i

Risk Management

Research Plan for

Ecosystem Restoration in

Watersheds

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

National Risk Management

Research Laboratory

Ada, OK 74820

EPA/600/R-97/078

 September 1997
ii

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

Guy W. 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

EPA/600/R-97/078

September 1997
iii

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 necessary 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 investigation 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 systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, costeffective 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
iv

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

relative to surface, subsurface, atmospheric, and hydrologic systems. These systems are the 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 discounted 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 nonpoint 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 interdisciplinary 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.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 1

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NRMRL STAFF................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH TOPIC ..................................................................... 2

DEFINITIONS - ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .................................................................... 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

ORD Labs .................................................................................................................................... 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
1

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 Protection and Ecosystem Protection. This plan is one component 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 Protection 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 conducted by the National Risk Management Research

Laboratory (NRMRL). The research is intended to

produce technically sound restoration and decision support 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 objectives for Office of Research and Development (ORD)

ecosystem restoration research:

• By 2002, provide cost-effective and reliable approaches for restoring riparian zones within watersheds.

• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for

assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of

success for watershed restoration projects and issue 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 research plan should be interpreted in light of these

objectives.

This plan places special emphasis on ecosystem problems in developing multi-use landscapes often associated 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 substantial inter- and intra-agency collaboration. Agreement

in concept has been reached that this program will be

conducted in full partnership with other ORD laboratories 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 challenges are best addressed through re-training, both

organized and informal. Others require a new outlook

to uncover applications for existing expertise and experience, such as using ecosystem function or ecotoxicology

as measures of ecosystem health instead of statutory

human health based endpoints, or development of integrated media focused outputs. As recent efforts dedicated 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 grounding in basic processes is the foundation needed to

develop valid and appropriate approaches to ecosystem

management.

Ecosystem management, including ecosystem restoration activities, needs to be implemented through a

system management approach. NRMRL’s risk management 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 problems will allow it to make significant contributions in the

ecosystem management area, particularly in developing
2

the tools needed by ecosystem managers and stakeholders to make risk based restoration decisions. These

tools are decision support systems, restoration technologies and implementation protocols, watershed hydraulic models, ground water/surface water interaction

models, and information databases. NRMRL is experienced 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) provides important information that many NRMRL researchers 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 ecosystem management, and thus restoration is to be successful (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 established 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 watersheds. 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 involving interspecific competition, non-native species, and an

expanding human population to produce impaired ecosystems (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 Restoration 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 address aspects of ecosystem management. Research

conducted under RMER will build upon these competencies 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 results from preservation of trophic structure, biodiversity,

and material cycles (Christensen et al., 1996). Conversely, damage or impairment results from changes to

trophic relationships, biodiversity, and material cycling

(Cairns, 1982, 1988; Magnuson et al., 1980). Restoration/rehabilitation involves manipulation (broadly defined,

including preservation) of the aforementioned to produce desirable outcomes. Risk management in this

context seeks to quantify the level of certainty associated with manipulations toward producing desirable outcomes.

Definitions - Ecosystem Restoration

A rich vocabulary has developed within the science of

ecosystem management. Variously, restoration,

remediation and/or rehabilitation toward a desirable future condition are used to distinguish variations on the

restoration theme. All assume that a restoration (action) will remedy an identified problem (Figure 1). Typically, all assume that restorative manipulations will be

conducted and are beneficial. Restorations are frequently intended to restore initial conditions of structure

and function (National Research Council, 1992). Relative to ecosystem restoration, the science of risk management is distinguished from restoration per se because risk management does not accept these assumptions. Rather, the science of risk management assesses the appropriateness of the assumptions and

their application based on current knowledge and ongoing assessment of implemented restorative manipulations.

Broadly stated, a full suite of outcomes and actions are

possible for any given site ranging from continued degradation (inaction), to unaided recovery (secondary succession), to restoration to a desirable condition (rehabilitation), or to restoration to initial conditions (restoration)
3

(Figure 1). Rehabilitation and restoration involve application 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 management 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 implementation 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.

