders. The meeting can develop partnerships, establish common visions, and build trust for cooperation and communication (Geist and Galatowitsch 1999; Llewellyn and others 1996). Evaluating the Workshop Outcomes The meeting of the stakeholders may produce additional site information that should be recorded and synthesized. Decision makers need a firm understanding of what critical data are lacking before continuing with restoration efforts. Acknowledging what additional information would be helpful, but not essential, may save time, energy, and money during restoration. Stakeholder perspectives should be addressed and questions followed up. A final report of the feasibility study may then be compiled. The report should include summaries of all stakeholder perspectives to ensure that all opinions are represented in the document. A thorough account of what was said during the discussions at the stakeholder meeting should also be in the final report. The content of the discussions can be summarized for brevity, but complete word-for-word documentation should also be included to ensure that all information can be reinterpreted if necessary. A section on how to move forward with restoration, if that decision is made, may also assist those making the final recommendation on restoration.
851
Conclusion The decision to restore may be just as important in affecting the outcome of a restoration as decisions focused on designing a restoration project. A restoration can have both negative and positive socioeconomic and environmental implications. These need to be considered diligently to evaluate whether it is even advisable to move forward with a restoration. A restoration can be planned perfectly, but if the costs of the restoration to the existing social, economic, and ecologic system outweigh the benefits, then the restoration is unlikely to succeed. We encourage the use of our framework to facilitate decisions whether to move forward with a restoration or not. The seven-step framework may be most useful for large, complicated, and expensive projects. However, smaller, simpler projects that may not have the resources for all seven steps still may benefit from its principles. If the decision is to restore a system, then the information gathered and the discussion held with all stakeholders during the feasibility study should enhance the restoration planning process and enhance the chances of a successful restoration. Acknowledgments This project was funded by the National Park Service through the Chesapeake Bay Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit. We thank Dan Sealy, Lauren McChesney, Fred Sklar, Dr. Virginia Dale, and two anonymous reviewers for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript and providing insightful comments. We also thank the staff of the National Park Service’s George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Center for Urban Ecology for their support and participation in the feasibility project for Dyke Marsh. Additionally, we thank the managers of the case studies who spent time informing us of their projects.
References Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, Dole D, Schumaker NH (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313–324 Bedford BL (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: Links to wetlands restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775–788 Carter V, Rybicki NB, Landwehr JM, Turtora M (1994) Role of weather and water quality in population dynamics of submersed macrophytes in the tidal Potomac River. Estuaries 17:417–426 Cartwright L (2004) Breeding Bird Survey for Dyke Marsh Preserve. Unpublished data. Friends of Dyke Marsh, Alexandria, VA Casagrande DG (ed.) (1997) Restoration of an urban salt marsh: An interdisciplinary approach. Number 100, Bulletin Series, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT Clewell A, Rieger J, Munro J (2000) Guidelines for developing and managing ecological restoration projects. 2nd ed.
123
852 Society for Ecological Restoration. Available at www.ser.org/. Accessed: April, 2004 Costanza R, Sklar FH, White M (1990) Modeling coastal landscape dynamics. Bioscience 40:91–107 Ellison AM (2000) Mangrove restoration: Do we know enough? Restoration Ecology 8:219–229 Gaskill K (2000) Updated birds of Dyke Marsh checklist. Original from the National Park Service in 1993, but updated in 2000, Washington, DC Geist C, Galatowitsch SM (1999) Reciprocal model for meeting ecological and human needs in restoration projects. Conservation Biology 13:970–979 Hopfensperger KN, Engelhardt KAM, Seagle SW (2004) Should we restore Dyke Marsh? A management dilemma facing George Washington Memorial Parkway. Handbook for National Park Service GWMP Workshop, November 4, 2004, 105 p. Available at http://www.al.umces.edu/DMP/ workbook.htm. Accessed: February 2007 Hopfensperger KN, Engelhardt KAM, Seagle SW (2006) The use of case studies in establishing feasibility for wetland restoration. Restoration Ecology 14:578–586 ¨ ztu¨rk I, Sevimli MF, Arikan O, O ¨ ztu¨rk M Inanc B, Kinaci C, O (1998) Pollution prevention and restoration in the Golden Horn of Istanbul. Water Science Technology 37:129–136 Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. (2001) An introduction and user’s guide to wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, Habitat Protection Division and Habitat Restoration Division, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watershed, Wetlands Division, Washington, DC. Available at http:// www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/. Accessed: November 2004 Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1994) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 1079 p Johnston RJ, Grigalunas TA, Opaluch JJ, Mazzotta M, Diamantedes J (2002) Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: The Peconic Estuary System study. Coastal Management 30:47–65 Kangas PC (2004) Ecological engineering principles and practice. Lewis Publishers, Washington, DC, 452 p Kelso D, Xu Z, Marcella G, Thomas LK, Jr. (1993) A historical delineation of the Dyke Marsh vegetation. Report to the National Park Service, 8 p, Washington, DC Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 15:199–209 Kentula ME, Brooks RP, Gwin SE, Holland CC, Sherman AD, Sifneos JC (1992) An approach to improving decision making in wetland restoration and creation. Hairston AJ (eds) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon Lindholm DA (1992) 1992 Dyke Marsh herbaceous plant study. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 27 p Llewellyn DW, Shaffer GP, Craig NJ, Creasman L, Pashley D, Swan M, Brown C (1996) A decision-support system for
123
Environ Manage (2007) 39:843–852 prioritizing restoration sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. Conservation Biology 10:1446–1455 Myrick RM, Leopold LB (1963) Hydraulic geometry of a small tidal estuary. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 442-B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC National Park Service (NPS). (1977) Environmental assessment of Dyke Marsh. National Capital Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 53 p, Washington, DC National Research Council (NRC). (1992) Restoring aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy. National Research Council Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Pastorok RA, MacDonald A, Sampson JR, Wilber P, Yozzo DJ, Titre JP (1997) An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecological Engineering 9:89–107 Sklar FH, Fitz HC, Wu Y, Van Zee R, McVoy C (2001) The design of ecological landscape models for Everglades restoration. Ecological Economics 37:379–401 Society for Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working Group (SER). (2002) The SER primer on ecological restoration. Available at www.ser.org/. Accessed: April 2004 Spencer SC (2000) Population abundance and habitat requirements of the marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) at Dyke Marsh National Wildlife Preserve. M.S. Thesis. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia Townsend JF (2004) Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare plants. Natural Heritage Technical Report 04–06. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. Unpublished report. April 2004, 56 p Turner SJ, O’Neill RV, Conley W, Conley MR, Humphries HC (1991) Pattern and scale: Statistics for landscape ecology. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Pages 17–49 Walker WW (1995) Design basis for Everglades stormwater treatment areas. Water Resources Bulletin 31:671–685 Westman WE (1991) Ecological restoration projects: Measuring their performance. Environmental Professional 13:207– 215 Wyant JG, Megnack RA, Ham SH (1995) The need for an environmental restoration decision framework. Ecological Engineering 5:417–420 Xu Z (1991) Final report on inventories of plant species and communities in Dyke Marsh, Alexandria, Virginia. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. 67 p Yozzo D, Titre J, Sexton J (eds). (1996) Planning and evaluating restoration of aquatic habitats from an ecological perspective. IWR Report 96-EL-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS Zedler J (ed) (2001) Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands. CRC Press, Washington, DC, 439 p
