7636 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY 5 • incorporating the definition of restoration as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to distur- bance, in the mandates of all appropriate federal agencies; • reliance on nonfederal and federal units of government to coor- dinate restoration programs in local areas; and • initiating an interagency and intergovernmental process to de- velop aunified national strategy for aquatic ecosystem restoration. LONG-TERM, LARGE-SCALE, COORDINATED RESTORATION- PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND MONITORING Although restoration ecology applied to aquatic ecosystems is in a very early stage of development, the prospect for substantive im- provements in damaged aquatic ecosystems is excellent. However, current federal and state environmental programs and policies are fragmented and do not adequately emphasize restoration based on management of large, interconnected aquatic ecosystems. The di- verse responsibilities of all layers of government affecting aquatic resources need to be better coordinated if large-scale restoration is to be accomplished efficiently and effectively. Because aquatic ecosys- tems are interconnected and interactive, effective restoration efforts should usually be conducted on a large enough scale to include all significant components of the watershed. In addition, aquatic restoration efforts also need to be long-term to ensure that restoxation project goals have been achieved and that restored ecosystems can endure stressful episodic natural events such as floods, droughts, storms, pestilence, freezing, heavy cyclical pre- dation, invasion by exotics, and other perturbations. Because of lim- ited resources, it is impossible in the short term to undertake all worthy aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. Criteria are thus needed to set priorities, select projects, and evaluate project designs. It is important to give priority to the repair of those systems that will be lost without intervention. A "triage" framework needs to be applied as a minimum initial step. In this approach, threatened systems would be divided into three categories: (1) those that will recover without intervention, (Z) those that cannot be restored to a meaningful degree even with extensive intervention, and (3) those that can be signifi- cantly restored with appropriate action. Systems in the third group require further consideration. Selections from that group should be based on criteria such as the likelihood of success, opportunity cost, and technical review of the restoration plan. It is imperative that these criteria be applied to the selection of projects because many restoration projects will not coincide with political boundaries.