Research Orientation

Spatial and temporal-scales are critical aspects of ecosystem management. Boundaries defined for the study

or management of one process are often inappropriate

for the study of others (Wali, 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 perspective, 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 pollution.

Many current environmental problems are caused by a

lack of concordance between the spatial-scale of resource 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 spatialscales we observe symptoms that are emergent properties of deeper causes. Notable examples include widespread eutrophication, red-tide, and the de-oxygenated

zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, problems and

symptoms are not confined to water: deforestation contributes to global warming (Woodwell, 1992), and deposition of atmospheric nitrogen contributes to forest decline through acid rain (Baker, 1992). Frequently, management has been focused on water per se, manifested

in lakes, rivers, and wetlands with little regard to the

surrounding ecological and hydrologic landscape context (National Research Council, 1992) that are source

areas for much of the water in these ecosystems.

There is an overwhelming predisposition toward classification 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 spatial and temporal-scales over which they operate.

To further cloud the issue, there are temporal elements

to these problems. Sedimentation may not be a problem when it occurs as a result of an extreme precipitation event. This is a one time event that mimics

conditions under which aquatic organisms evolved. Similarly, small amounts of sedimentation do not appear at

first glance to be a problem. However, when sediment

Initial

Conditions

Restoration

Rehabilitation

Unaided Recovery

Further

Degradation

Now

Figure 1. The science of ecosystem management has developed 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. Restorations are frequently intended to restore initial

conditions of structure and function.
4

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 species, 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 information 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 surrounding landscape. Third, favor longer-term investigations 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 simultaneous, incremental improvements along these fronts will

produce both short and long-term benefits. Further, the

complexity of ecosystems dictates that in-place expertise can best be applied by integrating biotic and landscape-scale research objectives and data with the substantial in-house abiotic expertise found within NRMRL.

Finally, it is expected that some failures will occur.

Ultimately, these failures will aid development of strategies 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 approaches for restoring riparian zones within watersheds.

• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for

assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of

success for watershed restoration projects and issue 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 dictated by GPRA: 1) identifying threatened ecosystems,

2) defining environmental goals and indicators, 3) developing and implementing science based plans, 4) measuring progress and adapting management to new information, 5) identifying tools and support that EPA can

provide at the national level (U.S. EPA, 1994). Particularly as these strategies pertain to protection, maintenance, 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.

Figure 2. 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).
5

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 commonly 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 approaches for restoring riparian zones within watersheds.

• By 2004, provide diagnostic tools and models for

assessing feasibility, priorities, and measures of

success for watershed restoration projects and issue 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 development. In 1994, EPA released a five-year strategic

plan listing ecosystem protection as a national environmental 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) identifying 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 ecological integrity of the nation’s lands and waters, including 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 registration, 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 constituents as point and nonpoint sources (e.g., CWA); policy

initiatives often in concert with other international, Federal, or state agencies; review and approval of environmental impact statements for federal projects (NEPA);

and site remediation as part of mandated cleanup programs (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 characteristics relative to transport and chemistry. Even the

amount of water flowing is a characteristic of water

resources. The interactions of many of these characteristics 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 alteration, 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 species in response to changing patterns of land use.

Research Questions

Importantly, RMER is not a vehicle for funding or otherwise underwriting restoration activities unless these activities 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?
6

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 applicability to GPRA performance measures.

Statement of Appropriate Subject Matter

Research projects should address performance measures specified in GPRA in the context of ecosystem

management as designated in The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific

Basis for Ecosystem Management (Christensen et al.,

1996), An SAB Report: Ecosystem Management; Imperative for a 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 ecosystem elements need to be more than superficial. For

instance, is effort equally split between ecosystem elements, 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 showing of contaminant reduction alone does not demonstrate connectivity. Moreover, a demonstration of contaminant reduction is but one part of risk management.

Risk management is a larger subject matter.

Generally, field research is preferred. Ecosystem management involves key aspects of spatial and temporal

uncertainty (Christensen et al., 1996). Reduction of

these uncertainties is an important element of ecosystem 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. Although NRMRL acknowledges that ecosystems are complex 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. Therefore, 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 boundaries for RMER projects. However, project summaries

from funded FY97 RMER projects are provided in Appendix 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 directed 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 manipulations 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, proposed 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 cannot 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 allscales, however, explicit connections to other ecosys-
7

tem 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 stakeholders and managers. Anticipated clients are state and

local stakeholders and managers. Partnerships with ongoing restorations initiated by stakeholders and on-site

managers are encouraged. Research projects should

be field-oriented and be designed with appropriate spatial 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 expected that a majority of successful projects will be

comprised of teams of cooperating researchers each

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 systems-related interactions between biotic and abiotic ecosystem constituents relative to habitat, competition,

chemistry, hydrology, geomorphology, spatial and temporal-scale. Potential cooperating ORD labs include

National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), National Center for Exposure Assessment (NCEA), and

National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (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 assessment 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

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.
8

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)

RMER will be conducted in partnership with OW. Within

OW, the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

(OWOW) is particularly active with ecosystem protection and restoration activities, including work under the

Clean Water Act (CWA) and Coastal Zone Act, Reauthorization 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 relationships with EPA grantees receiving funds from programs

administered by OW and ORD. Applicable OW grants

include watershed planning assistance to local governments 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 Research Focus Areas (RFAs). Applicable RFAs include:

Ecological Assessment

Environmental Fate and Treatment of Toxics

and Hazardous Waste

Risk-Based Decisions for Contaminated Sediments

Bioremediation

Water and Watersheds

Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental 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 (USACE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation 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 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). Many of these departments and

agencies conduct on-going restoration projects, and

have hands-on expertise. OW's 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 community. 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
9

document to improve consensus and heighten coordination between the many agency, governmental, university, and private groups involved in ecosystem restoration. NRMRL intends to coordinate and cooperate with

these groups whenever possible.

The RMER is intended to be, first and foremost, scientifically 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 restoration 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 designated in The Report of the Ecological Society of America

Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management (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 restoration. 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. Monocultures are biotically impoverished and inherently unsustainable.

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. Additionally, 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 responses 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 ecosystem elements, or are some elements included at a very cursory level of investigation?

2) Risk Management or Contaminant

Reduction?

Related to Point 1, and simply put, risk

management is a larger subject than contaminant 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 conducted with appropriate spatial replication.

For instance, constructed wetlands in general 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 clients (i.e., are not site-specific, but can be

quickly incorporated into site-specific restoration programs).

Summary

This document describes the scope of ecosystem restoration 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 advantage 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, relative to transport and chemistry. The interactions of
10

many of these characteristics with biota are comparatively well understood. Our knowledge of water provides

a good starting point for NRMRL ecosystem restoration

research.

Changing patterns of land use, especially habitat alteration, historically have been the leading cause of species and ecosystem decline. Wildlife management has

enjoyed success in mitigating some impacts of land use

change. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that management 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 research 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 management. 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 temporalscales. 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 interactions. The interdisciplinary nature of ecosystem research suggests that substantial inter- and intra-agency

collaboration will be required.

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed to the successful completion 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, Douglas 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 in 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.
11

Loucks, O.L. 1992. Predictive tools for rehabilitating

linkages between land and wetland ecosystems.

Pages 297-308 in M.K. Wali, 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, MI.

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. Wali,

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/B94/002.

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 for a dynamic world. EPASAB-EPEC-95-003.

U.S. EPA. 1996a. Strategic plan for the 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.

Wali, M.K. 1992. Ecology of the rehabilitation process.

Pages 3-23 in M.K. Wali, 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. Wali, ed. Ecosystem rehabilitation;

preamble to sustainable development; volume 1:

policy issues. SPB Academic Publishing bv. The

Hague, The Netherlands.
12

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CWA Clean Water Act

CZARA Coastal Zone Act, Reauthorization and Amendments

DFC Desirable Future Condition

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GPRA Government Performance Results Act of 1993

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment

NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

NPS National Park Service

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

ORD Office of Research and Development

OW Office of Water

OWOW Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RMER Risk Management Research Plan for Ecosystem Restoration in Watersheds

RFA Research Focus Area

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey
13

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 pollution, 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 temperature 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 particular, 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 atmospheric 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 characterize 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 dinoflagellates, 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 affected 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 populations 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 technologies 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 multiple 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 comprehensive and reliable information available on

phytoremediation. The site owners and interested citi-
14

zens groups will demand that the cleanest and cheapest

technologies be employed in the remediation of a hazardous 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 handbook 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 Ecosystem 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 suspended in the water. The size of the particles contributes 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 watershed. The role of particle size and (associated) sedimentation 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 organic 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 fractionation, which can efficiently separate suspended particulate matter into discrete fractions based on particle

size/sedimentation capability. In the past decade, this

technique has been increasingly applied to environmental problems, and has generated unique and significant

data.

Although additional ecologically significant research

should be performed in field flow fractionation technology, the objective of this proposed three-year research

plan is to relate the particle size/sedimentation properties of suspended water particulates to their ability to

adsorb organic pollutants. The proposed research will

identify specific properties of water systems which influence 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 sedimentation 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 Ecosystem Restoration: Modeling of Baseflow Loadings of Nutrients in Mid-Atlantic Coastal

Plain Watersheds

The Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries of the midAtlantic 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 combination 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 approach is proposed that will be conditioned by field

observations at select watersheds within the study region. 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 processlevel understanding of nitrate baseflow loadings. Insights 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, exploring 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. Empowerment of community-based approaches to ecosystem 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 Techniques for Resolution of Recharge-Discharge

Processes in Natural and Constructive Wetlands: Application to the Grand Kankakee
15

Marsh Within the Calumet Lacustrine Plain

Ecosystem

Recharge-discharge dynamics in a wetland water budget influence the hydrology of an ecosystem. There

exists disagreement over the role of wetlands in recharge. 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 wetlands evolve into sinks for contaminants while other

wetlands become infiltration galleries to local water

supplies.

This proposed research primarily investigates how environmental isotopes can better define hydrologic processes 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 isotopes describe flow components, flow paths, residence

times, and source regions impacting the recharge-discharge 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 dynamics 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 surface- and ground-water flow rates; (4) determine the

hydrologic effects and consequences of different wetland restoration approaches; and (5) estimate the effects 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 waterground water interaction studies. For example, the

strong isotope fractionation effects of 18O and 2

H from

evaporation may result in subtle contributions between

wetland surface waters and subsurface flows to be

quantified. Further, since the water molecule contains

3

H, 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, 36Cl) may trace

solute/gas processes and estimate flow path residence

times and recharge-discharge rates. Thus forecasting

restoration trends before measurable water quality parameters 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 preliminary assessment of hydrologic functions on vegetation

composition; (4) a performance assessment of measured isotope tracers for wetland hydrology; and (5)

analytical protocols transferable to constructive wetland

planning and development.
16

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. Sustainability

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 ecosystems 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.

APPENDIX B:

RESEARCH AREAS
17

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.

2. Protocols for Hydroecological Assessment

a. Hydraulic Models

Regional, watershed, and local hydraulic models for surface and ground-water characterization.

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.

3. 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.

4. Protocols for Restoration Assessment

a. System Effects Evaluation Protocols

Protocols for evaluating ecosystem function and identifying key indicators during restoration.

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.

II. 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.

2. Remediation Technologies

Developing sustainability through improved function by maintaining nutrient retention, reducing

erosion, fostering connections to adjacent areas, and controlling anthropogenic stressors.
18

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
19

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 ACTIVITY

OCTOBER – JULY 1 Proposal Preparation

MAY 1 Call for Next Fiscal Year’s Proposals

JULY 1 Proposals Due, Process Closed Until Next Call

JULY 2 – JULY 31 Internal NRMRL Relevancy Review

AUGUST 1 – SEPTEMBER 30 Outside Peer Review

OCTOBER 7 Announcement of Successful Projects

APPENDIX C:

SOLICITATION PROCEDURE